This is an archive of past discussions about India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"India's sustained democratic freedoms are unique among the world's newer nations; however, in spite of its recent economic successes, freedom from want for its disadvantaged population remains a goal yet to be achieved."
I find it difficult to understand what this sentence is trying to say. Is it trying to say that people in India want its disadvantaged population and being free from this 'want' is a goal not achieved. Or, is it trying to say that disadvantaged population of India wants several things in their lives, and making them free of this 'want' is a goal not achieved.
The source simply points out that we would not claim that work is complete in regards to poverty eradication, and this poverty limits freedom of a huge number of people in India.
I think the source could be probably paraphrased in a better way. Or, is 'Freedom from want' a common technical concept that I am unaware of? Rahul (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
It means neither, nor was Roosevelt the first to use that expression (in 1941) "Want" in the sense of "the state of lacking the necessaries of life; penury; destitution" goes back to Middle English. (OED) Notable users include:
a1616
Scarcity and want shall shun you, Ceres blessing so is on you. W. Shakespeare, Tempest (1623) iv. i. 116
1766
Here to the houseless child of want My door is open still. O. Goldsmith, Ballad [the Hermit] in Vicar of Wakefield vol. I. viii. 70
...
2002
May you live for ever and never die in want. J. McGahern, That they may face Rising Sun 239
India has by far the largest population of malnutritioned children of any country in the world.
The nationalists who won India its freedom were able to stop outright starvation among their population, but not poor nutrition. Penury and destitution are still a glaring fact of life in India. The expression has been at the end of the modern history section for more than ten years. Nothing has really changed in India (despite its highly touted rate of growth) for the sentence to merit a revision. You are welcome to attempt a new consensus per WP:ONUS if you'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
"world's most populous democracy" is propaganda, not a statistic
whether you agree with it or not, the claim that a country is a "democracy" is a statement of political ideology, and not a simple fact about which an article lede can claim to report objective statistics. i don't necessarily believe it isn't true, but I don't think it should be listed next to uncontroversial facts. 128.114.255.157 (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
WAY too many links!
I just want to put this out there hoping somebody might do something about this. There are FAR too many links in this article, especially in the lead. So many, it was totally unreadable for me personally. So much so I actually found a Firefox addon to strip the link styling completely from the page. Most readers wouldn't know to do what I did and, if they have the same issue I do with too much style changing, won't bother reading the utter mess I encountered before I found the extension.
This article was listed as need a Featured article review about three years ago. There are still too many images with MOS:SANDWICHing and poor layout, the lead is too long, Administrative divisions is an unnecessary list which could be simply summarized from the sub-article, there is still dated information (eg "The 522-million-worker Indian labour force is the world's second-largest, as of 2017" and "According to a 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report, India's GDP at purchasing power parity could overtake that of the United States by 2045"), it is easy to spot content that could be in sub-articles rather than here (eg, "Averaging an economic growth rate of 7.5% for several years prior to 2007," from Economy, and almost every section can be trimmed. Some of the footnotes are so long that copyright concerns might be raised. The layout in the government section is a list sandwiched between an image and a table. It doesn't seem that the work that needed to be done three years ago has been undertaken; trimming, tightening, and taming the images, plus bringing the lead down. The Featured article review should proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree to a FA Review. Rewriting the lede seem to be eminent, IMO. There have been multiple constructive edits which sometimes I feel were turned down just because the article is an old FA. Getting consensus for removal also is a lengthy procedure for such a highly watched high traffic article. Copyright concerns also raise a flag. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The FAR nomination was held off years ago as improvements were supposedly underway; someone should nominate this at FAR now, as it appears these improvements aren't happening. The datedness of some of the text is surprising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Multiple duplicate requests
India politics
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2023
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the language of the anthem and national song from Hindi and Sanskrit, respectively, to Bengali (and maybe Sanskrit).
"This source", currently used in the article, is apparently controversial, according to this news article. There are references online that mention the anthem having been written in Bengali and sometimes also Sanskrit (e.g. here, here, and here).
Also, this report from the Constituent Assembly debates on January 24, 1950, mentions a Hindi translation of the Constitution, but not a "Hindi version" of the national anthem. Unless a different document mentions it, the reference to a "Hindi version" appears to be inaccurate.
It's common knowledge in India that the national anthem was written in Bengali, though I don't have a written source for that.
The page Jana Gana Mana also mentions that it was written in Bengali, and that it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, but not that it was adopted in Hindi.
The confusion might have arisen because, according to Jana Gana Mana, there are official lyrics in the Devanagari script, which is commonly associated with Hindi (though other languages use it too), but that is a transliteration, not a translation.
Also, jaage, maage, and gaahe are all recognizably Bengali third-person singular verbs, not Hindi or Sanskrit verbs, while the noun naame is a Bengali locative, but as far as I know not a valid word in either Hindi or Sanskrit (the locative singular of naaman can be either naamni or naamani in Sanskrit).
