Talk:India/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

Please Change: The economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal Empire. To: According to Angus Maddison, a British economist specialising in quantitative macroeconomic history, including the measurement and analysis of economic growth and development, India was the largest economy by GDP output for the first 15 centuries of the Common Era. According to a graph published by him Indian economy started declining by the 16th century. Thrideep J (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source when it comes to citing references. Can you please find another secondary source to support your edits?​ — Newslinger talk 01:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Correction of Information

I noticed that it is mentioned that Indians drive on left but the fact is that it is right hand drive. Appreciate if the correction can be made ! Anuragrastogi0007 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Drives on left" refers to the side of the road used, "right hand drive" refers to the side of the vehicle that has the steering wheel. Right hand drive cars are used in areas where the population frives on the left side of the road. --Khajidha (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I love india

Manumohan perumon (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Manumohan perumon: I love India too! But Wikipedia is not a forum, it is a project to build an encycloapedia which is expansive and reliable in nature.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Kokbotok language does not come under the 8th schedule language of the country (india) Sankhadeepdey (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

help request

Please can someone add the Hindi alphabet for the name of the Republic of India in the country template title : भारत की स्वतंत्रता

• Please see Q1 in the FAQ at the top of the page. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A gallery of political and non-political leaders in the government sub-section

I added, inter alia, a gallery of 'leaders of India' with this edit; which was reverted in good faith by Abecedare with this edit, who asked me to gain consensus on the talk page regarding this, so, here I am.

My opinion is that a gallery of Indian leaders won't hurt and would be in line with other articles on nations, such as France, Germany et al. What do you people think about this?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A stack of 2 or 3 beside relevant/associated text would be OK as seen in your two examples France and Germany but stand alone galleries are discouraged especially in FA and GA articles. WP:GALLERIES.--Moxy (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: that's kind of what I did though, except I added five (the president, the vice president, the prime minister, the Lok Sabha speaker and the chief justice) as I felt that adding just the president and the PM would've been a bit misleading, especially considering the separation of powers in government. What do you opine?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 03:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Should only have executive branch..... other branches of the government are just that another branch. Non elected positions-Moxy (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should attain a wider consensus before we go and remove people's names from the infobox, especially considering in infoboxes of other countries like the US, such 'unelected leaders' exist.

As far as 'election' goes, the Lok Sabha speaker is elected in much the same way as the prime minister is, i. e., by the Lok Sabha, I mean, in a way, former is much more of an 'elected' authority than the latter, as, the speaker is elected by the lower house, whereas the prime minister must retain the confidence of the House of the People.

@Moxy: As far as the branch thingy goes, I think it's imperative that we include that the leaders of all branches of the government, be it the executive, the judiciary, or the legislature, especially considering that India is a parliamentary republic, where the executive is subordinate to the legislature and is responsible to it and that in the nation, the higher judicial institutions (the supreme court and the high courts) have the power to strike down even constitutional amendments, if they don't conform with the constitution's basic structure.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 05:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And adding all these images makes that clear someway? I guess it's possible as long as it's not a gallery...but beside the appropriate text. Not a fan of seeing individual in main Country articles.... especially those who don't have a historical significance. Does highlighting these individuals thus directing our readers to bio articles help them improve their understanding of this article? So many more images could be educational... then gallery of men that link to personal bios. --Moxy (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: that's for the editors to decide; I am—like I have said already—of the opinion that, yes, these images do add something of substance and should be there to direct users to the personal bios of a nation's leaders/servants/masters/fathers/mothers/brothers/sisters/politicians.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

in my view this is an overview article about a country not about individuals.... nor the main articke about goverment...would be more educational to link them to a building or a position that list all those that held these positions over time then just one bio. A good histrical picture is worth a thousand words..... headshots of non recognizable people less so.--Moxy (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: I guess I get your point; guess adding the photos of the Sansad Bhavan (Parliament House), the Rashtrapati Bhavan (Presidential Residence) and the Secretariat Building would be better than adding photos of the incumbents of various political and non–political offices.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC); edited 06:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC).

Yes the institutions are the foundation of the country..... these individuals not so much so.--Moxy (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: yep, sure, why not, I concur with your views.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I too agree with Moxy's point about automatically "highlighting individuals" in the main country article by virtue of their current position, without consideration of their "historical significance". That IMO makes the article look more like a GoI brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Also the photo-gallery did not add much informational content beyond what is already presented in the infobox under the Government field. Finally, at least some of the images themselves were of pretty poor quality photographs.

Historically, it has been the convention for this main India article to, as far as possible, limit images to ones that are featured pictures on wikipedia/commons or at least of comparable importance and quality. Given the plethora of images that can be included given the vast scope of this article, and the few available slots, it would be good to restore that standard. Abecedare (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: noted, would add featured pictures henceforth.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

IAST

Hi SpacemanSpiff , can you explain me the double error ?, and also why is it written in Hindi transliteration ? because Hindi is the national language of ? Shrikanthv (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• first there's no 'th', the second error is that the schwa deletion is oral, not written. Also, the name is a Hindi name, no point in trolling with "national language of" kind of arguments, so just like we would not use the Proto-Slavic root for Polska, but just use the Polish term, it's the same case here. Anyway, Abecedare might help clarify on whether we should use the long standing -at ending or switch to -ata. —SpacemanSpiff 10:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand why you feel the discussion as "trolling", yes i was wrong with "th" it's "t" you are right. I was against IAST - and possibilty of edit warring on intonations. also Poland has Polish and cannot be compared with India having "hindi" name Shrikanthv (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shrikanthv: India does have a Hindi name, though. Both 'India' and 'Bharat' are co-equal names for the nation as per the very first article of India's constitution, so there's no question of transliterating its Sanskrit name.

Also, @SpacemanSpiff: Gazoth, Abecedare and I had a—albeit brief—conversation regarding the deletion of the final schwa in Indo-European languages over at WT:INB#Handling of deleted schwas in transliteration of Hindi words and Abecedare recommended that we follow:

the ISO 15919 directive, "Inherent a with a consonant shall always be transliterated." (Clause 8, Rule 2). This, at least, gives us an unambiguous transliteration.

.

That means—if I am inferring his/her statement correctly—that we should switch to -ata.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC); edited 13:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC) and 13:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

• My 2c:
  • Transliterations like IAST are used when one is rendering words from one script to another. The rendering will depend upon the transliteration system. So भारत can be transliterated as (informal transliteration) Bharat, (IAST transliteration "from Hindi Devanagiri") Bhārat, (IAST transliteration "from Sanskrit Devanagari") Bhārata, or (ISO 15919 from Devanagiri) Bhārata. So all these are defensible.
  • That said, given that the alternate name "Bharat" is rendered exactly as that in numerous English language documents (including the Indian constitution) my first preference would be to simply including that without any diacritics at all (see my recent proposal, which didn't have much support though).
  • If we are including a transliteration, instead of trying to come up with an on-wiki consensus that is likely to be unstable, it may be best to follow this source, which represents an real-world consensus on exactly this topic. Per that source, the agreed-upon transliterations are Bhārat and Bhāratīya Gaṇarājya.

Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Odd that the source use the devanagari for Bharat Ganrajya but then uses the IAST for the transliteration. Is there some reason for this (e.g., is this an official transliteration)? --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Bharat Ganarajya would be the equivalent of Indian Republic while Bharatiya Ganarajya would be the equivalent of Republic of India. The Indian passport uses the former as do most press releases from MEA, MHA and FinMin and fits in with the official line. Ideally, I'd like to be able to use the informal translation and get rid of IAST/ITRANS/Kolkata system of Romanisation and anything similar that needs more than an ability to read the Latin script to understand! —SpacemanSpiff 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is pressing need for a Sanskrit transliteration, rendering the hindi in the most similar latin makes the most amount of sense. The purpose of transliterations is to help the English speaking user and an overload of diacritics or an obscure Sanskrit transliteration doesn't do that, whereas the informal transliteration does. --regentspark (comment) 17:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

So can we remove the "IAST" from the lead as it amounts to wrong transliteration of Sanskrit Shrikanthv (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Languages and scripts

The article should have some mention of scripts used for writing Indian languages.I propose the following: Most Indian languages use scripts derived from the Brahmi script.This includes the Devnagari script used for writing Indo-aryan languages such as Hindi or Marathi and the scripts used for writing Dravidian languages such as Tamil or Kannada. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Probably better dealt with at Languages of India rather than here which is an overview and cant include everything. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There isn't even one sentence to say that there are multiple scripts and most of them are derived from Brahmi.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to include this, although there might edit wars over the specific languages listed as examples for Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. A hard limit on the number of langauges and objective selection using speaker numbers might solve the problem. —Gazoth (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This article has, in the "Languages" section, Each state and union territory has one or more official languages..., after which there could be a brief mention of the plethora of scripts, but only a few words. At Languages of India there is only this, under "Writing systems", Most languages in India are written in Brahmi-derived scripts, such as Devanagari, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Odia, Eastern Nagari - Assamese/Bengali, etc., though Urdu is written in a script derived from Arabic, and a few minor languages such as Santali use independent scripts.[citation needed]. What's being proposed here in length seems almost equal to that sentence, which itself is in need of a citation. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So what is the consensus regarding writing scripts in india? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Outdated info in lead

