Talk:India/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Description of the Colonial Period in the introduction

The Buddha at school (he won all the prizes)

The description of the impact of the colonial period is sketchy from a neutral perspective and suspect from a political perspective. To see what is written about 200 years of colonialism,

British Crown rule began in 1858. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root.

So we go from 1858 straight to slow granting of rights. It is slightly specious to ignore everything that happened through the two centuries and land directly at that point of the supposed British philanthropy. The sentence "The rights promised to Indians..." laughably papers over every colonial crime committed by a fig leaf of Imperial benevolence, albeit slowly. The next part of the sentence, "but technological changes were introduced" is another funnily audacious statement of white-washing the economic, social and political deprivation that the country was subjected to by the British rule, pauperizing every strand of identity that the country had built over 3 - 4 millennia. The last part of the sentence takes the cake, "ideas of education, modernity and public life took root". While it is necessary to delve into the preposterousness of this statement, it is quite an indicator that the English word "education" is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root "deuk" which in sanskrit is represented through dishati (to give direction).

It would be an understatement to say that the British Empire led to educating the country is not a true and reasonable reflection of the most important highlights of the British Empire in India.

This line needs to be replaced by an authentic version of how the colonial period impacted the country. 49.36.182.195 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives. These topics have been discussed again and again for many years, at least ten that I can remember. Each sentence was worked over to reflect not just reliability but also due weight. Please also read the sources at the end of the article. Universal education in Indian society, even though only partially achieved by the end of the Raj, was a gift of the British. India had remained and in many regions it still is, a society of privilege, in which a small handful acquired an education, whereas the vast majority remained illiterate, not to mention ritually less pure when not entirely impure. Nationalism had come late to India and it involves many simplifications.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to the archives and the sources. Will go through them. This comment focuses on education, so I'll restrict to that.

"Universal education in Indian society, even though........., was a gift of the British."

The sentence in the main page ("......and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root.) does not talk about universal education. It talks about the "idea of education". So the argument in respect of "Universal education" is of not significant relevance in this discussion. "The idea of education" is considerably wider in perspective. The Nalanda comes first to mind. I will not provide further references here, since the statement in respect of "idea of education" is, at-the-least, 2 millennia off-mark.

That universal education was a gift of the British is again a stroll in the fanciful mansion of British benevolence. The obvious objectives of colonialism were to control the colonies for economic exploitation. Most colonial decisions in the sub-continent, major and minor, would derive, at-least some inspiration from the core tenet of the colonial enterprise. The shareholders of the East India Company were not under any philanthropic delusion. Neither was the Crown. The British administrators had never looked upon education in India as a sacred duty that they had to fulfill. While attempts of Englishmen in their private capacity.... ignited the thirst for knowledge among Indians, the company and quite logically, the Crown, realized the importance of the support of influential Indians and though it prudent to win their confidence by educating and assigning them posts in the government.

Christian evangelism was yet another factor that drove western education in the country. Hindsight is always 20/20 but to say that the idea of education took root after the Colony started generating profits for the Empire would be irreverent and blind to the ancient traditions of the sub-continent which long predated western civilization. The Mahabharata and to a lesser extent the Ramayana, are likewise, compendia of society's culture besides being great poems, both dharma-sastra and kavya, a source of education as well as entertainment.

The phrase "ideas of education" should be replaced by an accurate and honest attribution. 49.36.180.5 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It was discussed as a matter of fact in this discussion in May 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I wonder if the sentence might be rearranged - something like "but technological changes were introduced, and modern ideas of education and public life took root", rather than "but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root." The "the" before "public life" bothers me rather, and obviously education in India goes back a very long way. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I like that Gandharan relief!

Literacy day in India, 1947

Sure there was education in South Asia, but for whom? For the Simha of the Shakya clan, yes. (In the fond imaginings of a Gandharan artist of five centuries later when a writing tablet had some meaning, even more so.) For his imperial protege of two centuries later who was planting shiny foreign-looking pillars among a puzzled peasantry—yes.

But there is no pre-British Indian version of the photograph on the right, when the overall literacy among women was 7%

And no historian can say in good faith that it was more than half of that under any previous dispensation.

"The public life" = the political life lived publicly

Instead of using "modern," I would prefer to spell it out.

education = universal secular education.

modernity (and I grant that was a poor choice) = material and social progress.

Childhood of Krishna

"The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, but technological changes were introduced, and the values of a universal secular education, of material and social progress, and of the political life lived publicly became established in many parts of India's society." I know it is a mouthful, but people will get used to it after they mull it over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but "of the political life lived publicly" will confuse many. Btw, I've set up a Commons category for Schooldays of the Buddha; any additions welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Would "public political activity" or somesuch be better? Perhaps you can suggest something. I saw the category pictures. They beg the question: stories in which Buddhist canon ca. when are they describing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"a political life held in public" maybe? I'm working up a Life of the Buddha in art, for which extended cycles of depictions come in spurts, but are actually remarkably consistent when they do appear, following texts of the family of the Lalitavistara sutra (adressed to monks, or at least trainee ones). Krishna's childhood in art is much more designed for a very wide peasant audience, set in a cowherding community, with the emphasis on pranks etc, & I've never seen any images of him studying. Book 10 of the Bhagavata Purana, I think the main source, doesn't mention school I think - as you say, that wouldn't have been an option under his circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Jb did you mean "political life held in public" or "political activity held in public?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, either really - maybe activity is better. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, Jb. For now, keeping in sight, "The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, but technological changes were introduced, and the values of a secular education, material and social progress, and political activity held in public became established in many parts of India's society." I've taken the "universal" out. All will await further rephrasing when the various sections are rewritten in the FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod I forgot all about this.

A little while earlier, I thought to myself, but why not, "technological changes were introduced, and modern ideas of education and the public life took root?" I then happened to glance up and noticed this was the first thing you had said!

So, should be implement that? Many apologies for the run around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no hurry. We'll get it right once the sections are themselves rewritten for the FAR. The Darjeeling FAR has made me realize that an enormous amount of scholarship has appeared in the last 10 years, even the last five, even during the pandemic (when academics had nothing else to do). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I love the art I have to say. Funny there is little artwork of Rama or Krishna doing their lessons. Or perhaps there is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Terracotta sculpture from Sugh "Child learning Brahmi", showing the first letters of the Brahmi alphabet, 2nd century BCE.

The Buddha going to school in a cart (Gandhara), with several "normal" students holding tablets... 2nd century CE

Krishna and Balarama, and two older students, studying with the Brahman Sandipani (Bhagavata Purana, 1525-1550 CE)

Examples of education in ancient India
1) There is an interesting 2nd century BCE terracotta from Sugh of a "Child learning Brahmi" (the alphabet series are easily readable, see Srughna article), seated on the floor (left). A child commoner, or possibly Krishna per source (when Krishna and Balarama went to school their teacher was Sandipani), although such an early image of the child Krishna is doubtful, since he was just barely appearing as his forerunner the warrior deity Vāsudeva on the coinage of Agatocles I at that time (see Agathocles of Bactria). The earliest known image of the child Krishna is from the 1st century CE.
2) The 2nd century CE Gandhara relief showing the Buddha going to school in a cart (right) also shows many "commoner" students accompanying him, with their vertical writing tablets and ink pots (the Gandharan equivalent of the 1947 schoolgirls above...)....
3) Even Ashoka's written edicts in Prakrit (Kharoshthi+Brahmi) (and Greek and Aramaic in the northwest) displayed accross the country suggest these were efficient communication tools, and may suggest a significant number of people were able to read them (although possibly only local dignitaries, entrusted with then propagating the message orally...).
4) Numerous donative inscriptions in the Brahmi script on Buddhist monuments (such as in Bharhut or Sanchi, 1st century BCE to 1st century CE) by religious people and commoners alike, including mason's marks using the alphabet, possibly suggest a significant level of literacy.
5) The University of ancient Taxila or the Nalanda University point to some wide-scale educational institutions in ancient India.
6) The Bhagavata Purana (Book 10 [1]) describes Krishna and Balarama going to school under Sandipani, with several nice illustrations starting from the 16th century, where they are seen with commoner students (See bottom image. Amazingly, the writing tablets still have the same shape as 1400-1800 years before, and are still in use in some primary schools today).पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

References

"A largely independent press"

The source is from 2006, about 16 years ago. Since then, a lot has changed. Everybody knows that. I had added the dubious tag in May, and later on I was said that the issued would be addressed during a rewrite in short time. But, it hasn't been. Peter Ormond 💬 15:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