It is difficult to see how you can have missed the prominent notice answering this point which showed up when you edited this page. As you were told, we use the name most commonly used in English. JBW (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
India that is Bharat
The name of the country is both India and Bharat. In the Indian constitution it is 'India that is Bharat' , should be added as such in the lead.
Note : Bhārat Gaṇarājya is the name in it's official language which is added , but the second name of the nation ,Bharat, mentioned in it's constitution is not added
The lead should be :
India that is Bharat, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country as of June 2022 Afv12e (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
India, that is Bharat is directly taken from constitution of India.
for grammatical correction this sentence can be taken :
India, also known as Bharat and officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area and the most populous as of June 2022.
sorry, I'm new here and as you can see the above first request was for a edit extended request. It was declined citing i should have to make a consensus before that . So opened this for a discussion Afv12e (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2023
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The name of the country is both India and Bharat.
In the Indian constitution it is 'India that is Bharat' , should be added as such in the lead.[1]
Note : Bhārat Gaṇarājya is the name in it's official language which is added , but the second name of the nation ,Bharat, mentioned in it's constitution is not added
The lead should be :
India that is Bharat, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country as of June 202 Afv12e (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The actual Indian History starts from the Ancient kingdoms called Mahajanpad's but on the Wikipedia page it is starting From it's independence from UK Which is so bad as a country with this vast history and a strong culture who has historic background not even imaginable to many.
So it is my request to Wikipedia to add the Mahajanpadas and many later major kingdoms, empires ( native empires and kingdoms for example the Cholas, hoysala's, Rashtrakutas, Rajputana and Marathas as well as empires and kingdoms established by foreign power's such as Delhi sultanate, moghuls etc) so pls consider my request to avoid wrong information about the Indian History 🇮🇳🙏 The Indoman 360 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The History section starts 55,000 years ago and covers the periods you refer to. You don't seem to have read it. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
You mean in the Infobox? There's a few major milestones on the establishment of current polity i.e. the Republic of India. It's not meant to cover the country's whole history - that's not it's purpose and it wouldn't fit anyway. We have a major section in the article for that. DeCausa (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
As DeCausa mentions, the purpose identified is wrong. It's not a History timeline, it's a Sovereignty timeline. CMD (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
then why in Chinese Wikipedia article the whole history is written which starts from formation and even the admission of Macau is also written. Pls explain that 😄 The Indoman 360 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The first imperial Dynasty of china did not even encompass 5% of today's China. Just clarifying the point so no one says that janapadas did not have a significant territory to be on the infobox.. The Indoman 360 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
They're not equivalent situations, and at any rate this is a much higher-quality article so the learning is being taken in the wrong direction. CMD (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
how they are not equivalent situation s.
Because if one country's infobox has a proper information about its origin so the other one also needs the same.
Both modern countries emerged from very different historical processes. The article here properly notes the origin of the sovereign state of India. CMD (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
the Chinese were also invaded by a foreign power like mongol empire as it was not a native Chinese Dynasty.
As well as the Indians were invaded by foreigners such as arabs, turks, Afghans etc. both had several kingdoms and empires within their current territory, the only difference is that within a period of 200 years India was controlled by a foreign power British and china was partially controlled by foreign powers like Soviet Russia and Japanese empire. So the major changes between the both in terms of sovereignty actually had started something around 200 yrs ago. The Indoman 360 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
As you said, major changes between the both in terms of sovereignty actually had started something around 200 yrs ago, which is exactly what is covered currently in the infobox. The current form of India in it's fullness was first reached after British occupation. Hence, it is covered so in the infobox. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
pls first read about the Mahabharata the ancient Indian historic text and then about the Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, Maratha Empire all of the empires about whom I have wrote here had territories all around India. Sobefore writing that the India in its fullness reached after the British occupation check these ones The Indoman 360 (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant. It has already been explained to you that the Infobox parameter is about the political sovereignty of the current polity, not a general history of the country. How difficult is this to understand? The sovereignty of Republic of India begins with independence in 1947. There is no chronological continuity with the polities you mention - the gap is hundreds or thousands of years. On the other hand China's sovereignty has been continuous for 2,000 years. It's a completely different history. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
on the article of Kazakhstan (which became a republic in 1991 after getting independence from Soviet Russia) the infobox has the information about the Kazakh khanate which is the first to unite Kazakhstan.
But the kazakh's were under the Russians for something around 150 year after which in 1991 it received its independence from Russians and became a republic the current polity.
But the Indian and the Kazakh matters are similar of being under a foreign power for many years still on Kazakh infobox there is a mention for previous Kazakh Independent governments.
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding the representation of Indian history on your platform. The current depiction suggests that Indian history began with its independence from the UK, overlooking the rich heritage and ancient kingdoms known as Mahajanpadas.
India boasts a profound historical background, encompassing diverse kingdoms and empires like the Cholas, Hoysalas, Rashtrakutas, Rajputana, Marathas, as well as those established by foreign powers such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals. Omitting these significant periods and entities can lead to a skewed understanding of India's historical narrative.