Best we not add detailed info about poverty to the lead when it's outdated.--Moxy (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also the additions are undue in the lede; misplaced within the lede; poorly formatted; poorly written (how is "poor people", as used in the sentence, defined?); cite two (non-ideal) sources about two different reports about poverty rates in 2010 and 2012 respectively; misrepresent what those sources say ("There were 125 million poor people in 2016..."); and being edit-warred over without any attempt at discussion. Other than that... :) Abecedare (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get them to the talk page with no luck yet....but also agree too much detail for a lead.--Moxy (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Moxy and Abecedare: I also have concerns over the two accounts being socks of each of other. But, I am assuming good faith for now. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

They only over lap here on this article...best we assume they are different people..... I would love to hear from both of them.--Moxy (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, yeah, I agree with you. It would nice to see the both of them respond on here. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is undue in the lead. The lead already says However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, which is more than adequate for the lead section. Details are best left to the body of the article. --regentspark (comment) 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Equivalent updated info doesn't appear to be present anywhere in the article (maybe I just read over it). BLDM (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Three questions

1. Who decided that the official translation used is Bhārat Gaṇarājya instead of the officially used Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya, and why are the original Sanskrit characters given a miss? 2. Why is a section on Science and Technology missing for a country with arecord of most satellites launched in one go and the world's first country to launch a successful Mars mission? 3. Why is there no section on tourism when India has more than 15 million international tourists each year which brings in more than 10% of India's GDP (world's 6th highest nominal GDP nation)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.66.220 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone who is able to explain this for a featured article? I wanted to share the article for a reference and am already having a hard time proving Wikipedia as a credible source. If these errors and/or important facts are looked at, would be huge help to understand the credibility. (I am the same person as above with a different device) Thank you 80.215.68.153 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there is no Science and Technology section or Tourism section says nothing about the credibility of Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives for reliably sourced information, not for complete information. About Bharat Ganarajya, if you believe that the transliteration is incorrect, then feel free to open a discussion on the talk page. Make sure you include your reasons and/or provide a reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 21:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute the Science and Technology & Tourism sections yourself. BLDM (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I have not registered and am not able to edit a protected wiki page. Is the procedure first to request addtion of these sections here? 46.193.66.220 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes you can request experienced editors to create the sections, but they are under no obligation to do so. Your best bet is to just create an account, have enough activity to become autoconfirmed, then write the sections yourself. BLDM (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm thanks for the idea, I tried it once before a couple of years back but I was told that it is too ambitious to for a non senior editor to add new sections to a featured article. Anyway, I will give it a pass but would have definitely tried it if an article could affect India's tourism or science feats. Query closed. Best, 46.193.66.220 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Update

I open this to talk about the (in my opinion) more accurate gallery for the article in the history section. Thank you.--BernardaAlba (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? —SpacemanSpiff 16:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It explains the text. And it goes thtough the main peryods of the history of India, right now it doesn´t. --213.254.68.174 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

Pataliputra recently edited the first Etymology paragraph to read:

The name India is derived from Indus, which originates from the 6th century Old Persian word Hiduš (Old Persian cuneiform: 𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐏁). The latter term stems from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian *síndʰuš (meaning "The river"), which also gave the Sanskrit Sindhu (सिन्धु), the historical local appellation for the Indus River. The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (Ἰνδοί), which translates as "The people of the Indus".

References

I know that the idea of "India" originating from Indus is a popular misconception, and I have said so in the past. But it is at least a popular misconception. But the idea that Indus originates from Hindush is not even that. The sources supplied don't say anything like it. And what is Proto-Indo-Iranian doing here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC) amended Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I would expect that Hindush means something like "the land of Hindu", similar to other sh endings (Harauvatish, Thattagush etc.). But there is no evidence that the Persians called the Indus river Hindu. They were likely applying the sound change s > h to Sindhu. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Add picture of Mumbai

Hello fellow editors! Please allow me to add a picture of MUMBAI to the the ECONOMY section of the article (directly from Wikimedia commons). This has been done in articles of almost all other countries and even the main article for the subject, Economy of India, follows the format and has a picture of the city as its very first image. Mumbai is India's financial capital accounting for 6.16% of its GDP, and also portrays economic progress.
Regards,
AnotherHomoSapein (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Madrasian culture

Why is Madrasian culture not mentioned in the (pre)history section? --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Socialist State

India is not exactly a socialist state, in any definition of the word. The welfare state is not any different from its counterparts in most western countries. Regardless of what the constitution says, it should be a constitutional republic in the infobox. 42.109.232.70 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. We have liberalised a lot (for good), but Indira Gandhi's infamous forty-second constitutional amendment during the emergency in 1976 amended the preamble to the constitution and added the word 'socialist' (in addition to 'secular', which actually was good) to it, presumably to get India closer to the Soviet Union, as, Pakistan was close to the United States. So, whilst we are not a socialist state in practice (same with Portugal and others), we are—officially at least—a socialist state. And whilst Morarji Desai and successive prime ministers tried to—and succeeded to for the most part—convince the parliament to undo the extreme damage done to democratic institutions by the aforementioned amendment, 'socialist' was not removed by any Lok Sabha or government. So, 'socialist' would have stay. Sorry! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC); edited 16:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC) and 16:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

I disagree. We should not use governments' classification of themselves. We should label them based on classifications in reliable secondary sources. North Korea might like to call itself democratic, but you'd be hard pressed to find any reliable secondary source that would agree with the North Korean government on that. —Gazoth (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Gazoth, ok, on second thought, I am in favour of removing the word 'socialist' from the infobox. However, I still think that a full-fledged discussion, or even a request for comment needs to take place before we go about removing 'socialist' from the infobox. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC); edited 16:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

@SshibumXZ: Of course, we need check if reliable secondary sources actually disagree with the classification present in the preamble. I meant to say that we should not preclude the removal of the word "socialist" just because of its presence in the preamble. —Gazoth (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

We should probably just get rid of it unless better sources can be found. Of the three sources, two are primary (the preamble) while the third (Dutt) makes no mention of the word "socialist". --regentspark (comment) 19:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for startling awake so late, but the reason I object to using socialist in the infobox is that the country can easily be confused for a communist state by a novice reader. At least an explanatory note if you refuse to remove it. I would've removed it myself but the page is protected and I'm through with creating accounts on all websites. (Same person as IP above) 42.109.252.60 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I got rid of it. Complaints, brickbats welcome. --regentspark (comment) 19:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RegentsPark, nah, good call here by you. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 08:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Please mention the largest city in india with images.

Template:Largest cities of India Yadavjiias (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and consensus is against adding this template to the article. --regentspark (comment) 22:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Definition of India not lead worthy?

I have created following edit: diff, which adds the information of the very defintion of the country, but User:MilborneOne reverted it with the summary: probably true but not for the lead paragraph I would like to know the intention of this revert, because from a logical standpoint the revert reason makes zero sense to me.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Far to much for the lead of a featured article, we cant put every bit of trivia in the lead sentence and is covered in the government section. MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If this is a trivia information why is similar "trivia information" displayed for the United States article in the lead section in the first sentence itself? How do you arrive at the classification, that this information is "trivia" in the first place? I have no clue why it's an FA class article in such a condition, maybe because people like you have support it? --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:OTHER - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you expect me to believe that this is a valid argument against the inclusion of my edit? Pretty pointless. I've just asked for a logical reason to revert my edit and this is the stuff I've to deal with? Why can't you just admit that the revert is unwarranted and illogical at the core so we can move on without an edit war. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You asked why is similar "trivia information" displayed for the United States article in the lead section in the first sentence itself. That's my reply. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Is there something else you want to tell me, because it looks like you are trying to sabotage my work at Sangam literature.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Sabotage ? Where in the hell did you get that from ? I merely saw a total re-write of an article and no discussion about the changes and am requesting you get consensus for your changes, period. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Be very careful, I don't take kindly to personal attacks. Just concentrate on your content and stop worrying about users. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with ThaThinThaKiThaTha here, in that, I would favour including the mode of federalism that India follows in the lede; it's not too detailed and is not very long, short in fact, so, I see no problems here. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Official Name in Hindi

The official name of India is not written in Devnagri Script in the form भारतीय गणराज्य.Instead it is romanticized it should be corrected ASAP. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Srijanx22: Please provide reliable third party source to support your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Srijanx22, it's romanised for a reason; vide: WP:INDICSCRIPTS. India has two English names, viz. India and Bharat, both are written in the Roman (or Latin) script. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesnt have two english names.I am a reesident of my country and see Indian passport. It has two headinga:- 1.)Official Name in English:-Republic of India

2.)Official Name in Hindi:- भट्रीय गणराज्य Thus change the script of official name in hindi from Roman to Devnagari scipt. See libya or any other country it has official name in Englosh and then in native script. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

sorry thats भारतीय Regards Srijanx22 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Srijanx22, I am a citizen of India as well! The thing is we have no 'native' language per se, there is no Indian national language. The Government of India's official language is Hindi, with English being the subsidiary official language. The Constitution of India, the Official Language Act, 1962 and other government statutes, notifications et al. allow states to have their own official language, hence, there are more than twenty 'Eighth Schedule Languages', so to speak.