True. And as I was supposed to do the rewrite, I am guilty. Why don't we try to come up with alternative phrasing here (as Johnbod and I did about a couple of issues upstairs). Why don't you suggest something here? And we can then work on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Or if you prefer, I'll suggest something. But I'll need until tomorrow to search the up-to-date sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• The wording as it exists currently is not inaccurate at all. Moreover the word 'largely' has been used. Press Freedom Index have its own methodologies and it cannot impact the general understanding of the status of press in India. As of 2015, when India ranked 136 (far from "independent" according to Peter Ormond's methodology)  scholars still saw existence of  "independent press" in India.[2] I don't think they will change their mind unless there is some legal enforcement in place which would forbid people from exercising criticism of the government like in Russia, Saudi Arabia and others. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at the reference provided by Peter Ormond, I don't see how we can say "largely independent press". As the source points out, press freedom appears to have eroded since the 2010s and the 2006 ref is clearly outdated. But, if we want to say "not so independent" press, we'll need other sources. F&f, if you can find them, great but, at the least, the current statement should be removed. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark and Peter Ormond: I've removed that sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You removed more than just "largely independent press" here. Can you restore the rest? No objections were raised for the rest: "It has remained a democracy with civil liberties and an active supreme court". Srijanx22 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Good God this is English wiki change the pronunciation

In the pronunciation use the word India, when you are talking about a country named India, in an English Wikipedia article named India.

Is it really that difficult? 117.98.116.65 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this about? Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod In the audio pronunciation, I believe that the pronunciation of the word India should be used. What is being used right now is the pronunciation of the Hindi word Bharat. You might want to refer to the wiki policy on word pronunciations weter the native word or the article name is used in the audio. 117.98.116.17 (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the second paragraph of Etymology section, which discusses the name "Bharat" (after the first paragraph has discussed the name "India")? It would be very strange, unhelpful, even misleading, if the audio example in The term Bharat (Bhārat; pronounced [ˈbʱaːɾət] ), mentioned in both Indian epic poetry and the Constitution of India, is used in its variations by many Indian languages. produced a rendition of "India". Bazza (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I am talking about the audio sample just in the first summary paragraph. The one that is next to the title of the page.

The etymology Bharat should remain Bharat 103.68.21.188 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I use the Wikipedia app, when I open the article, there is a listen prompt right next to the title heading. Which pronounces 'Bharat'

I guess wiki pushes it up. I thought that it was the audio sample for pronouncing India and was wrongly placed.

The etymology Bharat should remain Bharat, no two ways about it 103.68.21.188 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears on neither the desktop nor mobile versions of the Wikipedia website, but is included on the Wikipedia app version of the article. Are you using the Wikipedia app? I do not know how to correct this, so yes it really is that difficult. Perhaps another editor may be able to help. And please try to be a little more polite — all the editors on this site, including you, are volunteers. Bazza (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I apologise if I came off as impolite, I had no intention of being so.

I agree that the title was a bit passionate and I apologise for it.

Thank you for you time 103.68.21.188 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Driving Side

In India usually there are right hand side drive not the left 43.246.161.21 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Left- and right-hand traffic. CMD (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional map

Can we add a world map below the current map in infobox with Areas under jurisdiction in Indian subcontinent and marking Andaman Nicobar and Lekshadweep with text (As Island areas under jurisdiction). A similar format is seen in many pages including that of United States Editor8220 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

India's territory is not as widespread as the United States. Both of those island groups are in the area of the map, they're just really small. CMD (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Need to be removed/updated

"During the next four decades, Indian GDP is expected..... until 2050." should be removed or updated. Dinesh | Talk 11:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The development of India

I think we should add that India will be a developed country by 2050 because of very high GDP growth Fun71528 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Error user

none of the people understand this article? what do you think? ADmo1R (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think India's article is too long and confusing @Fowler&fowler

It should be summarized, updated and be more organized Ankraj giri (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Geographical coordinates and elevation

Its geographical coordinates are 22°48'00" N, 79°36'00" (i.e. 22.800000°N, 79.600000°E) and is located at an altitude of 531 m above the mean sea level. Almightybless (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Official language no hindi . Who say anything proof hindi official language

You will be check India article hindi is not official language. This regional language please change . Wikipedia not change the issue I go complent and court. This big issue Muthukumar chinnappa (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Article 343 of the Constitution of India:

343. (1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement:

Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of—

(a) the English language, or

(b) the Devanagari form of numerals, for such purposes as may be specified in the law.

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 15:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

In the Demographics section, where it says that Indo-Aryan is spoken by by 24% of the population, could you please change it to Indo-European, instead of Indo-Aryan, and link that, thank you. Arnab14008 (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant 74% not 24%, that was the number for Dravidian Laguages. Dhanyabaad/Thanks! Arnab14008 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

​ Done Silikonz (alt)💬 19:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

No need to give information about Indian pre independence information in the intro box. Yashmrsawant (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Language family - Indo-Aryan

@Fowler&fowler: - Regarding this revert: [3]. The article is referring to language families. Indo-European is the family in this case, and Indo-Aryan is the branch. There is no such thing as a 'sub-family'. However large the latter is, a 'sub-family' is still a branch and should be referred to as such. Their individual articles both echo this as well. However, I agree that it should be clarified further, so I have amended the Indo-Aryan branch in parentheses. Correct terms should be used where appropriate. Please elaborate on what you would like to see changed so that the information is accurate. Silikonz (alt)💬 19:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention "family." "Home to" in any case is inaccurate as Brahui, a Dravidian language, is spoken in Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

​This is a valid observation. I think we should change how the section is written, to remove the specificity of the 'language family'. This would also solve the previous problem. Proposing the following:

India is mainly comprised of two language groups ... or something similar. Thoughts? Silikonz (alt)💬 21:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Very good idea. How about: Among speakers of the Indian languages, 74% speak Indo-Aryan languages, the easternmost branch of the Indo-European languages; 24% speak Dravidian languages, indigenous to South Asia and spoken widely before the spread of Indo-Aryan languages; and 2% speak Austroasiatic languages or the Sino-Tibetan languages. India has no national language. 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"; it is important in education, especially as a medium of higher education. Each state and union territory has one or more official languages, and the constitution recognises in particular 22 "scheduled languages". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We'll need slightly difference cites, but that's easy. I'll add them tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Great, this is looking good. Thanks for inviting me to meaningful discussion. Silikonz (alt)💬 03:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Fowler&fowler! I think this looks worthy; we might implement this in the article soon. Thoughts? Silikonz (alt)💬 18:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Silikonz-alt: Sure, please do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

​ Done, let's not hesitate to discuss if there is anything else interested in modifying regarding this. Thanks, Silikonz💬 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Adding link and content regarding traditional Indian games

I would like to have the following reversion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1125692011?diffmode=source) reverted. I think it is good for this article to have a link to the Traditional games of India article, and the other content that was reverted seems good to me as well. GreekApple123 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I am willing to pare down my request: it would be sufficient if I was able to have the link to the Traditional games of India article added even without the other content (i.e. the link to the Ultimate Kho Kho article.) GreekApple123 (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea of adding the link (and only the link) at indigenous games point. Not sure about the KhoKho addition though, since we should stick to major sports in a summary article like this one. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the link to Traditional games of India is appropriate and needed. However, the mention of or the link to Khokho league, at this time, seems unnecessary.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

The Gini index ranking “98th” is incorrect please delete it. Qplb191 (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The data is sourced. If you have a more up-to-date source, please provide it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 There is no exact ranking of countries according to their Gini index (different from per capita for example) because each country has a different sub-ranking and the ranking is not correct. For example India the last year in which the Gini index was measured is 2011 but Belgium is 2021 so there is not really correct ranking to that Qplb191 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 please erase the Gini index ranking because it’s incorrect Qplb191 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The data is sourced. If you have a more up-to-date source, please provide it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey Jonesey95 as I said it had source to the Gini index , but not to the rank 98th , because every country has sub-data from different year , so please erase that thanks! Qplb191 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the ranking of The Gini index is incorrect, the Gini index himself is correct. Qplb191 (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

This article is showing the wrong map of India. It is illegal under Indian law to show Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Aksai Chin in light green color, as if they are somehow not fully a part of Indian. This MUST be replaced with a correct map of India showing the whole of Jammu and Kashmir in dark green like the rest of the country. If Wikipedia refuses to do so, I am going to file a complaint to the Uttar Pradesh Police cyber cell for undermining the sovereignty of India. Either you have to show the correct map of India as required by Indian law or get banned from India. Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpur (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: You cannot make legal threats like this, see WP:NLT. Even without that, this needs consensus before it can be done. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree with this. We should not be teaching others, especially children, that Pakistan is an actual country separate from India. Anything India claims to be theirs is theirs. Bharat Rajagopal Seshadri (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia deals only in facts. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2023