I kindly request you to consider updating the Wikipedia page to incorporate the Mahajanpadas and various later major kingdoms and empires. This adjustment would contribute to a more accurate and comprehensive representation of India's extensive history and cultural richness.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I believe that this enhancement will help in providing more nuanced and accurate information to the readers. 59.96.64.223 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
(Clarifying my edit request from November)
Please change the language of the national anthem from Hindi and Sanskrit, respectively, to Bengali.
This source, currently used in the article, is controversial, according to this news article. Apart from that source, the anthem is consistently characterized as having been written in Bengali (e.g. here, here, and here).
Also, this report from the Constituent Assembly debates on January 24, 1950, mentions a Hindi translation of the Constitution, but not a "Hindi version" of the national anthem. Unless a different document mentions it, the reference to a "Hindi version" appears to be inaccurate.
It's common knowledge in India that the national anthem was written in Bengali, though I don't have a written source for that.
The page Jana Gana Mana (citing various sources) also mentions that it was written in Bengali, and that it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly, but not that it was adopted in Hindi.
The confusion might have arisen because, according to Jana Gana Mana, there are official lyrics in the Devanagari script, which is commonly associated with Hindi (though other languages use it too), but that is a transliteration, not a translation.
Also, jaage, maage, and gaahe are all recognizably Bengali third-person singular verbs, not Hindi or Sanskrit verbs, while the noun naame is a Bengali locative, but as far as I know not a valid word in either Hindi or Sanskrit (the locative singular of naaman can be either naamni or naamani in Sanskrit). Htysc (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
To the EDITORS of wikepedia this is a request to add Indian
sub-continent along side the word South Asia because this could lead to many misinformation and can be mis-interpreted in lot of ways. This request purely based on intellectual intrest because the term Indian sub-continent has always been used before.
Thankyou you very much for giving your time in reading my heartfelt request. 106.222.225.155 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
There are very few things in the history section after independence. I see many new users trying to add stuff randomly without starting a discussion, so I want to start one to see if we can add something. I understand that there is History of India and History of the Republic of India, but it seems odd that India still does not have much information of its history after independence. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
(Discussion moved from The Herald's talk page) There is clearly a problem with the paragraphing and title of the article. Foreign relations and military clearly do not belong to the same category and should be separated into two secondary headings. The previous G8+5 and other organizations no longer exist. India once hosted the G20 summit, which is an important part of India's foreign policy and should be included. The diplomatic relations column of all countries includes the economic organizations in which they participate. There is a paragraph dedicated to economics below and should not be listed separately. It is in line with Wikipedia's standards to classify diplomatic relations as a first-level heading of politics. This is true for the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and other countries, and India should not be an exception to keep the article organized. User Fowler&fowler used the reason Wikipedia:Ownership of content to revert the normally edited content without any reason, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. Apart from splitting diplomacy and military, there have been no large-scale modifications, and there are reliable reference sources for both. Eupakistani (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The so-called characteristics of this article are only because the old paragraphs were retained during the review, and its content is obviously lagging behind. For example, organizations such as G8+5 no longer exist, and the main reference materials are still quoted from the 2000s. No one would think that the three different categories of military, economics, and diplomacy are suitable to be put in one module. I think Wikipedia’s standard format should take precedence over the knowledge of a small number of reviewers, and only one user relies on his own Subjective thoughts to delete corrections from other users. In terms of Indian diplomacy, there have been some new changes after Modi came to power, such as the G20, which should also be updated. Eupakistani (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Moreover, Wikipedia's specifications do not stipulate that an exception cannot be made to make small-scale modifications. The standardization of first- and second-level headings does not destroy the structure of the article. Is there any basis to show that the previous layout is reasonable? I suggest a user vote on whether to separate diplomatic relations and military like other countries. Eupakistani (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Featured content itself is changeable and can even be revoked. This does not mean that featured content is completely correct and cannot be modified. Eupakistani (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The title formats of Australia, Japan and others, which are also featured content, are consistent with Wikipedia's specifications. There is no reason why India should not format them this way. Eupakistani (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
History
It's strange that British colonial rule has been summed up in so few words and all their evil deeds have been concluded in just one line -( " rights" promised to Indians were granted slowly).
In one paragraph it's written
India rises from being destitute to fastest growing economy. But it's not at all explained that who was responsible for bringing the country at that position.
Major changes in the history section required!! 152.58.184.75 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to link Myanmar on "In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; its Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand, Myanmar, and Indonesia." 117.194.36.160 (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Request to remove pic "US president Barack Obama addresses the members of the Parliament of India in New Delhi in November 2010."