So, in reality, as we don't have a national language and a Wikipedia guideline discourages the use of Indic scripts because it is susceptible to language wars among the speakers of many languages of this land, I am in favour of only having the English language name accompanied by its IAST trasnliteration in the lede of the article. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Still my defence is if it is written in भारतीय गणराज्य is written in Indian passports why not in wikipedia.Hindi is our official language. Now in yr defence you cite that since India doesnt have a national language thats why u arent using Hindi script. But why pages of Singapore have thier name in Tamil scipt when Malay is national although Tamil is official language bit same is the case in india. Also Sri Lanka have thier name in Tamil scipt too as it is an official language there. Why only bias against Hindi? Why not with Tamil? Regards Srijanx22 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Srijanx22, okay, see: the many, many, many discussions in regards to this; please, oh please, see: WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Basically, there were flame-wars between speakers of different languages as to which language—if any—should be used in India-related articles' infoboxes and ledes. So, after multiple discussions, it was decided that it'd be generally be better off in not having Indic scripts in India-related articles' lede and infobox.

Also, Hindi is not exactly, in my opinion, completely the official language of all central institutions. For example, communication between the centre and the Hindi-speaking states is carried out in Hindi, whereas, communication between the centre and the non-Hindi-speaking states is carried out in English. In addition, the Supreme Court of India and the high courts pass their judgments in English only, except for certain high courts like the Allahabad High Court, which are granted a special exemption by the President of India to carry out their proceedings in Hindi.

So, all in all, there is no extra bias against Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and speakers of the any of the many languages living in this great land have to face the same discrimination; ever wondered why the article on Tamil Nadu has no Tamil in its infobox or lede, what about Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, their articles don't contain Telugu-language text in their infoboxes and ledes, the same thing happens with West Bengal (Bengali), Odisha (Odiya), Kerala (Malayalam), Karnataka (Kannada), Maharashtra (Marathi), Assam (Assamese), Nagaland (Nagamese) and other states. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC); edited 20:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC).

And this is the English Language Wikipedia, where one might expect to see non-English-alphabet texts transliterated at the very least. Bazza (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Using val

Some recent edits added the following (references omitted) to India#Ancient India:

The Madrasian culture in Tamil Nadu is the earliest known Paleolitihic site in India, dated to about 1.5 Ma ago. The earliest authenticated human remains in South Asia date to about 30000 yr ago.

That uses {{val}} twice. The first could be justified although I don't see a need to complicate this article with jargon like Ma—writing plain "1.5 million years ago" is more appropriate here, as is done even at Paleolithic which needs it ten times. Writing "30000 yr ago" instead of "30,000 years ago" is definitely inappropriate as this is a general article. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The current format doesn't look like the format used in the rest of the article. So I would prefer the written form without the template.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I used the template, and its not being used in the rest of the article is not a valid reason to use it when appropriate. It's appropriate to use when there's a risk of numbers not being correctly formatted (for example, across a line break). I've changed the formatting as you suggested. If you want to change the wording further, then do so. Remember to keep the numbers intact, including any suffix such as "million". Bazza (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks good to me now. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: This edit introduced a typo and changed:

1.5 million years → {{Val|1.5|u=million years}}

30,000 years → {{Val|30000|fmt=commas|u=years}}

That is completely unnecessary. A search for "30,000 years" shows that text occurs in many articles without needing a template (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). There is no reason to use {{val}} for ordinary text like this—would you recommend changing every occurrence of N years/months/days with val? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq My undo edit reintroduced a typo, your correction of which you had not included in your edit summary; hence the reason I missed it. You say that using {{Val}} is "completely unnecessary": that's a very strong and prescriptive statement. I like to use {{Val}} when there's possibility of compound numbers (such as "1.5 million") being split across lines. That happened here, so I did the edit and, for good measure, included the other large number in the sentence. The end result is as intended. There's no need to throw eight links at me to prove your point. To answer your two questions: 1) no, but it can be useful, as I think it is here; 2) I don't understand what "Why?" refers to. (I have corrected the typo (although you could have done the same).) Bazza (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Bit rude to unilaterally change something under discussion without notification here. Your argument in the edit summary about 30,000 is dubious: the published text using "30,000 years" or "{{Val|30000|fmt=commas|u=years}}" is identical. Must be a personal thing. I have, per MOS:NUMERAL, corrected your HTML entity for a non-breaking space in "1.5 million" with {{nbsp}}. Bazza (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Economy section images

Some of the images in the Economy section are of extremely poor quality. I noticed that the last time a discussion took place regarding these images was way back in 2012 and now, fortunately, we have better images in Wikimedia library. I've gone ahead and added the following images.

New Images for the Economy Section

• 
• 

Thanks! --King Zebu (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Updation of obsolete data in Economy section

Looks like the Economy section is being neglected. Most of the data is almost 7-10 years old and therefore, it does not reflect latest statistics and figures. I've taken the liberty to improve this section and hope other Wikipedians would chip in.

Also, a sincere request to our veteran Wikipedians to not blindly revert sincere attempts to improve the article. I believe that sometimes senior Wikipedians get too carried away in their zeal to maintain a "good version" of the article. But fact remains, edits such as this by User:RegentsPark are not at all helpful.

Thanks --King Zebu (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi King Zebu. You're welcome to change economic data as long as you provide adequate sources. However, changing the text under the guise of updating data, as you have done here is not acceptable. I've removed it once, and will remove that again. Some of your changes are ok but you need to try to get into the habit of seeking consensus before you make changes rather than complain when you're reverted after you make changes. A quick read of WP:BRD would probably be helpful. Best. --regentspark (comment) 23:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Regent. I get your point and thanks for your constructive feedback. I will actively seek consensus before making major edits and will also focus on writing more descriptive edit summaries. --King Zebu (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Demographic section images

Here are the current images in Demographic section

Image Section 1

• 
  A coal miner in Bachra, Jharkhand
• 
  Children prepare for a traditional dance in Tripura.
• 
  Women in Kargil, Jammu and Kashmir
• 
  A handicraft seller in Hyderabad, Telangana
• 
  A Bondo woman walks to a weekly market in Chhattisgarh.
• 
  Women attend a literacy programme in Thiruputkuzhi, Tamil Nadu.
• 
  A woman in Bundi, Rajasthan
• 
  An ascetic in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

NONE of these images represent the urban population (est. to be 34% by World Bank) and its middle class population (est. to be around 350 million).

The images really need to be more representative of the diverse Indian population. --King Zebu (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What's your idea of a middle-class Indian, because in every State there will be a different definition of it. It's not that easy. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

For example,

Image Section 1

• 

--King Zebu (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a bad example. It's a wedding ceremony of an obviously wealthy family. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a wealthy family, but an upper middle class family. And that was my point - to represent middle class Indians and not just the tribal / rural section of the population. --King Zebu (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the big Indian middle-class (that should be represented) is far away from this projection. This middle class is happy to have a small car or a bike and has decent clothes, something like this: [1] would be more representative.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think this needs more thought. The nice thing about the current set is that they are drawn from different parts of India and any changes should keep that diversity. Something like the scooter picture suggested by ThaThinThaKiThaTha might be a good addition to the set though. --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

Akhileshyadav287 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2018 (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. DannyS712 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 December 2018

The Largest city of India is Delhi 115.96.198.195 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2018 (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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 December 2018

So, User:Azuredivay started pushing his agenda / POV in violation MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:NUMERAL, repeatedly ignored pleas to engage in a discussion and build consensus and then engaged in multiple revert wars( [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

And what do the Admins do? They protect the article keeping the version which User:Azuredivay wanted - basically rewarding him for his edit warring, for not building consensus and for not following Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines. Wow! Do the Admins even read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines anymore? --King Zebu (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC) King Zebu (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the first diff above and you are correct, that diff is pretty shocking and anything like it should be removed. However, much of the rest of the above is not going to help. Admins are not permitted to adjudicate disputes, but they are encouraged to stop edit wars. The way to approach someone on a mission is slowly. Someone else should notice a problem and revert. Ask for assistance at noticeboards. If one person is reverting a bunch of people the one person can be reported at WP:EWN. All that can be done now is to discuss the issue calmly. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Done --King Zebu (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but reporting a user now, after an admin has chosen to protect the article, may not get a result you want. Also, comments have to be very polite: stick to "against consensus, against MOS" and do not mention stuff like "pushing his agenda" or "POV". That makes it look like a battle between opposing forces for which the remedy is to block everyone (or protect the article). What needs to happen to the article at the moment? Does it need to be reverted to an earlier version? Please link to that version so others can comment on whether that would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Declined as edit request doesnt actually include a request to change the article. Edit request should indicate the changes required and supporting references and discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Done - raised another request. --King Zebu (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 December 2018

Please revert changes made by User:Azuredivay which I believe are not in sync with MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:NUMERAL and these changes were made without building consensus on talkpage despite repeatedly pleas to do so. --King Zebu (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Changes provide more info and help more people understand the figures being talked about as the said numbers are common for the target readers. That said, for rest the other numbering system is written in parallel so no information is withheld. -Azuredivay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already replied back to your flawed logic here. You have a history of deviant behaviour and edit warring on Wikipedia and show little regard for building consensus, even telling one User "I dare you to stop me". --King Zebu (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done this content dispute will need to be worked out here on the talk page first; this does not appear to be a pressing factual correction that will harm readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for 49.14.101.189 (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Needs a bit for information on what you think is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Population