Manideepa Banik (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I wanna edit India page

• Sorry, that's not possible for you at the moment. You will need at least 500 Wikipedia edits and 30 or more days as an editor. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Independence and partition

The following paragraph on lead should be modified:-

"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule.[53][54] In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions,[55][56][57][58] a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration.[59]"

• It fails to mention Mahatma Gandhi who led the "nonviolent resistance". He was mentioned until 2019.[4]
• "Hindu majority" with "Dominion of India" is wrong, because India did not support religion based partition. We can also remove "Muslim-majority" for Pakistan if necessary.
• "large-scale loss of life and unprecendented migration" is also wrong, because violence was expected and arrangements were made to quell violence before migration happened.[5][6]

I believe this part should be modified to:-

"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement led by Mahatma Gandhi emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and it became the major factor in ending British rule.[53][54] In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions,[55][56][57][58] Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan.[59]"

@RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler, and Abecedare: share your views. Capitals00 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm fine with adding Mahatma Gandhi. I think we should keep "Hindu-majority" and "Muslim-majority" because that was the basis for partition. And, we should keep the loss of life and migration because they were significant, perhaps the most salient, aspect of partition and the emergence of the two nations. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

Hello, India is now the most populous country in the world. Could you please fix that. Thank you 2601:155:280:2B70:4D83:401:8C1E:6FE3 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Please change "is a country" to "is a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic" in the first paragraph. (It is clearly mentioned in the constitution of India) 223.178.213.10 (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Mention of style of government is not done in the first sentence. Cannolis (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2023 (2)

India is the worlds most populous country now. It needs to be edited as the worlds most populous Correctorofmistakes1 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

India economic/development status

Do you think we should add at the top, "India is a developing country ranked 132nd in the Human Development Index". There is no mention of India's economic or developmental status in the entire lead, in all the countries articles it is mentioned what is the economic / development of the country . what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2023

Indo British Wikipedian (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)I fill update the article by adding information from reliable sources. Being an Indian I know much about India.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

India to surpass China as most populous country in 2023, UN report says

India is now world's most populous country according to UN Indo British Wikipedian (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

India to surpass China as most populous country in 2023, UN report says

Change "It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world." to "It is the seventh-largest country by area, the most populous country, as well as most populous democracy in the world." India is now the most populous country according to UN and many other prominent sources. Indo British Wikipedian (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Indo British Wikipedian: You're being selective with your quotation. The sources you give state "India set to surpass...", where "set to surpass" ≠ "has surpassed". So currently, it is not the most populous country in the world. When it is, and you can provide more than one reliable source stating that it is, then the article can be changed. Bazza (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2023

Hi, I wanted to submit an edit request regarding India's article which states that India is the 2nd most populous country while it has now become the world's most populated country Sakubhai (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Colour of Flag

Orange represent Hindus and Sikhs White represent Christians Green Represent Muslims Chakra represent Bhudist and another religion

What I learnt in school

Now German media ZDF makes wrong story about India. .first lie was White colour represent orange Hindu,white rest of religion,Green Muslims.That was wrong.to prove that I needed Prove I surch in Wikipedia,but I didn't found.I want to add this. Can you please add this info about colour representation of Flag Vikas.king123 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

ZDF media want to show their is no representation for christians in India Flag Vikas.king123 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vikas.king123 You can read more about Flag of India — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

Change the fact about the population...it's the first highest populous country in the world. THANKS.. THE BEST GURL HERE ChocolateCakeisMine (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2023 (2)

add that India is a 5th largest economy in the world. Ksoham622 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done This is already in the article. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Indian economy in 2022 was nominally worth $3.46 trillion; it was the fifth-largest economy by market exchange rates, and is around $11.6 trillion, the third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP).[297] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

change the hyperlink for the word pulse in the cuisine subsection. current hyperlink sends user to heart pulse not legumes. Violetlightwave (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 04:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Violetlightwave (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

Change from second most populated to most populated country 43.242.123.36 (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

I want to request the addition of the reasons behind the way Indian food is the way it is. Almost all types of food in India has a religious and philosophical meaning behind it. For one, the early stages of the caste system also played a big part in the food that people of every caste ate. Also, since India is a country where people practice all kinds of religions, followers of each religion eat different types of food. For example, muslims may eat beef, mutton, and poultry but not pork.

Source: https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/exploring-indian-culture-through-food/#:~:text=Religion%20also%20plays%20a%20part,and%20lamb%20than%20other%20meats. Saisathish912 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Saisathish912: This is a general article on India and is already too long. There is an article on Indian cuisine, and your request would be better asked there. Bazza (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The Population of India

In The Article it has been written that India is the 2nd most populous country in the world,but now the population of India is greater than of China's so India is the most populous country in the world.I request the editors to change it. 203.192.204.65 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

See several sections above. But this is a projection, and List of countries and dependencies by population would need to be updated - with proper references! Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

Change it to second most populous country to the most populous country. DweepP (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Already answered, see above sections. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DweepP: Provide one or more reliable sources which state that it is currently the most populous country, and your request will be considered. All current reliable sources state that India is forecast to be the most populous sometime this year, but is not at present. Bazza (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/video/governance/india-surpasses-china-to-become-most-populous-country-in-the-world-87257#:~:text=According%20to%20projections%20by%20the,now%20stands%20at%201.41%20billion.

You can find out more by clicking on this link. DweepP (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@DweepP Thanks. Unfortunately, WRP, which your source references, states that While India's population is projected to continue to grow until at least the year 2050, China's population is currently contracting slightly. This contraction, coupled with India's continued growth, is expected to result in India replacing China as the most populous country in the world by the year 2030. So your source is not reliable as far as updating the article is concerned. It may well be that WRP's data is out of date, in which case it's note particularly reliable. I would want to see another two or three unconnected sources confirming the same data before changing the article. Bazza (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't get you. But you are an expert. Thank you for at least considering my edits and guiding me in the best possible way. 79.140.126.82 (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Population

India now is the most populous country in the world not the second. Cloud.jpg (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the above sections, which stress the requirement for reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Images

@Phoenix14061990 Please refrain from changing images without consensus. @Bazza 7 While I believe your edits addressing MOS:SANDWICH issues with the images, there seems to be too many changes. Thus I reverted to RegentsPark's version which I think is the consensus version — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer Good with me. I'm not bothered about content, but am concerned about presentation and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I was tempted to revert myself as @Phoenix14061990 was failing to supply edit summaries for their edits. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer I have revisited infringements of MOS:SANDWICH and best practice for MOS:IMAGELOC and edited where appropriate. Note that no content has been changed. There are some sections where attempts to squeeze a proverbial quart of images into a pint-sized page has led to overspill, but I'll leave any sensible culling to others. Bazza (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Should fix the accessibility problem of the whole article having side scrolling because of the image gallery. Many have to use the side scroll just to see text. Images have always been a problem here...text sandwich...random sizes all over (small clusters of images) undue in one section causing sidescroll for many.WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE Moxy- 16:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

India has the majority of the world's wild tigers, approximately 3,000 in 2019.

Rashtrapati Bhavan, the official residence of the President of India, was designed by British architects Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker for the Viceroy of India, and constructed between 1911 and 1931 during the British Raj.

@DaxServer, @Moxy: I agree about there being a general image problem, but not just restricted to number and presentation.

The captions often contain extra information not specific to the image in question, contrary to MOS:CAPTION. (I've taken a couple of examples and included in this comment.) This may cause extra problems for WP:ACCESSIBILITY in that the information is not duplicated where it should be, in the article's text.