It is a very bad quality picture and the Parliament building too has changed. My suggestion is to refrain from adding non-Indian people in the India article, specially under its politics para. 122.187.117.179 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
text removed. not factually correct, rather seems like personal opinion of Germans. Wondering, why they believed the priests & warriors were not the indigenous people in India. Their stupidity made me laugh though. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Makks2010 has created the Category:Countries of Voice of Global South in relation to the Modi-initiated virtual summit[2] and added it to every country that participated in the summit (according to a Indian governmental source), without 1) an article related to it, and 2) without mention of the summit of these articles. When I first reverted some of these additions, @Makks2010 has added some text to Sri Lanka to comply with WP:CATVER, but only using a non-neutral source by the Indian government[3], and now, they have created the main article (which makes my first objection temporarily moot; the article hasn't been vetted for WP:N and WP:V yet). But still, we obviously need independent sources which tells us that the participation in the summit is relevant for each country article.
I don't care whether the template and the category exist but they don't belong in the country articles. First, you should not be adding categories that can not be verified from the text of the article. Second, the first can not be rectified by adding it to article text because it is extremely WP:UNDUE for any country article, it's not even close. — Usedtobecool☎️18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is my feedback on India wiki page. It is a badly a formatted article highlighting "not so positive" side of the country (most probably it is by intention of the editors) and hiding "almost every positive aspect". Hence it requires a major overhauling efforts.
examples -
1) Mention of "incorporation of untouchability" in the introduction itself is mis-representation of India. though the fact is that the untouchability is matter of past now (abolished 74 years ago), it must be included in the article but certainly not in the introduction as it does not represent the country any more.
2) Pre-history section is totally missing, where as it is available in many courtiers’ wiki pages.
3) History of 'North-eastern' part is purposefully not included in any section of the history.
4) Geography section did not even mention about any of India's islands.
5) Topography is a major topic that missing.
6) Wrong information given about number of state-level political parties mentioned. Number of listed political parties in the EC is around 2500.
7) List of top metropolis cities / largest urban areas is not written, whereas almost every other country's wiki page has it. (e.g. U.K.)
8) A separate section should be provided to the languages under demographics for one of the most linguistically diverse country of the world.
9) Architecture section more look like an advertisement of Taj Mahal, Though India has many more architectural wonders other than Taj. The section should be re-visited.
10) No mention of India's Transport infrastructure work done in last 10 year. A separate Transport section would be appreciated.
11) No mention of India’s scientific achievements, if they do not represent a country than I wonder what would. Science and technology section should be included.
12) No mention of world's largest media.
13) India's wide diversity should be included in the clothing section, rather than just highlighting saris and Shalwar.
14) World's second-largest education system cannot be summarized just in five sentences.
15) India's contribution in the WW-I & WW-II should also be mentioned under some appropriate section.
16) Healthcare should have been a separate section, considering that India has one of the largest Healthcare infra.
17) India is known for it's Philosophy & Culture. However Wiki page doesn't even consider it.
Thank you for taking the time to make this evaluation..... I would agree the article hasn't kept up to the FA level we expect especially for country articles.... It follows the format of a decade ago. That being said I think we can work on all these points above. First would be proposal of text and changes with sources. Keeping in mind that changes here is very hard.... thus short and precise changes need to be demonstrated here in the talk.Moxy🍁 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You may want to look over WP:Summary style, many of your points simply ask for additions to an already not short article. No single page can have everything, but it is perhaps worth looking into whether your mentioned points are in the immediate subarticles. CMD (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@cmd of course, No single page can have everything. but basic page size analysis tells a different story that how much info has been included about world's the most populous and the most diverse country. Let alone the accuracy or neutrality of the text included in it.
that's exactly my point, Along with the article, it's text and formatting is also decades older, which may not be relevant in 2024 anymore. Makks2010 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it still follows an outdated guideline, but recent changes are updated and incorporated into the article after gaining consensus here in talk page regularly. So, it's not that bad or it's not like we use the outdated style. You may check the article milestones in the talk page header to see the reviews that are done time to time. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I would like to question the review process itself.
e.g. How come '''untouchability''' be the introduction of any country? - Wondering what review was done about it? Is it fair and unbiased? Makks2010 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I would concentrate on one part of your list at a time. The two that do stand out as being understated in the article are science and philosophy. Note that a number of the topics have their own article (otherwise this one would be far too large), for example Architecture of India or Clothing in India. Black Kite (talk)10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
1) May I ask India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India? In my point of view, it is important because they have unique clothing as well as architecture.
2) Why only Taj Mahal to be included? Let's have short text about Taj and Also include other wonderful Architecture from ancient India?
There is no problem with suggesting other important items that would fit into this article, rather than the sub-articles.; no-one is saying we can't add anything at all to what exists already. Black Kite (talk)10:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Assam is mentioned multiple times in Performing arts and media, where Manipur is mentioned too, and the north-east region is mentioned as a group in Sports and recreation. This may or may not be appropriate weight, but it is more than just a line or two. CMD (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Cmd how abut the history of north-east? Not even a single dynasty from north east is mentioned, However Mughals got plenty of text. Though the fact is Mughals were actually defeated multiple times by the Kings of north-east at multiple occasion. I understand the article would become too lengthy to read if we include everything. However, The point i am making is that the Article should be more inclusive than just praising Mughals. which more sound like western point of view of India.