There's a mathematical problem in the infobox. It should say (for 2016) 1,324,171,354. The same for 2011.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, completely understand your confusion. Unfortunately, an Admin thought it was best to reward someone who engaged in edit-warring, POV-pushing and violated Wikipedia MOS guidelines --King Zebu (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey team wikipedia,kindly correct the population of india written in very starting of the article.Actually india's population is around 121crore(census 2011),but in this article it is mentioned that india's population is 1200 crore insted of 121 or 120 crore.So kindly correct it. Ankit Singh dhannu (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

We've noticed that population figure is wrong, but the article is under full protection, due to edit warring, which has prevented most of us from correcting it until tomorrow (hopefully). However, thank you for mentioning this, as it justifies the urgency in correcting it that some of us have felt and that we feel others should have shared. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 December 2018

Total population is not rightly quoted. 122.162.29.109 (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2018 (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. General Ization ^Talk 05:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Unofficial version of national anthem with incorrect timings

Why is an unofficial version of national anthem with incorrect timing is used in Wikipedia? 1337 siddh (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Text

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Which text are you referring to? This one in the lead? Please advise:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE — one of the world's earliest civilizations. The Iron Age Vedic period, saw the composition of the Vedas, the seminal texts of Hinduism, coalesced into Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste. Large-scale urbanization occurred on the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the first millennium BCE leading to the Mahajanapadas (large, urbanised states), and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Magadhan dynasties of Nandas, Mauryas and Guptas from the north and by the Satavahanas and Chalukyas in the Deccan; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms, notably Pallavas and Cholas, influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia; while the Tripartite Struggle, centred on Kannauj, lasted for more than two centuries for the control of the Indian subcontinent between the Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Gurjara-Pratiharas in the early Medieval era. Much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. The country was unified in the 17th century by the Mughals, during this period Sikhism arose. In the 18th century, much of the Indian subcontinent came under imperial Maratha and Sikh rule, however, by the mid-19th century much of the Indian subcontinent came under the British East India Company, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.

(Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

This is the last stable version of RegentsPark. It isn't a year old, but from 27 November 2018. Please revert to it. Then bring your textual edits here one at a time for discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

He already reverted it. Again, I am not responsible for those other edits. The above paragraph is what I worked on. Let me know what you don't like. We can work on the other ones as well. Even though, those are not mine. But, I do agree with it. So, I have no issue working with you on it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) What is objectionable on the above paragraph? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

I'm sorry but the prose is too poor for an FA. There is redundancy, e.g. after mentioning 3rd millennium BCE what need is there to say "one of the world's earliest civilizations. There are claims for which there is no consensus among scholars, such as Vedas being "the seminal texts of Hinduism." The next sentence is run-on. What does "coalesced into Janapadas and social-stratification based on caste" mean? "Coalesce" means "to combine, to merge, to form one whole." It seems to be merging into two things. "Later shifting to British crown rule?" It didn't just shift; it was the result of the Rebellion of 1857, which resulted in the abolition of Company rule and direct administration by the Crown. You've removed mention of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. Sorry, it is a non-starter. We had hammered out the lead over months, a sentence at a time. Yours is too bloated, even after removal of some previous text, it has added four lines. This was the stable version:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE. In the following millennium, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism began to be composed. Social stratification, based on caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia. In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, all adding to the region's diverse culture. Much of the north fell to the Delhi Sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. The economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal Empire. In the mid-18th century, the subcontinent came under British East India Company rule, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This version is missing a lot of info. But, I can agree with many of your points and disagree.

1. "one of the world's earliest civilizations - we can remove that.
2. "the seminal texts of Hinduism" - we can remove that.
3. Both Kuru and Panchala did "coalesce", they were tribes that formed a realm. The name Panchala itself is a coalesce of 5 tribes. However, I don't want to make it like the Greek-Macedonia name dispute, and fight you over that word. How about emerge? Or any other word you recommend for the Janapadas.
4. "You've removed mention of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc." - Christianity and Judaism played a small role compared to Hinduism or Islam. And Islam was mentioned with Delhi Sultanate and Mughals.
5. Please note: Wikipedia:There is no deadline

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) As such, is this acceptable. I took all your concerns and addressed it. Kindly let me know what else needs to be changed, if there is any:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE. The Iron Age Vedic period, saw the composition of the Vedas, the rise of Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste. Large-scale urbanization occurred on the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the first millennium BCE leading to the Mahajanapadas (large, urbanised states), and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Magadhan dynasties of Nandas, Mauryas and Guptas from the north and by the Satavahanas and Chalukyas in the Deccan; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms, notably Pallavas and Cholas, influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia; while the Tripartite Struggle, centred on Kannauj, lasted for more than two centuries between the Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Gurjara-Pratiharas in the early Medieval era. The late Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim population, with much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the 17th century, much of the subcontinent was unified by the Mughals, during this period Sikhism arose. In the 18th century, much of the Indian subcontinent came under imperial Maratha and Sikh rule, however, by the mid-19th century much of the Indian subcontinent came under the British East India Company, and by the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.

(Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Sadly, the prose is not even G class much less FA. Sorry, but you can't present a paragraph. I have given you the stable version. If you want to change a sentence, please present that sentence and your improvement, and we can have that discussion. The history section of the lead of the India article is the summary style distillation of the entire history section of the India article, which in turn is the summary style distillation of all History of India articles. You are directly editing the lead. Please read WP:Lead_fixation. Again, one sentence at a time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) can you please mediate this? I think Fowler and I hit a wall. Can you talk into consideration both versions and make a neutral call? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks, I haven't hit any wall. My version has been in the article for many years. This history section for some eight years. You apparently think summarizing is so easy that you can within minutes replace one doozy with another. Here is one, and there are many, in every sentence: "The late Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim population, with much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate." Really? Who was taking the census in India before 1871? What part of the History section is that summarizing, not to mention the errors of simple syntax ? And you expect me to waste my time engaging your edits, in any rational manner. Pasted below is the actual paragraph from the history section about the Delhi sultanate and the Vijayanagara kingdom. Tell me where does that say anything about the growth of the Muslim population. It says only that the non-Muslim subjects were largely left alone; it speaks of the migration of urban elites, artists, etc from the lands devastated by the Mongols and the creation of an Indo-Islamic culture, without mentioning any demographic bump. More generally, you have bloated the text with names of Hindu rulers, exaggerating their relatively short-lived confederacies or kingdoms to empires. Really, the Marathas came to control much of the subcontinent? Did they ever reach the Sutlej? Did they ever get below the Krishna river? Ever in Awadh? Ever into Bengal, other than their periodic raids of mass murder and rape, including of the weavers of Cossimbazar and Dacca? Did they leave behind perhaps, a Qutub Minar, a Red Fort, a Humayun's Tomb, an Agra Fort, a Fatehpur Sikri, even crumbling monuments of architectural significance in the Western Ghats? In 1707, Aurengzeb was still in the Deccan, the heartland of the Marathas, when he died, and in 1761, the Marathas had been defeated in the Battle of Panipat by the Afghans, not to mention the British winning the Battle of Buxar in 1764, and controlling the revenue in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. So, half a century constitutes the Maratha Empire, but two centuries of Mughal rule, acknowledged around the world, with the many linguistic uses of the word "Moghul," you refer to as [[Mughal empire|Mughals]]? Here is the first half of the original of what you seem to be summarizing by some mysterious artifice of historiography and precis writing: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph from the history section: "After the 10th century, Muslim Central Asian nomadic clans, using swift-horse cavalry and raising vast armies united by ethnicity and religion, repeatedly overran South Asia's north-western plains, leading eventually to the establishment of the Islamic Delhi Sultanate in 1206.[62] The sultanate was to control much of North India and to make many forays into South India. Although at first disruptive for the Indian elites, the sultanate largely left its vast non-Muslim subject population to its own laws and customs.[63][64] By repeatedly repulsing Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, setting the scene for centuries of migration of fleeing soldiers, learned men, mystics, traders, artists, and artisans from that region into the subcontinent, thereby creating a syncretic Indo-Islamic culture in the north.[65][66] The sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire.[67] Embracing a strong Shaivite tradition and building upon the military technology of the sultanate, the empire came to control much of peninsular India,[68] and was to influence South Indian society for long afterwards.[67]" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) by that logic, how was Christianity or Judaism significant to the history of the subcontinent? I don’t think British considered themselves as Christian power, as they divided Indian history in Hindu, Muslim and British. Why put Judaism here? Isn’t that exaggerating Jewish history in India? If you are impartial, shouldn’t Christianity and Judaism which take a sentence be removed? We can add Sikhs in the same sentence after Mughals. As I have done above. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Also, your cherry picked views on the Maratha is rubbish; Guptas, Mughals in India or eastern Romans or Sassanids in West Asia did NOT have uniformed control of their territory beyond their core in any time in history. You should know better. The Marathas did control upto Attock and south to Tamil Nadu under various Maratha dynasties or Peshwa rule as listed here. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

And you are telling me, Mughals or British did not kill or rape? If yes, why bring it up regarding the Marathas alone? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