To add to confusion, there is profuse use of {{Multiple image}} for single images. Bazza (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

As Moxy says images have historically been an issue in this article, every time they are fixed they end up messed up again. With the new default skin, it's actually improved. Moxy, where are you seeing horizontal scrolling? I'm not seeing any. If it's the gallery in the Visual arts subsection, that seem part of a generally undue focus there that could be trimmed. Other than that I'm not seeing sandwiching anywhere except in Culture. CMD (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

For me the "Cuisine" section is all sandwiched because the "Clothing" images are in that section. As for side scroll "the whole page" this is a problem for me with any <gallery> tag usage as i use a tablet (12.9-inch display). Moxy- 01:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Moxy, are you using the new default skin? With the default skin on my iPad, I don't see any sandwich issues and the galleries render just fine. --RegentsPark (comment) 04:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The skin should not matter. Many people (including me) do not use the new Vector skin because of its unsuitability for wider display sizes, and its faulty ergonomic design. The problem is that there are too many images. This is an overview article of India: why do we need three images of people in clothing, or two images and a video of food? Those each have their own articles where more images can be shown. Bazza (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. Your complaint is about the number of images. Since these images were decided by consensus in an RfC (you'll need to search the archives), I suggest you start a new RfC to deal with images in this article. Not a bad idea since Moxy has been kvetching about this for years but it might be a good idea to go about it in an organized consensus forming manner rather than an ad-hoc individualistic approach (keep in mind that the rotating galleries were created in response to the fact that everyone wants to add their favorite picture to the article and things were getting messy). Perhaps the easiest way forward is to get rid of the galleries, present 2-3 alternatives per section and ask users to vote on which one should be included (i.e., one image per section). Then, once we have consensus, pop a note at the top of the talk page saying that images cannot be added without consensus so that any changes can be reverted. Once we have one image per section, we can deal with adding more for individual sections if necessary. We've definitely reached a point where this needs to be addressed, particularly if accessibility is an issue, so I'm all for supporting this process. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark My complaint is not about the number per se, but about when that number affects the article's presentation (and potentially WP:ACCESSIBILITY). I have passively followed this article for some time and am aware of the difficulty in getting consensus for any content alteration. I have neither time nor interest to manage the process of getting agreement to change its content; the article is infamous for the inability of its contributors to agree on anything other than a spelling correction, and has a history of unhealthy ownership (which I have been dismissed by in the past, not least in an attempt to condense image captions which contravene MOS:CAPTION, as I mentioned above). Bazza (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It is true that changing the images is a big undertaking and will require a big time commitment (notice how I didn't offer to initiate it!). How about this then, you (and Moxy), propose specific changes on the talk page (e.g., move this image, resize this one, deal with sandwiching here, etc.) and we can resolve those one by one? A little more work than directly changing the page but it will be easier to make sure the change is not reverted. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Implementing accessibility changes is generally not possible here as we end up with walls of text and no substantial changes. Editors can only link the same policy and guidelines so many times. Moxy- 04:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Some new images have been added and old ones removed. No discussions seem to have accompanied these changes. I will be replacing the old images until we have clarity on why the new images are more representative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

"Population • 2022 estimate 1,375,586,000 (2nd)" Should be changed to "Population • 2023 February 1,415,607,278 (2nd)"

Source: World-o-meter (based on UN data): https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/#:~:text=The%20current%20population%20of%20India,the%20latest%20United%20Nations%20data.

Winner132 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Winnerz132 Winner132 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please read previous discussions. Dinesh | Talk 11:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

Hello. I just want to add some more specific information in the Sports subdivision in Culture division. I hope that my request is accepted. Slasher2468 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In the intro please add that the Indian peninsula is considered to be the largest peninsula in the World. https://books.google.com/books?id=Jb4XAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:8DBA:2280:EBCA:EF37 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is not a reliable source.2600:100C:A21C:E44E:2CF0:7EE2:2CCD:CA5C (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A source published in 1913 is obviously not reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Outdated and low quality orthographic svg map of Indian map

Orthographic image of India is so outdated and low quality with not proper shape of country, for example you can see sharp edges and no detailed curved corners. this is so disrespecting considering the map of other neighbouring countries like China , Pakistan and even Nepal have proper defined areas and boundaries of the countries. so i request the technical experts to take look at this matter, redesign detailed orthographic map of India. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@RamaKrishnaHare So fix it. Or, if you can't, stop griping and politely ask one of the volunteers who look after Wikipedia's content to do it. You might do this on the image's talk page. (Note that the article's page is currently using a local copy of the image, also with its own talk page.) Bazza (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

i could have fixed it till now if i could, and even if I somehow made another one with details than i am not a extended confirmed user so cannot edit the article and secondly i am not a graphic designer or technical expert who have enough knowledge to make or edit svg maps. sorry if you found it rude in any way RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza you seem to be technical expert, I hereby kindly request you to fix it or teach me how to fix it. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@RamaKrishnaHare The original map is held in Commons at c:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_(orthographic_projection).svg. It has been that way since the map was created in 2008. All updates since have been to reflect border changes or disputes. I don't see much wrong with the map as it stands: it is seemingly used only at a small scale throughout the Wikipedia family. Other countries also have similarly-detailed location maps: at random, Iceland, Ethopia, DR Congo, Mexico, Bolivia, Russia. I am not inclined to give any of my time to what would be a substantially large piece of work as I can't see any benefit (other than to what some might interpret as nationalistic vanity). Other editors who read this page may do so, or you could try asking on the image's talk page on Commons, as I suggested earlier. Bazza (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

brother, the kind of maps you said should be replaced with the ones with detailed boundaries and this not kind of “Nationalistic” issue as this would be helpful in improving neutralistic wikipedia. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@RamaKrishnaHare I am not your brother (nor sister). I have not said that any maps should be replaced. You compared the map of India to those for Pakistan, China, and "even" Nepal, suggesting that any differences were "disrespecting"; that does lead me to interpret your request is a vanity one. I do not know what you mean by "neutralistic Wikipedia". You are yet to state what tangible benefit would be gained by someone doing the large amount of work you have requested which is likely not to be seen at the scales the image is used. Bazza (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

that's very rude of you, but ok. what i meant by “neutralistic Wikipedia” is that making all map similar would help keeping Wikipedia a neutral and informative site. and if you are asking for benefits than you're on wrong site. According to you what should be the benefits of editing on a non-profit platform? why you and me are here? definitely to improve something and contribute, am i right? there are no actual profit in doing anything here. and secondly i said nepal because it is much less significant country as compared to India, China, Pakistan that's why, i am not degrading anyone or anything and just asking for a mere improvement. if you don't want to do it than it is completely fine but don't be rude because my intention to say some stranger a “brother” was to just show a feeling of humanity and oneness, promote the thought of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2023

Provide information about Foreign Exchange Reserves in the summary section (https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/WSSViewDetail.aspx?PARAM1=2&TYPE=Section) Kiranrs143 (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

change drive side from left to right 103.250.166.163 (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be incorrect. CMD (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A flagrant violation of consensus

An editor has made a drive-by edit in the lead, replacing a redundant clause which was removed in a discussion and consensus involving six editors and lasting over two weeks in 2020: Talk:India/Archive_48#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_9_June_2020. The clause removed is redundant as Gandhi is identified the world over with leading India's nonviolent nationalist movement which began in 1920. There is no need for repetition. Besides, as Gandhi was the first one to admit, a theme repeated by historians, the movement was much bigger than its leaders. I have no memory of this editor and s/he has been making persistent, if also lamely sarcastic, claims on my user talk page. If this editor would like to undo the consensus of 2020, then they should ping all the editors who took part in the discussion and wait up to a month for a new consensus to emerge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging that editor @Capitals00:. I am not really around on WP much these days. If I find that the article is deteriorating, I will have no hesitation in recommending that it be FARC'd and be removed from its FA status. This is not a threat, but I imagine my recommendation will count for something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

20 days ago, this edit[7] was made after consensus was reached at Talk:India/Archive_56#Independence_and_partition where you were pinged and so were RegentsPark and Abecedare.

First you cited a "2019" discussion [8] and now you are citing Talk:India/Archive_48#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_9_June_2020 despite this discussion involved partition violence and none of the edits have been made related to that so far on the main article. You should avoid moving the goalposts. Wikipedia is less bureaucratic than you think. Capitals00 (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't waste time. If you want to change the 2020 consensus. Ping all six editors and start afresh. It took two weeks. And look at the level of the discourse. And look at yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not make sense to expect same "level of the discourse" all the time. The discussion was made and it was automatically archived. Nevertheless, if you are this eager then I can entertain this request of yours by reposting the proposal below. Capitals00 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes

The following paragraph on lead should be modified:-

"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule.[53][54] In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions,[55][56][57][58] a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration.[59]"

• It fails to mention Mahatma Gandhi who led the "nonviolent resistance". He was mentioned until 2019.[9]
• "Hindu majority" with "Dominion of India" is wrong, because India did not support religion based partition. We can also remove "Muslim-majority" for Pakistan if necessary.
• "large-scale loss of life and unprecendented migration" is also wrong, because violence was expected and arrangements were made to quell violence before migration happened.[10][11]

I believe this part should be modified to:-

"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement led by Mahatma Gandhi emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and it became the major factor in ending British rule.[53][54] In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions,[55][56][57][58] Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan.[59]"

Pinging those who haven't been pinged above: Weaveravel, Dhawangupta, Usedtobecool, Paine Ellsworth, and Eggishorn. Capitals00 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Your formulation is incorrect. You say, "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement led by Mahatma Gandhi emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and it became the major factor in ending British rule."