You can go back to article and check yourself, not even a single word mentioned about - 1) Shivaji Maharaj 2) Sikh empire 3) Rajputs kings. Hence I am saying the article should be more inclusive without being lengthy.
Also, do you believe any other part of India is more biodiverse than North-East? Yet, north-east itself is not included in Biodiversity section. I have bee saying that article is not really balanced in nature. Makks2010 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Those are not directly related to your specific question of whether "India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India", which I answered. CMD (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrative divisions section doesn't mention about 29 autonomously administrated areas of India.
please include Autonomous administrative divisions of India link under Administrative divisions section. There are 29 such areas, which should be given some visibility.
These autonomous administrative divisions are subparts of the main article Administrative divisions of India. There's no point or relevance to provide a link on India's article. It can be given at the see also section of the former article as they form a part of the larger Administrative divisions article. The objective of an article about India is not to give all the possible information in the world crammed up in this one article. Pointers are given for each sub section because of this. The hits and the views that these two articles get is vastly different and a general reader doesn't differentiate between these two. Also, Wikipedia is not for giving more visibility to a specific article or to promote one specific group of ideas (see WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
"Bharat" must be added as the endonym.
The word "Bharat" must be added as the endonym in the lead sentence and the infobox WITHOUT changing the common name. Why is the hesitation? Makks2010 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
It's strange that all the exonyms like Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush) were included, But the most used endonym (Bharat) is not being included. All the information from western sources are considered reliable, but source from government of India is being labeled fake. That shows how neutral is wiki article is. Meanwhile, the Neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia cried alone in the corner. Makks2010 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
To begin with, the name Bharat Ganarajya is clearly given in the lede as well as in the infobox. Two, the official name of India has NOT been changed to Bharat by any bill or any law or even as per any circular or a notice. No sources are labelledas fake, if they are reliable. Go though WP:RS/P and WP:RS to identify the sources we use in Wikipedia. Here, nobody cares if it is from a government or a king. If the source is not reliable, it is not. No differences from western or oriental or Indian. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Which bill or law mentions about Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush)? Going by your logic these should also be removed. Makks2010 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
and to be precise, I never asked to change the official name of the country. I have always said that endonym should be included. Makks2010 (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
& Also, Category & wiki page for Countries of Voice of Global South were deleted by editors two days back because it had references from Government of India which were considered not-reliable. What a shame. Makks2010 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I would like to urge you to read every messages posted here, and in your talk page in depth before making further statements. The lede do not mention the exonyms or endonyms anywhere. They are in etymology section which comes after the lede. The next paragraph of the section goes into detail about the Bharat terminology. The artcle Names for India goes into an in length discussion about many names of our country. Also, lede doesn't have to include any of these endonyms or exonyms or whatevernyms per WP:LEDE and WP:FACR. There is an entire seperate section for that.
Secondly, the category and the subsequent article for Voice of Global South was deleted due to copyright violation (see WP:G12), not due to sources that aren't reliable.
Finally, I'd like to say that this article has been a target of discussions for 20 years now and if you think you have something new to add or some changes to be made, there is a really good chance that it was already been discussed here. So, you may go through the huge talk page archive that we have and see if such a step was already done. If not, have a read of WP:OWN (especially WP:FAOWN) to see if you can implement such a change. If such a change need consensus, when it had to be obtained from the consensus and you have to convince over thousand page watchers of this page that that change is justified. If still it is not happening, you can start a WP:RFC and see where the consensus leans to. There is no point blaming the system or the policies and guidelines. This article is a Featured Article that has gone through community review multiple times before getting into the current shape. You can't change something just because you don't like it or it goes aganist your own personal agenda. (Kinda like the democracy of our country. You can't change a law cuz you don't like it, lol). Good luck. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@ The Herald (Benison) Thanks for calling me 'agenda pusher'. Bulgaria is a FA. yet the Romanized name Bŭlgariya is used along with official name.
I am confused. The article already contains the romanized name for India, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya", in both the lead and the infobox exactly like the Bulgaria article does. CMD (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Controversial statement - India, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[22] is a country in South Asia.
Proposed statement - India (Hindi: भारत, romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[22] is a country in South Asia.
The proposed statement for India is in line with another FA Bulgaria.
Read MOS:INDICSCRIPT. No need to romanize if you can't put Indic script in the lede. You should really pay attention to what other editors are saying and read the guidelines we present and the messages we post. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Second Proposed statement - India (romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.
Yes, I've just reverted a couple of those, I'm especially unconvinced by the removal of the sourced section but there may be a reason for it, however none was given. Black Kite (talk)11:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Black Kite & @Kautilya3 : How to establish if the source that was added is actually neutral and not a personal opinion of some German guys who living in India in 20th century. Would you agree if priests & warriors castes in India are not indigenous in India? Read yourself below and judge if this is a neutral article?