The British never came even remotely close to killing and raping at the level of the Marathas in Bengal, anytime, anywhere during their 200 year old rule in India, they especially did not rape. Never were 400,000 massacred. The diversity of religions (i.e. references to Parsis and Jews, to Christians and Muslims) in the lead goes back some 10 years. That is not my work. You'll have to look at the many discussions on this talk page about that. You are only the 25th newly-arrived editor who has attempted to remove that edit in the last ten or twelveyears. As for the Mughals, please do not distort the facts. What was the core region of the Mughals? For in 1605, their empire ranged from beyond Kabul and Qandahar in Afghanistan in the west, to Kashmir in the north, to the Brahmaputra-Meghna delta in Bengal in the east, to the Godavari river in the Deccan. In 1700, it ranged from beyond Kabul and Qandahar in Afghanistan, to Kashmir in the north, to the Brahmaputra-Meghna delta in Bengal, to even farther south, the Kaveri in Tamil Nadu. I have maps, from 150 year old ones to 50 year old ones that attest to this, not to mention modern references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This, by the way, is as far as I go in engaging you. Had you anything significant to state, I would have. My contribution history on this page belies any notion that I run away from discussion, but I don't suffer UNDUE gladly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Who is distorting facts? The Mughals had core regions of the Ganges-Yamana and the rest was through tributaries or faced constant rebellions: from the Hindu rajas of Bengal and Orissa in the east, like Raja Sitaram Ray, to their core areas by Jats, Sikhs and Rajputs in the west. And using a straw-man and unreferenced argument like "British did not come close killing and raping at the level of the Marathas in Bengal" is absolutely rubbish. The man-made famines they caused in Bengal itself is more, forget any war. And the accounts mainly come from British and Muslim sources, and both had vested interested against a Hindu power, and Hindus (Bengali Hindus) were poor with historical record keeping. Either way, the Marathas were the foremost power from 1720 to at least 1806 in India. The British themselves acknowledge it in their surveys: "India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta, and every other state acknowledges the influence of one or the other. Every inch that we recede will be occupied by them..." -- Charles Metcalfe, 1806. Your last statement will not serve your cause. Either engage or don't complain about the revisions. (H4ighpeaks35 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

Really Metcalf and Nehru? Are they secondary sources or tertiary? Primary sources, especially old ones don't count. Here is a tertiary source, Webster's Encyclopedia's India page's history section: "India has been inhabited for thousands of years. Agriculture in India dates to the 7th millennium BCE, and an urban civilization, that of the Indus valley, was established by 2600 BCE. Buddhism and Jainism arose in the 6th century BCE in reaction to the caste-based society created by the Vedic religion and its successor, Hinduism. The first Muslim contact with the subcontinent was in the 8th century CE. Muslim invasions began after c. 1000, establishing the long-lived Delhi sultanate in 1206 and the Mughal dynasty in 1526. Vasco da Gama's voyage to India in 1498 initiated several centuries of commercial rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and French. British conquests in the 18th and 19th centuries led to the rule of the British East India Co., and direct administration by the British Empire began in 1858. After Mohandas K. Gandhi helped end British rule in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru became India's first prime minister, ..." Where are the vaunted Marathas? See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What about Britannica's History section? Its major subdivisions are: 1) India from the paleolithic period to the decline of the Indus civilization. 2) Indian civilization from 1500 BCE to 1200 CE 3) The early Muslim period 4) The Mughal empire 1526–1761 5) The Regional states 1700–1850, 6) India and the European expansion, c 1500–1858, 7) British Imperial power 1858–1947, 8) Republic of India. Where are the Maratha Confederacy (not empire) placed? In the Regional states section along with the Sikhs, the Afghans, Rajputana, Mysore, and Travancore, etc. Who are the authors of the Britannica article? They are (section wise): 1) Frank Raymond Allchin, 2) Romila Thapar 3) R Champalakshmi, 4) Muzaffar Alam, 5) Sanjay Subrahmanyam 6) Percival Spear, 7) Stanley Wolpert. They are all well-known historians of India. Britannica doesn't have a lead, but I am going just by the distribution of text allotted to the Mughals, their own section, contrasted with the Maratha Confederacy, a subsection in the Regional States section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As for famines in India during British rule, which were the man made famines? The Great Bengal Famine of 1769–1770, when the British only had the Diwani (the right to collect taxes, which they had farmed out to the Nawab of Bengal's tax collectors in Murshidabad), but not the Nizamat (the right to govern), which they did in 1772, after the famine? Or are you talking about the Bengal famine of 1943? Read the Wikipedia article. Where does is say it is man made and man=British? There were many guilty parties, not least the Muslim interim government of Suhrawardy, which unlike the Congress, had not resigned in 1939; there were the Hindu grain merchants of Calcutta who were hoarding grain and sending prices sky-rocketing; there was the absence of Burma rice, after the fall of Burma in early 1942; there was the abandonment of women and children by Hindu rural men, in a last-ditch effort to preserve the male line, by migrating to the cities (see Arjun Appadurai's review of the Bengal famine books); there was the recalcitrance of Winston Churchill and his war cabinet; and there were still a few other factors. If you don't mean the two Bengal famines, then which famines do you mean, as all the others between 1770 and 1943 were the result of drought and crop failure. I should know, I wrote all the famine articles. They were all consequences of El Niño events. The British after all appointed three famine commissions which wrote the famous India Famine Code, which was adopted by the UN and WHO for use in much later famines, worldwide. India's agriculture has always been rain dependent. There were famines in Indian ruled states before the full supremacy by the British: see, for example, Chalisa famine and Doji bara famine. See also the section on famines in Tirthankar Roy's Economic History of India 1858–1947. Again, the British were the first people in India to collect data, but they did not rape and plunder like the Marathas. The famines were not rape and plunder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for at least now coming back with facts, rather than insults. I appreciate it. Britannica section barely mentions Vijayanagara Empire in contrast to the Sultanate. However, this is increasingly changing in recent scholarship. Both Vijayanagaras and Marathas are given more attention in recent literature (2000s and after). Vijayanagara and Marathas are not included in the Chronology of 1990s or earlier (British Chronology). (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

You are welcome. To be sure, some Britannica sections are dated, such as Company era history written by Percival Spear (long dead) or the British Raj, written by Stanley Wolpert (long retired), but the Mughal and early modern sections (which include Vijayanagara and the Marathas) have been written by active current historians, Muzaffar Alam at Chicago and Sanjay Subrahmanyam at UCLA. Their sections were added to the Britannica history during the last ten or twelve years, well into the 21st century. In my understanding, both Vijayanagara and the Marathas gained power as a result of using the military technology, of both hardware and strategy, of the Muslim power up North, i.e. the Sultanate and the Mughals respectively, see for example Asher and Talbot, India before Europe (2008) and Metcalf and Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India 2013, respectively. The problem with the lead is that there was a word limit, as I remember it, and we had reached it. The current version was the best NPOV version within the word limit. Adding something means removing something else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, if word limit is an issue. We have a sentence that we both can agree is over embellished with bias: "In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, all adding to the region's diverse culture." With the exception of Islam, which is mentioned in later sentences, the other regions are overbearing in the lead. We can easily get rid of this sentence and replace with mention of Sikh and Maratha political ascendency or something else of importance we can both agree. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

It is not you and me. I already oppose your suggestion, on the grounds that the section is not just about history but also mentions the religious culture of India. There aren't that many Buddhists in India either, or for that matter Jains. They number less than Christians in India today. You try to get consensus for removing it from others, given that the sentence has been in the lead for ten years. Good luck. And if no one responds, or only one or two people respond, then you don't have consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This is about the impact not population. Buddhism and Jainism had a profound impact in large sections of Indian history. It is not about current population or religion, but past. Christianity or Judaism were not Indian relgions nor are their impact significant for the lead, maybe in a later paragraph. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

References

Large scale edits to India Comment

I have reverted large scale edits to this article to the last stable version edited by @RegentsPark:. To the editors engaging in these edits, please note: India is a featured article. Please read WP:OWN#Featured_articles for guidelines on how to edit an FA. For adding anything significant, sometimes even one sentence, you need to gain consensus on the talk page first, especially when an edit has been challenged. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Highpeaks: has undone your reverts fowler. Highpeaks, I'm going to revert you. The edits largely contain many new images and the consensus for images on this article are that they should only be changed by consensus. Some of the changes do have consensus and I'm pinging @King Zebu:, with apologies, so that those changes can be restored. Highpeaks, please look at the discussion on the top of this talk page to see how to go about proposing changes to the images in this article. --regentspark (comment) 22:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Highpeaks35:. (Fixing bad ping above.)--regentspark (comment) 22:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: this version has tons of old data and there are tons of updated references and info. It will be best to restore and remove areas that are not agreeded upon. This is too much revision to have any discussion. Let me know what you think. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC))

I will leave the changes here. If anyone has objections, please advise. If not, I will restore the updated data, images, and content. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC))

(ec) Could you give examples of the old data? I think 2019 gdp estimates are premature so 2018 is probably better. Are there other examples?--regentspark (comment) 22:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Data was one of the several points. But, it seems population data is also reversed and others. As mentioned, there are tons of updated info and references. Again, if there is no objection, I don’t see what is the issue of restoring. I was under the assumption of Wikipedia:There is no deadline, plus it is not a protected article. Again, if there is objection, the content will be changed, if not, we should restore. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC))

You can't restore the image changes because those need consensus. If you think some data is incorrect, go ahead and change those. --regentspark (comment) 23:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: thank you so much! Will do. :) (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

@Highpeaks35: You're still adding images without consensus and you can't do that without appearing disruptive. I'm going to revert your edits again, let the discussion below run its course first. --regentspark (comment) 02:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Which image? I thought I removed all of them? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Economy section images

Regent, I cannot restore the last good version of Economy images. We had clearly built consensus here for these images and if Fowler has a problem with these images too, then the ball is in his court to build consensus to remove the Economy section images. --King Zebu (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Images on FA India: how they were selected in 2011 and 2012

The FA India has a total of 71 images (including maps). Other than one extra paddy field image that was added without consensus by someone later, the selection was the result of a discussion that lasted over a year with inputs from dozens of editors. It began with admin Saravask's post in section 25, Talk:India/Archive 35, October 2011, and sections below, and continued in methodical fashion to Talk:India/Archive 36, and ended with Talk:India/Archive 37, sections 33 through 38, in November 2012. Please see: User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India for a complete list of images. (I say there that many images are part of a rotation group whose displayed image changes every day, so you will not see the images all at once, but only gradually over a week.) I believe no Wikipedia FA has as many images as FA India.