The Indian nationalist movement emerged in 1885 when the Indian National Congress was founded by Alan Octavian Hume, William Wedderburn, Dadabhai Naoroji, and Womesh Chandra Bannerjee, and attended by Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Gandhi was a boy of 16, very much wet behind the political ears, and preoccupied with adolescent sexual concerns. Between then and Gandhi's arrival on the Indian scene as a leader in the early 1920s, there were very many luminaries in the Congress. (Nonviolence political action under Gandhi saw its birth in South Africa, not in India, witness the plaque at the Pietermaritzburg railway station.) They may not have made a big to-do about nonviolence, but none were advocates of violence. Among them, off the top of my head were, Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Bannerjee, Madan Mohan Malviya, Chittaranjan Das, Annie Besant, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, Motilal Nehru, Ajmal Khan, M. A. Ansari, ... All had become Congress presidents before Gandhi became president in 1923 or 24. Gandhi was at best the leader of the second more widely rooted phase of Indian nationalism which employed nonviolent resistance as a means of political action, and which very importantly inducted the peasantry. In other words, nonviolent resistance became notable only later in Indian nationalism.

As for "pioneering and influential," it was the pre-Gandhian Congress that was so. Organized Indonesian nationalism, for example, began in 1908 with Budi Utomo (“Noble Endeavour”). The African National Congress was founded in 1912. Both organizations were influenced by the Indian National Congrees. In other words, the pioneering and influential movement began in 1885. There are tons of references. I've added a few to the Indian National Congress page. The phrasing as it currently stands is historically accurate. There is no need for a change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You could change it to: "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which became noted for nonviolent resistance and was the major factor in ending British rule." (i.e. swap the became and was)

But we cannot mention Gandhi for the reasons I have already given. A giant he certainly was, but other lesser giants had paved the way for him. The first British responses to strident Indian nationalism in the form of legislative reform, i.e. the Minto-Morley Reforms and the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms had already taken place before Gandhi's unchallenged leadership began. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, I am not advocating not mentioning Gandhi for the reasons that Hindu nationalists in India might by propping up the inconsequentials such Bhagat Singh, Subhas Bose, or Savarkar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

One source you have used is The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, p.179. Page 180 is entirely dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi, while p.181 says "The First World War and its aftermath, however, transformed Congress, which by the early 1920s had acquired a constitution, organization, rural support and a compelling ideology of swaraj (home rule) under the inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi."[12]

Another source which you have heavily used on this article is "A History of India" by Stein, which from p.289 has dedicated long chapters to Mahatma Gandhi called "Imperialism's Paradoxical Enemy",[13] "Enter the Mahatma",[14] "Gandhi's Triumph".[15]

What about this? "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement led by Indian National Congress largely under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, which became noted for nonviolent resistance, was the major factor in ending British rule." Capitals00 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Being an FA we also have some requirements of elegant prose. What you have written is not grammatical English, let alone elegant prose. Listen, you don't know enough. Plain and simple. Let the others weigh in instead of haggling with me in order to get some version of your preference in. No dice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Burton Stein, btw, says this about Gandhi in his History of India:

Gandhi was the leading genius of the later, and ultimately successful, cam paign for India’s independence. His innovative techniques created an aura of almost mystical reverence not only for his followers but for the global audience he acquired thanks in large part to fortuitous and new developments in com munications, most notably the cinema newsreel. His martyr’s death com pleted the conditions for his canonization. As a result, two aspects of his role have tended to be masked or discounted. The first was the idiosyncratic authoritarianism of his style of leadership, which often disconcerted his most loyal followers and admirers. The second, paradoxically, was his comforting (to adversaries and beneficiaries) refusal to disturb the status quo ofthe Indian social and economic hierarchy, which was screened by his patronizing concern for the victims of the curse of untouchability and his insistence on unity across class and caste. While his ideal of a nation consisting of autonomous villages whose inhabitants lived in Spartan simplicity was consigned to the realm of utopian fantasy, he successfully prevented other, more radical forms of social and economic idealism from being realized. He bitterly disappointed the leader of the untouchables, Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, and his implacable opposition to contraception may in the end have amplified the misery of those for whom he professed concern, women and the poor, as well as the severe problems of sustainability that India faces even now.

How much would you like to paraphrase in the lead? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Only first few sentences are relevant for this discussion. Not the rest. Capitals00 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Fowler, when the lead was being proposed by you in 2019[16] you were in favor of including the name of Mahatma Gandhi and cited example of Britannica's lead which still includes name of Gandhi, Nehru and Gama. While the proposed sentence may require some modification I support inclusion of "Mahatma Gandhi" on lead. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

'Oppose any name in lead as per (essay) Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section ...no one person definds a country.Moxy- 17:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy: That does not make sense. I find a few names on lead of Iran, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bulgaria (FA article), Australia (FA as well) Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Libya, Brazil, Belarus, and others. Nobody is asking to name "one person" to define entire country. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Should not be there......agree many bad examples out there...over 1000 countries (past and present) many bad examples could be found. Is James Cook the most important person in Australia history ?...no...thus should be fixed.Moxy- 19:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want blanket removal of names from country-related articles then you will need to create a broader proposal for all countries outside this discussion. Though I will obviously oppose it because I believe that some individuals do happen to be uncontroversially more important than the rest over a particular cause or a period. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel: Of course you are defining Gandhi to be the mainstay of a nationalist movement that had already existed for 35 years of its 70 year existence when Gandhi began to take a leadership role in the early 1920s, You have moreover grossly mischaracterized what I had attempted to do in 2019, a discussion in which neither you nor Capitals00 played even the most tangential role.

• I stated in this edit: "I just remembered that there is an earlier consensus, from the time of the FAR, that Gandhi be the only person mentioned by name in the lead ... the 'lead' of the Britannica India article, which is much longer, and mentions only three by name: Vasco da Gamma, Gandhi, and Nehru. I am therefore restoring Gandhi in version 1.5 until such time as we have a different consensus.

"*In the very next edit, user:MilborneOne, an experienced editor with a long history on the India page, made this comment: "I still think the Gandi mention jars in what is a 10,000 spread of history, nothing against mentioning him elsewhere in the lead as he is important to what became modern India, not just in this bit."

• A few edits later, user:Kautilya3, another experienced editor with a long history on India-related topics, made this comment: " About Mahatma Gandhi, I am fine either way, but prefer it be omitted."
• It was for that reason that the mention of Gandhi was omitted when this page made its second TFA appearance on Gandhi's 150 birth anniversary (October 2, 2019).
• Finally, in the discussion of 2020, which I have referred to above, and which involved six editors, including user:RegentsPark no mention was made of Gandhi. The discussion had lasted a full two weeks. The topic of Gandhi did not even arise.
• So as of now, six editors from the discussion of 2020, and in addition MilborneOne, Kautilya3, and Moxy are against a mention of Gandhi, making *nine* editors being opposed to a mention of Gandhi at that point in the lead.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So what changed your position this time? It seems to be different than that from 2019.

Furthermore, you are miscounting. The 2020 discussion (Talk:India/Archive_48#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2020) had nothing to do with Gandhi. It was the 2019 discussion (Talk:India/Archive 46#History paragraph in the lead) which had to, and the 2022 that happened last month (Talk:India/Archive 56#Independence and partition). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't Wikilawyer nauseatingly. You have played no role in the history section of this page, nor in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixing your misrepresentation of discussions is not wikilawyering. Nobody is required to edit history or lead section of this page in order to make discussion on a particular talk page. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering because you have not read what I have written. I have already stated that the Indian nationalist movement in the context of it being pioneering and influential was a long movement which began in 1885. It was the pre-1920 movement that was the pioneering and influential one. Gandhi joined the movement because of this phase; otherwise, as he stated many times, he would never have left South Africa. In other words, if you are going to talk about the movement in its full span, a mention of Gandhi alone is undue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

At the time I wrote the lead in the 2011 FAR, I had not carefully incorporated the references that are now cited in the Indian National Congress page. This I was able to do in the discussion of 2020. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

From what I have seen, that your proposal from 2019 addressed the concerns you are raising now.[17] To quote myself, I said above that: "While the proposed sentence may require some modification I support inclusion of "Mahatma Gandhi" on lead". I haven't supported a particular proposed wording from above. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Where does the discussion of 2019 say anything about the Indian National Congress being a pioneering and influential anti-colonial movement? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

But it incorporated mention of Mahatma Gandhi in line with what you are saying above. "nationalist movement, which under Mahatma Gandhi's prevailing influence, was noted for nonviolent resistance, and which led to India's independence in 1947."