Perhaps it would have been a good idea to actually give a reason for the removal, then? Though I don't see that the nationality of the author or the date of the source has any relevance anyway, the only question is "is it correct"? If it isn't, you'd need to explain why. Black Kite (talk)12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Black Kite : Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to actually click bit more and check before simply reverting someone's work.
Hermann Kulke (born 1938 in Berlin) is a German historian and Indologist, who was professor of South and Southeast Asian history at the Department of History, Kiel University (1988–2003). After receiving his PhD in Indology from Freiburg University in 1967, he taught for 21 years at the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University (SAI).
He was a founding member of the Orissa Research Project (ORP) of the Southasia Institute (1970–1975), and was coordinator of the second ORP.
Specialization: pre-colonial South and Southeast Asian History; early state formation and historiography; regional cultures of India with emphasis on Orissa; Indianization of Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean Studies.
He was a visiting professor at Utkal University, Bhubaneswar (1978–1979), Asiatic Society, Calcutta (1986), and Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (1992). He was also the Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, in Singapore (1987) and of the Asia Research Institute of the University of Singapore (2007).11. Makks2010 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood me. I know who they are (because I did check them, thank you very much) - the question is what do you believe makes their work ineligible to source this article? Black Kite (talk)12:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Nationality of the author very much matter, especially in a sensitive cases like casteism, because often they do not understand roots / logic behind, rather they form their own opinion, which often is incorrect. Including such text in a neutral information page would be approving such opinions. Makks2010 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping you would explain what the problem was with those sources, as opposed to expressing your own random opinions on people from different nations. Black Kite (talk)14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I already mentioned that considering priests & warriors people an non-indigenous in India is totally wrong and it proves my point. Which a western person with prejudice would never understand, hence whatever was mentioned in the source is not correct. Makks2010 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Trying to claim that no westerner could ever understand the caste system isn't going to go too well for you, so I suggest you don't suggest that. Black Kite (talk)14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
No, you will discuss them here first. You are experienced enough an editor to know what WP:BRD and WP:EPTALK mean, and you have been reverted by three different experienced editors today. This is especially true as this is a Featured Article. Black Kite (talk)14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am very alarmed to see when an editor believes that "outsiders" (here: a German scholar) are incapable of adequately studying/discussing a topic that is tied to a specific region (here: the Indian caste system), and thus apparently believes that sources written by such "outsiders" should not be used. If this continues to be the rationale of their edits (let's see what happens after 24 hrs), this eventually will call for a TBAN. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not as simple as that because we do know the problems of Orientalism. The statement they point out is indeed slightly problematic. I had it in my mind to look for better sources, which I will try again now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Removed along with that statement was a sentence on the "chiefdom stage of political organisation", which does not seem to be sourced to Kulke. CMD (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Aye ... probably because it tries to summarise an incredibly complex issue in one sentence. It certainly doesn't mean what Makks2010 thinks it means, though. Black Kite (talk)09:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: My comment was not about the source, but about the a priori rationale by @Makks2010 in these comments[6][7]. Being aware about existing systemic bias is different from undifferentiated rejection based on the nationality of the author (or add: "editor", and you have the root of chauvinist traveling circus discussions in WP). –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Systemic bias is present throughout the western conception of "caste". But German Indology is special still, for having given rise to the infamous "Aryanism".
The present text conveys that the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", whereas the fourth unnamed class alone was "indigenous" and was regarded as "impure". That is a very strange reading that I don't think you will find outside German Indology. We could just say a caste system with ranked classes of priests, warriors, free peasants and labourers arose, without attaching additional value judgements. There is no need to go beyond that in a breif summary of the history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Black Kite, @Kautilya3 & @Austronesier : Question is not if any scholar is capable of discussing or studying a topic related to another region. Everyone is entitled to have one's own opinion, even if it is not neutral in nature. But the Wiki article must follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is not the case here. It is neither 'slightly problematic' nor 'phrasing an incredibly complex topic' issue, rather it is an unreasonable & unfair opinion. If one reads couple of paragraphs rather than just one of two sentences from the book (given in the reference of the sentence in the wiki), one will find that the Scholar's work is too shallow and full of unreasonable prejudice towards the Indian society lacking a complete societal view of India. I have already written a detailed email to the author of the book calling out his hypocrisy towards the Indian society with many examples which of course, he did not consider while writing his book.
Anyhow, the sentence in question must be taken down with immediate effect as it mis-represent the most populous nation of the world and is not following the policy of neutrality. Hope, you all would agree. Makks2010 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Austronesier : Thanks for getting me blocked, even when I informed you individually that I was in process to improve the article and category, it was not cool though. I will write the article again with all the references and get it reviewed before publishing it. @UsedtobecoolMakks2010 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Makks2010: Again, you are confused regarding your rationales of blocks and deletions.