@King Zebu: has declared consensus for a change in images as a result of two responses after one week. Did he ping any of the editors involved in the previous consensus, many of whom are active on Wikipedia, but don't actively watch this talk page? Did he post on WT:INDIA? I didn't see anything. How then is this consensus, especially when the reasons offered are not in line with the facts. Is he aware that as of 2015, 80% of India's milk production was contributed by dairy farmers with one or two milch cattle? How then does a mechanized dairy become more representative? He has claimed that while there are images of the Taj Mahal, there are not enough images of "native Indian architecture style which goes back thousands of years." But this is not in line with facts. As you will see in my list, the article already has Ajanta (Buddhist), Chola temple, Hampi (Vijayanagara), Mahabodhi temple, etc. The Taj Mahal image, moreover, is as much about the clothing (shawl and sarong) of the visitors from Northeast India in the foreground, as about the Taj forming the background. It is claimed that agriculture contributes only 20% of India's GDP, as if contribution to GDP is the critical factor in the choice of images, but it is not mentioned that the agriculture sector employs 60% of India's workforce. It is claimed that India is ranked sixth in List of countries by GDP (nominal), a mark of its progress, especially industrial progress, but not mentioned that it ranks 140 out of 188 countries in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, with average income of $1,983 per year, according to the IMF data for 2017. There are no clear guidelines on how to choose images for a Wikipedia article, but whatever is chosen needs to be representative and relevant and the result of credible consensus. I am not saying that the old images are etched in stone and cannot be changed, but that if it is felt a change is needed, that idea should first be discussed. Second, as India is the flagship article for WP:India, other editors who work on India-related topics, but not necessarily on this page, or have participated in previous image discussions, editors such as Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Vanamonde, Sitush, AshLin, Sarah Welch, Tilo Dutta, RedtiergX, Spaceman Spiff, Abecedare, etc, should be invited to weigh in on the new selection of images. The image selection should also be advertised on various WP venues. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, that is rubbish. If King Zebu did that, he would have been accused by some of WP:CANVAS, WP:BATTLEFIELD or WP:TAGTEAM, etc. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

I'm going to keep this short and crisp long and boring

What are the Wikipedia guidelines for building Consensus? Does Wikipedia:Consensus say to build consensus on talkpage? Yes, and I did so. Does Wikipedia:Consensus specifically say that a Consensus is not valid if 2 other Wikipedians have supported it and no one else has opposed it? No, it doesn't. Does Wikipedia:Consensus say that a Consensus is not valid if the topic is not raised on relevant noticeboard (in this case, WT:INDIA)? No, it doesn't. It only mentions the Noticeboard in instances of dispute.

This User expects me to seek the opinion of all parties involved in previous Consensus which was achieved 7 YEARS AGO. Is this how Wikipedia expects to operate? If this is going to be the mechanism of operation, then the content of Wikipedia will never improve. I went through India artcile's edit history, identified Wikipedians who have frequently edited India article in recent past and requested them to chip-in. I did my part, but this User will still find reasons to undermine my efforts because my efforts don't fit into his bias and agenda (which is evident to everyone).

Now, this User accuses me of posting content not in line with facts and conveniently cherry-picks dairy farming topic to dismiss the entire set of changes made. To re-emphasise, all the content added were backed by neutral, verifiable, reliable and latest sources.

It is clear that this User is taking recent improvements made to the article as a personal snub ("my list", etc.). It is extremely dangerous when Wikipedians start seeing Wikipedia as their own personal projects and vehemently defend their version of article (which he is conveniently trying to defend as the "FA version").

It is evident that most of the content in Economy section and in the images' caption in this User's version dates back to 2011-12. And, the recent improvements simply updated the content to include latest statistics (automobile production, electricity generation, etc.). He removed all of it - but will talk about only dairy farming but that is more convenient for him. So, let's talk about dairy farming.

I had clearly mentioned that the old image on dairy farming (which showed a dairy farmer milking a cow with his bare hands) didn't add any value to the economy section. India's dairy sector has seen rapid growth over the past few years and industrial landscape has changed a lot, especially since 2011-12.

Here are some latest facts:

• Organised dairies in India will enhance capacity by 30% over next 3 years
• Organised dairies in India, which account for 80% of entire dairy output, are investing billions in production infrastructure, packaging and supply-chain
• India's dairy sector is growing by 15% annually
• Specifically, milk processing sector is growing by 20.5% annually

These are facts and figures from 2018 period. And therefore, that 2015 article is already outdated. There is no denying the fact that some dairy farmers in India haven't adopted mechanisation yet. But to have an image of a dairy farmer milking a cow on main India image and somehow manage to argue that it is representative of India's economy?! I don't buy this at all and I see a clear bias and agenda here.

Now coming to agricultural sector in India. This User claims that even though agricultural sector in India contributes only 20% of the GDP (which is again outdated; it is far less now), the sector employs 60% of the workforce. And he provides no source to back his claim. See, I don't cook up statistics out of thin air.

• In 2015, number of non-farm jobs in India overtook farm jobs
• By 2022, India's construction sector already supports 50 million jobs

So, clearly agriculture no longer supports the majority of jobs in India - but this User chooses to remain stuck in 2011-12. There is no denying the fact again that though agriculture now contributes less than 20% of India's GDP, it is still the single-largest source of employment in India. But does that mean that more than 90% of images in the Economy section be on agriculture/fisheries/dairy sector?

Is the bias of this Wikipedian not evident when he cites List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita (which ranks India 140 out of 188) but conveniently does not mention List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (which ranks India 120 out of 182)? Is the bias of this Wikipedian not evident when he conveniently chooses to ignore List of countries by real GDP growth rate (which ranks India 1 out 192 nations), List of countries by industrial production growth rate (which ranks India 24 out of 202 territories and clearly the only large economy in top 30), List of countries by GDP (PPP) (which ranks India 3 out of 190) and List of countries by GDP (nominal) (which ranks India 6 out of 190)?

I can put forward many more arguments, but I don't have the time to spare. That said, I hope that the facts and viewpoints shared above have shed some light on what this User trying to do. Rest, I leave the esteemed Wikipedia community to decide.

Oh, and one last thing - as the old Chinese saying goes, "change is the inevitable fact of life". So, this User can pretend to be stuck in 2011-12 and pull up outdated facts to back up his claims, but fact remains that one who resists change perishes with time. --King Zebu (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you not reading your own references? Here is your example: Organised dairies in India will enhance capacity by 30% over next 3 years There is a difference between the production or harvesting of milk and the processing. Your new image has caption, "A high quality image which showcases industralization of diary processing sector in India." The processing of milk has always been mechanical for 60 years in India. It is that sector that is growing, as more Indians are buying processed milk, rather than having a milkman deliver it in a can. The milk in a processing plant is, however, procured from a farmer. The old image was addressing the production or harvesting of milk. Most milk in India was in 2015, and still today, harvested from milch cattle in a herd size of a few cattle owned by private farmers. The original image showed that farmer and that cow. The economic fact, illustrated by the picture, has not changed much. See Science Direct survey H. Wahid and Y Rosnina Buffalo milk in Asia, 2016, (scroll down the left column for it), which says, "The annual production of buffalo milk in the Asia–Pacific region exceeds 55 million tonnes (see Table 4), with India and Pakistan contributing more than 50 million tonnes (Figure 3). Almost all the milk is produced in smallholder farms." and a little later, "Milking Technique: Milk letdown is slower in buffalo than in cattle. The presence of the calf initiates the milk letdown reflex. In most smallholder farms, animals are hand-milked and the calf is used to stimulate milk letdown," If you think the picture has changed substantially in 2018, please read Jack Yates, "Three diverse Indian dairy systems compared," Farmer's Weekly, UK, 23 November 2018, which says, "Around 75m of India's farmers are dairy producers, with an average herd size of just one-to-five cows on a holding of anything from one acre to no land at all. These farmers account for a total of 18% of the world’s milk production, making India the largest milk producer on the planet." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Was there any consensus for text and images added recently?