Current sentence is: "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule."

If we incorporate the former, then it can be: "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement, which under Mahatma Gandhi's prevailing influence, was noted for nonviolent resistance, became the major factor in ending British rule." Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You are attempting mediate between two texts one of which was only a remark of mine, not a consensus version in the article.

The lead is a highly distilled summary of the article which is consistent with the modern reliable sources.

Your concern it seems is to get Gandhi in one way or other. It doesn't matter that the modern sources don't seem him as the be-all and end-all. No dice for a mention of Gandhi. Period. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See for example a modern source, Eugene Irschick (Berkeley), A History of the New India, Routledge 2018. How is your formulation consistent with it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Or even an older source such as Ian Copland, India 1885–1947, Seminar Texts in History, Longmans, 2001. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we mention Indian National Congress instead? I don't see any other major rival for Congress when it comes to independence movement. Capitals00 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep it general. Surendranath Bannerjee had a party in Bengal before 1885 which was subsumed under the INC (with its national aspirations). Towards the end of WW1, after the deaths of Gokhale and Mehta, the Home Rule Leagures of Tilak and Besant were the leading parties, both outside the Congress. The revolutionaries, howsoever inconsequential were mostly not a part of the Congress. There was the Indian Communist Party, the All India Trade Union Congress, these last two instrumental in the immediate post WW2 period. There was the Swaraj Party of Motilal Nehru and CR Das, there was the Forward Bloc of Subhas Bose after he was booted out of the Congress. There was the Muslim League of course, which also played a role in the nationalist movement, even if it ultimately opted for Muslim separatism. I think mentioning only the Congress will make the page vulnerable to constant dickering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I was about to revert the above but then I saw your response.

I think the paragraph on article especially on the section about the freedom movement may need little work.

You mentioned "India 1885 - 1947: The unmaking of an Empire", however, like other sources, it also acknowledged special significance of Mahatma Gandhi with the chapter "The coming of the Mahatma" at page 45.

The lead has sources and notes for many statements. Do you think we should at least draft a note for this statement too? Capitals00 (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The notes are there, and quite a few of them, but only as quotes at the end of the cited sources. We could change those quotes to the efn format, but I think it will top load the references section in the article with too much visible text, i.e. the Notes section will look forbiddingly long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Beyond that, I think we will be essentially fiddling with a tight and compact lead by adding explanations which are neither tight nor compact. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty here.

The above discussion was about 1st proposal. What do you think about the other 2? Capitals00 (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure which proposal you are talking about, but essentially if it involves a mention of Gandhi in the broader history section of the lead, I would defer to MilborneOne's objection cited above: We have two long paragraphs on the 60K-year-long span of South Asian history beginning with the arrival of modern humans. No one is mentioned by name, not even the Buddha, the first historical figure in South Asia, with whom recorded South Asian history begins. No mention is there of Asoka or Akbar either. So, to single out Gandhi at the end of the history as the one that warrants a mention, seems a little disproportional. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

But as MilborneOne said, perhaps there is another place for a mention of Gandhi, i.e. not at the end of the two history paragraphs. Let me propose something shortly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

True that! The importance of every historical figure is weighed differently by people and there should be a balanced neutrality to any inclusions which also honours minority viewpoints as mush as it can. Ajatashatru should go along with any reference to Buddha, and if Gandhi is mentioned, Subhash Chandra Bose can't be forgotten. Fayninja (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No we are not supposed to cater to Hindutva politically motivated propaganda. Capitals00 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know in which direction you are heading here but I respect the views of both pacifists and war-wagers, times decide who wins my favour. They are both important contributors to the safety and preservation of society. Fayninja (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Forget about Ajatashatru. We got Mahavira included along with Buddha. Forget about Subhas Chandra Bose. I don't see any chances for inclusion of this name in this entire article. Capitals00 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

India Antarctica

India officially acceded to the Antarctic Treaty System on 1 August 1983. On 12 September 1983, the country became the fifteenth Consultative Member of the Antarctic Treaty.Dakshin Gangotri Dakshin Gangotri Station Dakshin Gangotri Station Location of Dakshin Gangotri Station in Antarctica Coordinates: 70°45′S 11°35′E Country India Administered by Indian Antarctic Program[User:Sakthíyvël|Sakthíyvël]] (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)...

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

India's official languages have to be Hindi and Urdu, while English is a de facto official language. 193.90.242.213 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Urdu is no more official than Bengali or Punjabi. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the constitution that the official languages are Hindi and English only. 223.178.209.125 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Request to change a map

The map of the language families of South Asia doesn't show a neutral perspective of land borders. The disputed borders should be drawn with a dotted line. 223.178.209.125 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Request to change the word "country"

According to the first line of this article, India is a country. However, it is mentioned it its constitution, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." Please change the word "country" to "Union of States" because it will be more appropriate. 223.178.209.125 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done the type of country is mentioned in the lead already.... that is a federation READ ME Moxy- 14:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Most populous

India is the most populous country now. 88.218.233.201 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

It has been requested that the outlining of Kashmir in light green color on the Indian map on Wikipedia be removed due to its portrayal as a disputed territory. The request is made based on the belief that legally, Kashmir is still India's territory, and thus the current outlining of Kashmir due to POK is not necessary. The proposed edit aims to accurately represent the current status of the region and avoid any misinterpretation of the disputed nature of the territory. 103.92.41.115 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of the page. CMD (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Siachen Glacier region in the map

The Siachen Glacier is under Indian control, which is a well known fact (see Siachen conflict), so it must be shaded in dark green instead of light green.

Light green is only for areas claimed but not controlled by India like Aksai Chin. Fereydoonshah (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of the page. Bazza (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Current President of India is Shri Ramnath Kovind

current president of India is Shri Ramnath Kovind Imranastudent (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, no. The current president of India is Droupadi Murmu. Kovind's term as president ended in July of last year. General Ization ^Talk 03:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

current president is Draupadi murmu 106.193.58.144 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

the India has now 29 states, please update

one of the states now divided in two parts. so the total states counts increased from 28 to 29. 49.42.93.145 (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

Change 'and the second-most populous country.' to 'the world's most populous country' Gopzonline (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been reported on UNFPA's world population dashboard, which is the definitive data source for world population stats, that India is now the world's most populous nation. https://www.unfpa.org/data/world-population-dashboard Gopzonline (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gopzonline But a reliable source which points to [18] states it is not, yet. Bazza (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: In this case, reporting by secondary sources takes precedence over the primary source per WP:RS. Has there been any reporting on this matter in secondary sources, such as newspapers or similar publications? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

India is most populous country in world and not second most populous. 103.139.171.206 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Says who? [19] says it isn't yet. Read the discussions above to discover that the moment you are hoping for has not yet arrived: be patient. Bazza (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023 (2)

Change 2nd most populous to most populous in the introduction paragraph SaneSkull (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

See numerous discussions and references to the contrary above. Bazza (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023 (3)

Om Bhope (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

India is the world's most populous country

 Not done See numerous discussions and references to the contrary above. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023 (4)

Change: "It is the seventh-largest country by area and the second-most populous country." To: "It is the seventh-largest country by area and the most populous country."

Note that the World Population Dashboard maintained by the UN states a larger population for India than for China: https://www.unfpa.org/data/world-population-dashboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchw1994 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Secondary reporting:

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/india-surpasses-china-to-become-world-s-most-populous-nation-11681890369118.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2023/04/19/india-worlds-most-populous-country/11695722002/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-surpasses-china-as-worlds-most-populous-nation-un-says/articleshow/99608206.cms?from=mdr

@Jchw1994:: Thanks for the three secondary references. The second one states "India will overtake China as the world's most populous country this year, UN says", so India is not No 1 yet. Here's another which states the same thing: [20]: "India to have more people than China by mid-2023, UN says", so in a month or two's time. And another: [21] "NEW DELHI, April 19 (Reuters) - India is poised to overtake China as the world's most populous nation, with almost 3 million more people than its neighbour by the middle of this year, data released on Wednesday by the United Nations showed. India's population by mid-year is estimated at 1.4286 billion, against 1.4257 billion for China - 2.9 million fewer - in the United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) "State of World Population Report" for this year."