You were blocked for editwarring and the article (and subsequently the category) was deleted due to copyright violation per WP:G12. It doesn't matter if you were in the process of adding the sources then or 2 days later, all the information must be cited when you are entering it in Wikipedia. Please read the disclaimers that comes up before you click publish changes button. You could use sandbox or draftspace when you are testing edits or creating a new article. Also, sarcasm and snide remarks are not going to help your cause. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I have read through almost every archive discussing about "indigenous people" in the caste system. Everytime, the discussion was either left inconclusively or declined by editors as no alternative text was proposed.
Controversial statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period.
Proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in menial & disgraceful occupations, arose during this period.
The proposed statement, IMO, using menial and disgraceful to tag certain occupations sounds very POV and biased per WP:WTW and shouldn't be used. This entire section seems like a WP:BROKE discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
first of all, the Shudra or Dalit were actually involved in menial and disgraceful tasks. They can't change their occupations based on Wikipedia's requirements. hence it was proposed. If this can't be accepted then the whole sentence must be moved.
secondly, present text that implies the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", sound more biased. And factually incorrect. Makks2010 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Second proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders, and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in unhygienic occupations arose during this period. Makks2010 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Makks2010: The current version of the statement in the article (which you label "controversial") summarizes what is said on p.19 of the 6th edition of A history of India by Kulke & Rothermund, a standard textbook on the subject. Which comparable high-quality source(s) did you use to formulate your proposed revision? Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Abecedare Prof Kulke book A history of India is unreasonably prejudice and factually incorrect. I have already wrote him an email with contradicting the text from his book with a number of examples. See the above "feedback on the reference book" screenshot of the email. Makks2010 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
And also what decides which source is a high-quality or low-quality? Is it the nationality of the writer?
What is factually incorrect, will always remain incorrect. I am not the only one that highlighted this issue with the word "indigenous", there are a lot of people have highlighted the same (check archive) including some of the editors too. Yet. the source from a outsider is being considered more reliable. Just because the author of the book is from certain region. This is actually called "slave" mentality, when people can't think rationally rather agreeing to what their master says. Again, Not acceptable!!!. Makks2010 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Makks2010, see WP:HISTRS for how quality of history-related sources is judged. Your claims/email are not of much value in evaluating the reliability of a textbook written by two recognized scholars, published by an academic press, and whose quality is lauded by otherscholars in peer-reviewed publications. If you wish to argue otherwise, you can get other opinions at WP:RSN although IMO that would be a waste of your and other editors' time. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Declining status of women during Maurya and Gupta Empires
Controversial statement - Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin. Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also marked by the declining status of women.
I really would like to get this statement reviewed, which makes no sense. General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. The reference given with the sentence is actually not open to read for all. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please provide references from reliable sources supporting your claim General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. Also, the reference is an open access from Google books. Anyone can open it and see. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Text to be included - The Muslim influence on India caused considerable deterioration in the status of women. They were deprived of their rights of equality with men.
Funny how you see 2000 year old Mauryan and Gupta Empire statement (that was researched and there is a consensus among historians) about women's stature declining controversial and POV, but The Muslim influence (as suggested by you) as perfectly NPOV and non controversial. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Could you please provide any Indian reference where it is mentioned that women status was declining during Mauryan and Gupta Empire? Makks2010 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
here comes the prejudice towards the Indian intellect yet again. Whatever western scholars say is a line on the stone, but who actually went through the situation are the liars. Makks2010 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Here is second reference which mentions that ''' With the advent of Muslims in India, the social movement of Indian women was restricted. When Hindu culture came in the clash with a culture far different from its own, the Hindu leaders of the society began to frame rules and laws to safeguard their interest especially the position of women''' also "With the threats of the invading soldiers roaming countryside, women were prohibited to attend public functions and were placed behind the veil."
These were exactly my point of views in my previous statements.
Here comes third reference which exactly says what i mentioned - "The Medieval period starts with the entry of Muslim invaders in India. The span of this period was about 500 years from the Era of Delhi Sultnate to Mughal era. In the Indian history, the medieval age is considered to be “Dark Age” for the women when many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women’s status."
fourth reference proving my statement - "Medieval India was not women's age it is supposed to be the 'dark age' for them. Medieval India saw many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women's status. When foreign conquerors like Muslims invaded India they brought with them their own culture. For them women was the sole property of her father, brother or husband and she does not have any will of her own. This type of thinking also crept into the minds of Indian people and they also began to treat their own women like this. One more reason for the decline in women's status and freedom was that original Indians wanted to shield their women folk from the barbarous Muslim invaders. "
Fifth reference for the same statement - "Unlike in the ancient Indian period, the position and status of woman in the Mughal period was not quite high. Purdah and child marriage had become common. Except those of the lower classes, woman in Mughal period did not move out of their houses. The Muslims woman observed purdah much more strictly than the Hindus. The birth of a daughter was considered inauspicious, while that of a son was an occasion for celebration."