It is clear that @Highpeaks35: does not have any consensus yet for adding any images or text. However, @King Zebu: has been claiming that he has consensus for changes he made in November and December. I don't believe consensus had been achieved, either for the content changes, or for the image changes. These editors know very well that this is a Featured Article, in which any significant edits are typically discussed on the talk page first. However, they have done little of that. Here are some examples of King Zebu's text edits:

• At 19:45 (UTC) 24 November 2018, with less than accurate edit summary ("Added recent report findings"), King Zebu both removed text from the article as well as added new text. Nothing was discussed on the talk page, before or after.
• At 16:38 (UTC) 26 November 2018, user:RegentsPark removed that edit, with edit summary ("restore last good version")
• At 05:38 (UTC) 30 November 2018 King Zebu restored his edit with edit summary ("Restored revised version with latest data. If someone has a problem, please raise concern on the talk page instead of edit warring")
• At 06:52 30 November 2018 King Zebu added nearly two paragraphs of text with edit summery ("This entire section is filled with obsolete and incomplete information. Fixed some things -- much more is required.")
• At 19:03 30 November 2018 King Zebu removed text and added nearly two paragraphs more with edit summary, "removed outdated information and replaced with latest, verifiable and reliable data")

As for the images changes, editors can see for themselves in Talk:India#Updation_of_images_in_Economy_section, King Zebu did make a post on 2 December 2018, proposing certain changes. He essentially received one response, from @RegentsPark:, for the other was a perfunctory response by a user with redlinked name. On the basis of that response, he declared a week later that he had consensus. Is this how we proceed in editing a longstanding featured article whose images were added after a year long discussion (from October 2011 to November 2012, see section above), filling three talk page archives, and involving the input of dozens of editors? Now that the article is no longer locked down, I am concerned that they will attempt to restore their edits, leading to edit warring again. I have already shown above, that the proposed change in the milk dairy image was based on a false premise, which confused the harvesting of milk, which as of December 2018 in India, was done by hand by farmers with small herd size, with the processing of milk. There are issues with others as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Economy section: Reverting images and content upgrade

Back in 1st week of December 2018, we had clearly built CONSENSUS on this very talkpage regarding new images for Economy section. We had also upgraded the content of this section - adding latest economic statistics backed by VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE and LATEST sources.

Consensus was achieved, changes were made and the section was clearly stable. Now, Fowler&fowler comes in, pleads that he was away for weeks, and blatantly reverts all the hard-work. Going by the racist and derogatory comments this User has made in this very talkpage, it is clear that he has a clear anti-India and anti-Hindu bias and that explains the intent behind some of his edits to India-related articles.

It is therefore Fowler who needs to build consensus now to remove the Economy section images and content added in early December 2018. --King Zebu (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also wanted to highlight that once Consensus has been achieved, it has been achieved. If someone raises an objection weeks after consensus was achieved, then we go back to the round-table for discussion. But that doesn't mean that all the hard-work done after achieving Consensus becomes null and void and it can be removed / reverted. In this case, it is the responsibility of the one who has raised an objection to now build a Consensus to remove this content. --King Zebu (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have just read this page, although I've not trawled through all of the recent changes and reverts to the article. (I saw a note about it on the talk page of someone whom I watchlist.) I don't see that you got anything close to a viable consensus late last year. FAs are tricky things: consensus needs to be broad and proposed changes need to be both well advertised and allowed a suitable period for comment, which is not a week or so. I am an extreme case here as I barely edited from October through to January, so I can't really blame anyone but myself for that. However, there are many people who, for one reason or another, are experienced and knowledgeable in the subject matter but not necessarily day-to-day or even week-to-week contributors. Their input could be invaluable.

I realise that some people perceive a slower process as being indicative of inertia but a couple of relatively new, stridently voiced, aggressively editing contributors to a Featured Article is not usually helpful. There are articles where large and significant changes are justified, if done accurately, but they are never FAs and only rarely even GAs.

And using FAR seemingly as a tool to enable the changes stinks, sorry. It is Machiavellian, uncollaborative and a case of using a hammer to crack a nut. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Mehrgarh and precursors of IVC Comment

I have made some edits in response to user:Vanamonde93 post at the FAR for India. In that context, I wanted to say that in the history section, we largely rely on the material in widely used modern text books published by scholarly publishers or widely cited surveys published by academic journals, as they are best able to make assessments of both what is reliable and of due weight. With mega journals exploding, publishing more than a thousand articles a month, with very quick peer review, we cannot cite a journal article, especially a recent journal article which has not appeared in a text book or survey.

The Ancient India section had a sentence from the time of its last FAR. The sentence is, "Around 7000 BCE, the first known Neolithic settlements appeared on the subcontinent in Mehrgarh and other sites in what is now western Pakistan.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|pp = 24–25}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India."

This text has been changed many times by various later editors. I restored the original version yesterday. Soon after my edit, @Highpeaks35: changed the text to a more recent version:

"Around 7000 BCE, the first known Neolithic settlements appeared on the subcontinent in Mehrgarh and other sites in the subcontinent.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|pp = 24–25}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|p = 2}} with edit summary, "with Lahuradewa, Bhirrana and other sites within India, keeping it as it was previously was the best option."

There are several problems with this edit. First the cited references don't say anything about Bhirrana or Lahurdewa. Second neither site has uncontroversially appeared in a widely used, reliable, textbook or academic survey. See Quote 3 below. Thirdly, it is not accepted uncontroversially that these sites developed into the Indus Valley Civilization. Fourth, repeating "subcontinent" twice in one sentence is not stylistically sound.

Rather than get into a controversy about which site is older, I have decided to replace the Possehl citation (published 2003) with a citation based on the textbook of Coningham and Young (published 2015), see quote 1 below from pp 104-105, and change the sentence to, "After 6500 BCE evidence for domestication of food crops and animals, construction of permanent structures, and storage of agricultural surplus, appeared in [[Mehrgarh]] and other sites in what is now [[Balochistan]]. {{sfn|Coningham|Young|2015|pp = 104–105}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}}{{sfn|Coningham|Young|2015|pp = 104–105}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|p = 2}}

• Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE–200 CE, Cambridge University Press, pp. 104–105, 130, ISBN 978-0-521-84697-4

Quote 1: "With regard to the Indus Valley Tradition, we will focus on selected key sites such as Mehrgarh in Baluchistan and Kot Diji in Sindh, and demonstrate how the archaeological evidence supports their interpretation as precursors of sites belonging to the Indus Civilisation. In modelling the first evidence for domestication, permanent structures, long distance trade, the conservation and storage of agricultural surplus, and analysing ceramic and aceramic traditions, the village of Mehrgarh and its associated communities are the crucial backdrop for understanding the origins and foundations of the cities of the IndusValley Tradition. (p. 104)"

Quote 2: (p. 105) Early food producers timeline (which shows Mehrgarh in Baluchistan as the oldest among various other sites in India and Pakistan)

Quote 3: "Additional evidence has continued to be published, most recently with Rakesh Tiwari's report of domesticated rice and a sedentary village at the four metre high mound of Lahuradewa in Uttar Pradesh from the seventh millennium BCE onwards (Tewari et al. 2006). However, controversy continues over the specific dating and identification of domesticated rice at a number of the key sites as it is accepted by some scholars (Singh 2008: 110) and contested by others (Fuller 2006). (p. 130)"

Note: Coningham and Young makes no mention of Bhirrana. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of membership from Infobox

pls remove membership column from infobox. -Useless -Doent include all imp organization -Not alll countries in wikipedia page have this Srijanx22 (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

43.245.8.85 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2019 (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. DannyS712 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple withdrawal of FA status or FAR?

I mean this sincerely and not as a joke or threat. India became an FA in 2004, and subsequently went through two Featured Article Reviews (WP:FAR), the latest in 2011. It has been an FA longer than any country article. From the time of its first FA run in 2004 (with Nichalp) it has had a high standard of prose, NPOV content, and relevant images, many of which earlier were Featured Pictures (WP:FP). A handful still are. However, it has now got to the point where the editors who had contributed earlier to make it an FA, or for it to retain its FA status, are no longer able to take an active role in maintaining it. A fresh crop of editors have taken to editing it. In my view, under their helm, (see this version of January 1), the article has deteriorated both in prose quality and NPOV/DUE content. It is moreover now subject to edit wars, or disputes over content, that violate Featured Article Criteria 1 (e). One solution to dealing with this dilemma is to request that the FA status be withdrawn and let the new editors take it for an FA run at the time of their choosing. Alternatively, we can let these editors edit the article as an ordinary article, without restriction, and then in one month's time, have them nominate the article for an FAR. If they are able to have the article retain its FA status, more power to them; otherwise, let the article have a Wikipedia imprimatur which reflects its true quality. The best Wikipedia articles are true collaborations, however, what the article had become on January 1 was looking more and more like something falsely piggybacking on earlier work that had brought the article WP recognition. For that version was also violating Featured Article Criteria 1 (a) and 1 (d). It also had image overload with falsely summarized edits, for how does an editor add ten images to an FA in one edit with edit summary, "tweak"? It was not the only such example. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Anarchyte:, @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, great job undermining the "fresh crop of editors" by terming their efforts as "piggybacking on earlier work". This article has always been subject to edit wars, the source of latest one being you. --King Zebu (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We all piggyback. I said "falsely piggybacking," in other words, not piggybacking at all, but changing what brought the article WP recognition while continuing to carry the recognition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And I have absolutely no objection to reviewing the FA status of this article. But to use its FA status as a basis to resist and undermine efforts to improve and update the content of this article is beyond logic. One can find all the faults with "prose" and "relevant images" — but maintaining outdated information in a so-called "Featured Article" is fine? Is a FA a personal project of one Wikipedian wherein he can freely push his own bias and agenda? Is the hallmark of a Featured Article defined by religious bigotry on its talkpage? If yes, then go ahead and revoke the FA status of this article. --King Zebu (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Featured Article criteria are well-defined. The article as it stood on January 1 was violating three criteria. In my long history with the article it has never had edit wars of this sort, at least not since its last FAR in 2011. I have over 1000 edits in the article since 2007, more than any other editor. This is not to brag, only to suggest that I've had a long association with the article and know its history. The FAcriteria don't say anything about "religious bigotry" on the talk page. You know very well, it was not "religious bigotry." It was careless use of language for a surfeit of uploaded images of garments that had been characterized as "Hindu," especially in the context of garments such as Shalwar kameez or Pajamas, whose own names betray their Islamic Persian or Arabic origin (Shalwar: Persian شلوار), Qamis (Arabic, spelled with qaaf, whose sound does not exist in any Indo-Aryan language, قميص), or Paijama (Farsi: پايجامه ending with small he, the h sound, not alif or aa sound). You can't set up false criteria about your characterization of alleged behavior on the talk page, to overlook gross violation of Feature Article criteria. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Shalwar kameez or Pajamas are native to the Indian subcontinent, not the Middle East. The Persianized dynasties (who spoke Persian, and some Arabic for liturgical reasons) of North India wore them, now almost everyone in India wears them regardless of religion. I did not point to “Hindu clothing”, not even for Dhoti or Sari. These are Indian cloths, and you called it “Hindu garbage” above. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