So, two secondary sources state India is more populous than China, three say it will be later this year. Given it's all guesswork anyway (because India's population has not been counted for 12 years), I'm opting for waiting a few more months before there are enough secondary sources stating what you've claimed. Bazza (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

India is now the most popular country by both world bank and UN. Correct the information. It's been like this for months now. 117.227.106.194 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean "populous" rather than favourite place to live? Other reliable secondary sources say that India has not yet reached the No 1 spot, but will do sometime around the middle of 2023. Have a read of the conversations above. Bazza (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. See relevant discussion above. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2023 (2)

India has become the world's most populous country, overtaking China, shows data released by the United Nations today. According to UN estimates, India's population is 142.86 crore against China's 142.57 crores. I wish to change some info that is incorrect on Wikipedia Realsohan (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. See relevant discussion above. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

India´s consumer market size

Change "India's consumer market, the world's eleventh-largest[...]" as according to the article linked in the same sentence, India is the world's fifth largest consumer market. Gogetasj4 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gogetasj4: The reference for that sentence was written in 2007, and states "in two decades the country will surpass Germany as the world's fifth largest consumer market". I make that 2027. It's 2023 today. Bazza (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In 2019, India was sixth [22]. 2001:8F8:172B:49C3:60D0:3ACA:25F7:F7B1 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources for population estimates

I have been a contributor to recent rebuffs of demands to record India as the most populous country. These seem to be originating from interpretations of various UN reports, rather than from the normal Wikipedia-preferred reliable secondary sources. At least one (the UK's Guardian newspaper) broke the status quo earlier this week by stating that India and China have, indeed, swapped places. Rather than continue with the current "yes it is, no it isn't" editing regarding India's estimated population, in particular with regards to its count in relation to that of China, I've started a list here of published reliable secondary sources which state that India's population now exceeds that of China. When we get consensus that the number of such quality sources is sufficient, then the articles concerned should be updated.

• ...

Bazza (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

We're already very near the end of April 2023. Should we change it to May 2023?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the article used as source for the population in the infobox, India has already surpassed China in terms of population: [23]-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it only says it may have done. Read the article - "According to the UN’s projections, which are calculated through a variety of factors including census data and birth and death rates...". We do not have a reliable source saying that it has happened, and probably will not do until India undertakes another census. Is India the most populous country in the world? Yes, probably. Can we prove that? No, not at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this article is based on projection estimates when there hasn't been a nationwide census since, that's as trivial as it gets. However, explicitly stating that India is not the most populous country is also just a possibility, supported only by the fact that there hasn't been a new census yet. The only correct approach would be to accurately represent this current state of facts in the article by writing that according to newest UN projections, India is the most populous country, but according to the latest (over a decade old) census it's China.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Caste system in the subtopic "History"

This Wikipedia article is openly accepting the European concept of Aryans,that is, the Nazi's concept of Aryans. Caste system did not arise due to "occupation" or such. This word "occupation" literally triggered me as it's the concept of the Nazis and Europeans. In reality, the caste system arose due to continuation of profession down the family tree. Child of king became king, child of blacksmith became blacksmith, etc. This thing not just happened in India but also in other parts of the world. It's because of the evolution of human race and introduction of slavery not just to the Indian subcontinent but to the whole world. Originally, this caste system stands nowhere in India's history and culture as India's culture dates a long back. Vedic Era is just a recent era, when this segregation based on professions took place. If anyone can search and add the Indian viewpoint of Caste System,where, Dravidians are the first settlers and western tribes(Europeans tribals) assimilated with these Dravidians(first indians) to form a group called Aryans and formed their land of Aryavarta(Indian Subcontinent) then please do it. This assimilation was natural as European tribals were looking for some land to settle down and settled with these first Indians (dravidians). The story of conquest and other things is just a propaganda of the Nazis to cement their "superior" claim. They manipulated our history right in front of our eyes. Likewise, technically, Tamils and other South Indians are Aryans with less western tribes genes (European genes) and other Indians are Aryans with high western tribes genes(european genes) are all Aryans and so can also call themselves Aryans. T ThIndian theory of Aryans ry llso widely ay accepted as is the European theory of AryanThis is the modern scientific perspective 103.253.203.126 (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/occupation — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

India is the most populous country surpassing china.

Change "second most populous country". 223.177.78.201 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Says who? Bazza (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It created some buzz after some estimators said that China's population decline made India overtake it, but as the newest Indian Census hasn't come out, we don't know how many India truly has.

I collected some supporting and opposing sources here: User:BhamBoi/sandbox#India_overtakes_China BhamBoi (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Says abc GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

abc GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries This would be a reliable source. Editor8220 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This website is sourced to the UN. BhamBoi (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So you think it should be changed? GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. BhamBoi (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"It has been the second most populous country since at least 1950, with a current population of over 1.4 billion, it will overtake China to become the most populous country by the end of April 2023." This sentence is ungrammatical, and a run-on sentence. Someone should change it. 2607:F6D0:D:3534:1:3534:0:2D5 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

Change going to overtake china in the first paragraph to "India is the most populated country after overtaking china in April 2023 as per UN report" Theknowhowman (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

See Q10 in the FAQ — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Odd fight over who is the least developed country. Moxy- 23:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is fighting for anything. This is an online encyclopedia so new information should be updated. Theknowhowman (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL Moxy- 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Democracy

The subject of this edit is quite controversial. I think replacing the citations with reliable, detailed academic sources rather than media reports or simplistic rankings would be much better. Mixmon (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Incongruent claim about the name Hindustan

'Hindustan is a Middle Persian name for India, introduced during the Mughal Empire'

It doesn't make sense to say both that it was Middle Persian and that it was introduced first during the Mughal Empire, since Middle Persian (450 BCE - 650 CE) wasn't used during the Mughal Empire (1526–1857). The form of Persian that was used during the Mughal Empire was New Persian. It may be claimed that the name had first arisen in Persian during the Middle Persian period, but was introduced in India itself during the Mughal Empire, since it used that language. If this is what is meant, it should be stated clearly. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Update the language used

don't write India became the world's most populous country in 2023. Change it to 'India is the world's most populous country, with a current population of over 1.425 billion. How can it became the world's most populous country in 2023. Its 2023 currently going on. 117.226.210.194 (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Question: While I agree, it's not clear to what portion of the article you are referring to. Callmemirela 🍁 11:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly this change must be made Saptajit D (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Did India overtake China??

This article and the China article are still saying that China has the most people of any country. Georgia guy (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Do you have reliable sources which say that India has now become the most populous country? It is forecast to happen sometime this year, but until WP:RSs say otherwise, India stays in second place on Wikipedia. Bazza (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

ABC has made a video saying it is on there channel ABC news in depth GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The exact time when India's population will overtake/overtook China's is indeterminable. To avoid addressing this question and attempts to update the article language periodically throughout this year, should we perhaps add a footnote along the lines of "According to estimates by the U. N. Population Division, India's population is expected to overtake China's sometime in 2023." linked from wherever the population ranking is mentioned in the infobox and text of this and the China article? Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s a good suggestion — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ideally I would have liked to wait for further input, but since this topic continues to be independently raised here and at Talk:China, I have gone ahead and added the footnote. Linked it from three instances where I saw the current population ranking mentioned in the article; please feel free to link it from other locations that I may have missed. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have added an entry for the population-ranking in the FAQ for the article (which is visible at the top of this talkpage) so that editors responding to the repeated ECP requests about the issue can refer the requester to "See Q10 in the FAQ" instead of having to compose de novo responses each time. Of course, editors are welcome to tweak the language of the current FAQ response I have composed, and we can discuss the language if needed. Pinging @Bazza 7, DaxServer, Actualcpscm, and RegentsPark: who have dealt with such requests on this page. Abecedare (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we might need another tweak as the sources attribute to UN projections, thus we can't say it's the most populous in a definitive voice — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

India may have overtaken China.

It's been talked about for a long while now, but it might be time to update the articles. According to worldpopulationreview.com, India has overtaken China in population. This happened in early March as was noted in The Wire (India)[24]. They are sourced to the United Nations, which is of course an RS, and their website IS publishing India in the lead. BhamBoi (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Refined data source: still on the UN: https://population.un.org/dataportal/data/indicators/47,49/locations/156,356/start/2023/end/2023/table/pivotbylocation BhamBoi (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The UN predicted it'd happen in April, and now it's April; and the UN is saying it happened. BhamBoi (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: Please provide a link for your statement "the UN is saying it happened". Bazza (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

See the links in the chain of comments that you just replied to. BhamBoi (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2023/04/14/china-and-india-the-future-of-the-global-consumer-market/#:~:text=On%20April%2014th%2C%202023%2C%20India,part%20of%20the%20Mughal%20Empire. Paleothorn (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

See I added the discussion on Talk:China#Population 2 BhamBoi (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

India has overtaken China in population according to the UN on 14 April.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2023/04/14/china-and-india-the-future-of-the-global-consumer-market/#:~:text=On%20April%2014th%2C%202023%2C%20India,part%20of%20the%20Mughal%20Empire.Paleothorn (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paleothorn: That doesn't say it happened, only that it was set to happen at the time the article was written. If you step back a minute, though, you will realise that the start of the article you linked to is nothing other than journalistic hype. How did the author know that on 14 April the population count of one country would overtake the population count of another?

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on verifiable sources: that is, trusty-worthy publication of facts. I appreciate that there is a perceived competition to see which country is Number One on the matter of who has the most people, but that does not fit well with Wikipedia's way of working. Abecedare has added a helpful note to both India and China's articles about their relative population counts. Until there are firm figures from reliable sources saying, for each country, that its population on a specific date was at least N, then the note is the best to be achieved at present. When such figures are available, I'd expect List of countries and dependencies by population to reflect the new order before either India or China's articles are altered. Bazza (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.unfpa.org/data/world-population-dashboard confirms that India is now the world's most populous nation. Gopzonline (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

And [25] suggests it isn't, yet. Bazza (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

How so? The dashboard says India is ahead. https://population.un.org/dataportal/data/indicators/47,49/locations/156,356/start/2023/end/2023/table/pivotbylocation BhamBoi (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Use correct sentence formation

Make it 'most populous country and democracy in the world' no need to mention date or other things, keep in straightforward. Saptajit D (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean do it in the introduction.

You can also mention with a current population of over 1.425 billion people. Saptajit D (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The date is relevant because it is a recent development that has been covered extensively in mainstream media. The exact population is already included in the infobox, and it's almost never mentioned in the lead section of articles about countries. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Nor is date mentioned in lead section of articles about countries 117.227.65.116 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV sentence in the lead

As whether India or China is at this moment the most populous country is still controversial, with some sources stating India overtook China and others stating it didn't, should we do like in the China article and only state the (estimated) population, without making a judgment call on whether it is or not the most populated country? Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

The first paragraph states that India is the most populous country, as well as the most populous democracy as of 1st May. This is untrue. According to Worldometers, China's population as of 20th May 2023 is 1.455 billion and increasing, whereas India's is 1.419 billion and increasing, thus making it the second most populous. Noel Malik (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The current content is already reliably sourced, to the BBC and the United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs. You did not cite a conflicting source (only mentioned its name), but even if you had, the reliability of Worldometer as a source for this and other data is questionable. See https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/05/world/worldometer-coronavirus-mystery/, among others. General Ization ^Talk 23:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

"Preserved by a resolutely vigilant oral tradition, the Rigveda records the dawning of Hinduism in India." This extract is a case of opinionated language present in the second introductory paragraph. Noel Malik (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Lemonaka‎ 08:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2023 (2)

The statement in the third introductory paragraph that "Sikhism emerged, rejecting institutionalized religion." The text's assertion that Sikhism arose to reject institutionalised religion is oversimplified and may not adequately portray the nuances of Sikhism's emergence and connection with institutionalised religion.

Sikhism began in India's Punjab area in the 15th century as a result of the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji and succeeding Sikh Gurus. While Sikhism challenged certain features of the time's religious institutions, including caste oppression and ritualistic practises, it also built its own distinct religious structure and organisations.

Sikhism emphasises the value of a personal relationship with God and disapproves of idolatry, ritualistic observances, and outside religious authorities. It does, though, have its own institutionalised institutions, such as gurdwaras (Sikh temples), a code of conduct (Rehat Maryada), and the idea that the Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh sacred scripture) is the eternal Guru.

In light of this, it would be more correct to state that Sikhism developed with a distinct philosophy of spirituality and religious practise that included aspects of both institutionalisation and rejection. Beyond a mere denial of institutionalised religion, Sikhism's relationship with it is complicated. Noel Malik (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Noel Malik: You are referring to a single summary sentence in the introductory lead of an article on India. There is no room to be more verbose in the lead. The summary and detailed articles linked at India § Demographics, languages, and religion are the places for expansion. If you can distil what you have written above into a single, validated sentence, then you can propose that to replace the current lead sentence; it will need to be short and understandable. Bazza (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sikhism emerged with a distinct spiritual philosophy that challenged certain aspects of institutionalized religion while also establishing its own religious structure and organizations. Noel Malik (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Closing the request per Bazza's reasoning. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Or simply:

Sikhism emerged with a distinct spiritual philosophy that challenged certain aspects of institutionalized religion. Noel Malik (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Diplomatic and strategic relations need updated content and adjusted language

After the Cold War, India’s foreign policy has undergone some changes. It has established some partnerships, joined or led some organizations, all of which have specific names, rather than broad special relationships. The content of the original sentence is messy. After adjustment, the same nature is integrated and classified Бмхүн (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to explain what it is you object to sentence-by-sentence and what you want to replace it with. What you have written above is too general to be actionable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @RegentsPark, Abecedare, DaxServer, and Бмхүн: especially as I am not here much these days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No in-principle objections to "Updating content to reflect changes in India's international relations after the Cold War" as Бмхүн says in their edit-summary but I have a hard time following the content of the changes looking at the diff. If I'm reading it right, the edit inserted discussion of India's current relation with Israel and France in between the otherwise chronological discussion of India's foreign policy during the Nehru and post-Nehru eras. So perhaps Бмхүн can spell out what they wish to add/change and then we can craft the exact language, sources etc.

One recommendation though before we get into the weeds: In a high-level article such as this one, we are better off relying on scholarly secondary sources such as (just for example):

• Malone, David; Mohan, C. Raja; Raghavan, Srinath, eds. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-874353-8.
• Ganguly, Sumit, ed. (2016). Engaging the world : Indian foreign policy since 1947. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199458325.

rather than magazine articles on individual developments or on press-releases. Better to let the experts do the synthesis for us instead of trying to craft one of our own. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure we need to include India is also actively committed to building a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific".[284] In recent years, it has played key roles in the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation and the Indian Ocean Rim Association. in this summary style article. Just don't seem important enough (also, I note that the editor is adding "economic" related material but removed economic from the section title). Ditto for most of the rest (East Asia summit, latin america ties, etc.) - no quibbles but they don't seem to add much to the article other than, if I may invent the term, diplomatic candy. RegentsPark (comment) 19:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Diplomatic candy: Tastes the taste of diluted water! Zero calories! Committee approved! Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  The economy has a separate narrative and should not be put together with diplomacy. Moreover, India's strategic partnership with the United States and Russia has a special name, which cannot be summarized as a special relationship. The Indo-Pacific is an important foreign policy of the Indian government, which should be shown, and now that India is a major member of organizations such as the G20, it is necessary to add relevant information. The content of the original narrative is messy, and the content related to nuclear energy and military affairs is now unified in one paragraph to avoid redundancy Бмхүн (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  https://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Indo_Feb_07_2020.pdf indo pacific Бмхүн (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  No press releases or government statements please. Rather provide secondary sources, see WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The official website of the U.S. State Department and the links of the Russian official research institute can of course be used as important reference materials to describe the relationship between India and these two countries. Moreover, the relationship between the EU and India is limited to economic and strategic cooperation and does not involve military affairs. The reference materials do not describe the United States and the EU side by side. France and the EU are placed together because France is the leading country of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Бмхүн (talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Бмхүн: Thanks for joining in the discussion. It would be useful if you proposed the specific changes you wish to make one at time and specified what secondary sources (not governmental press releases) they were based on. Abecedare (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The paragraphs have been updated based on third-party reference materials, and the original table of contents mixed three different contents together, which does not conform to Wikipedia's specifications Бмхүн (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no "Wikipedia specifications" for this. Could you please propose specific changes, as has been requested a couple of times before? CMD (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Add in first sentence

(Hindi: भारत) 103.251.217.93 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - as per WP:NOINDICSCRIPT - Arjayay (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox demonym

I don't think the "others" link in the demonym section of the infobox is appropriate. Isn't there only one demonym for India in English? As far as I'm aware no one calls someone from India a Bharatese person or a Hindustani person - right? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

In the infobox, can you link "territory claimed but not controled" to the Kashmir conflict? TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Vedic Chant/Oral Tradition

Hello, I edited the hyperlink of "Oral tradition" in the introduction so that it could send the reader directly to the article on "Vedic Chant" It was undone. Is there a reason why? Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)