You were illustrating garments worn in India, but you weren't only illustrating the garment, as, for example, done for a style of kurta in File:Kurta traditional side open knot.jpg, but also showing them in two Hindu weddings, which their captions titled as "Hindu," which belies the fact that they were Muslim garments adopted by Hindus. That is what a more accurate encyclopedic illustration of a garment will give. As for pajamas, the OED (Third edition 2007, subscription required) says, "Originally: loose trousers, usually of silk or cotton, tied round the waist, and worn by both sexes in some Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Subsequently also: nightclothes consisting of loose trousers or shorts and a jacket or other top (now the principal use). Also occasionally in singular. Footnote: The loose trousers were adopted by Europeans living in Eastern countries, esp. for night wear, and the word came to be applied outside Asia (originally in trade use) to a sleeping suit of loose trousers and jacket." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler By that cherry-picked logic, we can't say a restaurant is Indian restaurant or Indian paper currency. The concept of Indian restaurants or Indian paper currency were abopted from non-Indian. These cloths are now uniquely Indian, just like the paper money or Indian restaurants. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Also, though disputed, Shalwar kameez is believe to have come through the Kushans. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

Really? And the source is Aawaz-e-Gurjar "the voice of the Gurjar nomadic tribe," published by Gurjar Research Institute, Jammu. That is supposed to be a reliable source for an FA? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I request this FA be revoked. Wikipedia:There is no deadline, the current FA is being used as means to retain a version written long ago and questioning the good faith of many more. We need to remove the FA. This I am fully in support with Fowler&fowler. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

• I'm not in favor of revoking the FA status. The article has been reasonably stable and FA status acts as a defense of sorts. Without it, this article will quickly become an overladen mess with poor quality content and overladen with images, many of dubious quality. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It has not been under review since 2011, per Fowler. I think there are tons of editors who monitor this page. I think a request to check FA status is worth it. It seems most of us here agree. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

• I am not familiar enough with the article to have a useful opinion on this, sorry. Anarchyte (talk | work) 01:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• All I can say is that if people do not want the FA status to be revoked then they need to stop people such as King Zebu and Highspeak from making random edits with false sources. King Zebu is conflating the production or harvesting of milk and its processing, not even reading his own references, arguing with me, not to mention wasting my time. See my last post in the section about how images were chosen in 2011 and 2012. Highspeak keeps jumping from one argument to another in order to not be pinned down. A minute ago he was attempting to show me how the Indian elite spoke Persian and some Arabic, and that that is the reason, why these garments came to have Persian or Arabic names. (However, I can read Persian and Arabic and know better, i.e. those words already existed in these languages before the Muslim conquest of North India) and now he has changed the argument to Indian restaurants. See his posts above. So, what are mature, knowledgeable editors supposed to do on this page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you made little to no sense. Regardless, I have asked the FA to be checked here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/India. Hopefully, the community will remove the FA from this article. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

And I have left the following response there: "user:Highpeaks35 is a new, and somewhat tendentious, editor. He doesn't know what an FAR involves. Moreover, the information he has given above is false. India became an FA in 2004, has remained one since, having gone through a drastic revision during a successful FAR in 2011. There wasn't much wrong with the article (in terms of meeting the featured article criteria) until he himself began to randomly, and and prolifically, add text and images a few weeks ago. When his effort was stopped, and the article restored to its original form, in which it sits locked now, he struck upon this FAR idea, although it was being discussed on the talk page as an option if editors such as he could not be stopped. He thinks an FAR will allow him to restore his edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)" You apparently think an FAR involves others doing the review and pronouncing judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler, King Zebu, and Highpeaks35: I requested a procedural close for the Featured article review, which was accepted by the FAR coordinators. See the "Coordinator note" at the bottom for details. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Yes, I noticed that earlier. Thank you very much for this. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

India-related WP Featured Pictures

I've created a subpage titled Wikipedia India-related featured pictures. Featured Pictures are Wikipedia's best pictures, in the same way that Featured Articles are the best articles. However, since featured pictures are contributed by excellent photographers, indeed professional photographers, their subjects will depend on the photographers interests as well as the photographic opportunities available to them. In other words they cannot be expected to be balanced with respect to region, gender, ethnicity, etc. But by judiciously choosing from them, balance can be maintained. The India FA has ten, which are not shown in that page.

All the 71 pictures currently in the India page can be seen on another subpage: Images in FA India. The ten featured pictures there are marked with a star. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the odd image rotation things in any FA article? Very odd not every reader gets to see the same image.... all because some images are more relevant than others some are better quality than others.... seems like a gallery run around.--Moxy (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the rotation to one of cycling through CURRENTDAYOFYEAR modulo size-of-image-stack, with Jan 1 = 0. The same images will now be displayed for every reader, and they will change at the end of the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

From cyclic rotation of images to random selection on 12 August 2015

Could @Frietjes: please explain why you changed (in this edit of 12 August 2015) the cyclic rotation of image groups, which would increment the image in the image stack by one each time the cache was emptied, to a random selection, which in the long run will display all images with the same frequency, but in the short, can result in repetition of some images and the absence of others? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Random item] is the standard for displaying a random item. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I had thought the original, as seen in the left hand edit in the diff, had CURRENTDAY in it, not CURRENTSECOND, which is random. I have now changed it to CURRENTDAYOFYEAR, so all users will see the same page stably all day, as I understand it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Paleolithic period

I'm open to discuss my edit from november. The current reasoning doesn't appear logical to me. The finding is rather recent and hence couldn't be there from the glorious FAR times. What's wrong in completing the stone age period with the paleolithic age? And how can the second oldest human culture in the world not be of significance? Please don't say something like "because it was always like this and that on this page... ", which is barely helpful for an ever evolving community project like wikipedia --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Good question. I haven't thought about it in a long time, and I don't have much time now, but here's my two cents. "History," technically, refers to recorded history, i.e. the past as recorded in written human documents. OED, for example, defines it as: "The branch of knowledge that deals with past events; the formal record or study of past events, esp. human affairs." However, it has come to include the past of humans going back to their earliest days. Webster's Unabridged defines it as: "a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events as steps in the sequence of human activities." In the case of humans, i.e. Homo sapiens, it goes back to their hunter-gatherer days. As far as I am aware, the sources we are using in this article with titles History of India restrict themselves to anatomically modern humans. Their earliest records in the form of cave paintings or stone tools, such as Bimbhetka, is what these books typically begin with. The other country FAs, that I remember, I haven't checked recently, such as Australia or Canada, begin with human history. Finally, and you've said you are unimpressed by precedent, but for its entire history as an FA since 2004, the India page has included only human history. Therefore to now suddenly include hominids, such as Homo erectus, would go against precedent. I mean we are talking now about not only pre-literate, but also pre-spoken-language, members of the Homo family. It is something that would require some consensus on the talk page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

PS I have removed "neolithic," and am happy to remove "mesolithic." For most readers these are opaque terms. Instead of "mesolithic," I will write, "Nearly contemporaneous human rock art sites are ... " Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Anther issue is relevant here. In the history section, we largely confine ourselves to making only those statements that are supported by widely used textbooks published by academic publishers, or by survey articles published in scholarly journals. Both are examples of tertiary sources in which the question of what is due or undue has been answered for us by the vetting to which the tertiary sources are subjected for issues of weight, something that secondary sources are not. For this reason, we avoid using specialist monographs or journal articles, such as the Science journal citation you have used, unless they are elicited in support of some simple factual data. Older journal articles, if they are reliable and of high historical impact, will have made it into textbooks. Newer ones will likely have not, the policy thereby protecting us against WP:RECENTISM. For these reasons, I shall be removing the sentence you have added at the beginning of the history section. You are welcome to seek consensus for its inclusion here. But as I have stated before, including that sentence will extend our history not only to pre-literate human beings, but also to pre-verbal hominids, who were not anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)