(edit conflict)I am an Indian and I do not have any prejudice aganist my fellow Indian historians. If the fact you suggest has reliable references, and you can show it is true (WP:VERIFIABILITY) from independent sources (WP:INDY) nothing can stop you from adding it. But if you are trying to achieve something else by removing a well cited statement about Gupta and Maurya empire, and add a POV statement, we can see right through it. Good luck obtaining consensus for the change. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Already provided links for a paper published at Boston University as well as at Magadha Mahila college, Patna. located at a area which where actually Gupta and Maurya empires were flourished. both writers are independent and verifiable. Makks2010 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Makks2010: Please do not flood this page with quotes from low-quality sources and random websites and please avoid unnecessary bolding, which in online discussions is akin to yelling. See WP:HISTRS for the type of sources that are needed to add/edit history-related content at this FA. Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
How come Indian sources become "low quality" about a topic related to India and western sources are credible. It is like telling a man, who lived whole of his life as man, that he is never been a man. That's how editors are being acted. Makks2010 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please stop bringing up author nationality, no-one else has mentioned it. The sources above read as obviously low quality, they have not even been edited for grammar, and that is with no idea who the authors are. CMD (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1.
Nikhil Kashyap 1, this article is not suitable for student editors. Even an experienced editor needs months to get anything done here, unless you're already one of the major contributors to it. I suggest you pick another topic, or you might fail. My advice is, pick an article that should be detailed but is currently short, or pick an article that needs a lot of copyediting. Is your assignment really due day after tommorrow? And you're starting today? Usedtobecool☎️08:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Controversial statement - Despite economic growth during recent decades, India continues to face socio-economic challenges. In 2006, India contained the largest number of people living below the World Bank's international poverty line of US$1.25 per day
1) Even the world bank has raised the poverty line from US$1.25 per day to US2.15 per day back in 2017. Hence data mentioned in the article is way too old. Refer to this https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND
ET is not reliable per WP:RS/P. Also, India haven't published their poverty statistics since 2011. You might want to have a look at this report and this post by WB. But if you could get more data regarding India's standing in terms of poverty in 2024, we can update it in the article. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
How about Point -1? "Poverty rate at $2.15 a day (2017 PPP) (% population): 12.92% in 2021"
Also, as per government of India - India has registered a significant decline in multidimensional poverty in India from 29.17% in 2013-14 to 11.28% in 2022-23 i.e. a reduction of 17.89 percentage points.
There's a big problem with using those dates - Page 1 of the report states "headcount poverty ratios for 2013-14 and 2022-23 have been estimated based on compound growth rate of the reduction in the incidence of poverty levels between 2005-06 and 2015-16 and 2015-16 and 2019-21 respective" So I think you could only use the 2005-6, 2015-16 and 2019-21 figures (and they are the ones used throughout the report anyway). Interesting that the Govt press release doesn't mention the data from the same report, that says that the figure fell from 55.34% to 29.17% between 2005-06 and 2013-14, when presumably it was a different Government. You'd have to mention both time-frames. Also, using the MPI measure can be slightly misleading (I think this discussion has happened previously). If you look at the graph on page 9 of the report, 31% of the population are still deprived in nutrition, 43% in cooking fuel, 31% in sanitation and 41% in housing. So I think this can be mentioned, but you'd have to explain in a little detail what it's actually saying (and push the data points back to 2005-2006, as that's where the greatest improvements happened).
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
ADD to initial description after
"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."
Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.[1]Vuquiz (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Change Short description: Country in Asia to Country in South Asia.
Reason: Current short description says 'Country in Asia'(changed to Country in South Asia), while other countries in Asia have more regional short description (example: China(Country in East Asia), Pakistan(Country in South Asia) Japan(Island country in East Asia), Bangladesh(Country in South Asia), Saudi Arabia(Country in the Middle East) and even countries in other smaller continents: Germany(Country in Central Europe), France(Country in Western Europe), United Kingdom(Country in Northwestern Europe) etc. ) Regards, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adding some more context to per capita income rise in short description
In the short description it states the following:
"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."
I suggest adding some more context in a new sentence after this one, giving more context to the suggested rise in nominal per capita income. While this number may very possible be true, this lacks some important context for readers.
For one, about 90% of India's workforce works in the informal sector of the economy (which contributes about 50% to India's GDP).[8]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long[9]https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_vol_4_final.pdf (in the foreword, page 5) Since this is, by its very nature, not monitored by the government, its about impossible to give an accurate depiction of average incomes in the country as most workers would not be taken into consideration for this statistic.
Secondly, the per capita income statistic is reductive in itself. It doesn't give the reader an idea on how these incomes are distributed, by the nature of how averages are calculated.
Hence, I suggest adding the information that about 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal economy.
Furthermore, it might be useful to give an example of the development of incomes of an actually formal sector of the economy where accurate data exists. I suggest referencing the findings of a paper by the IZA World of Labor journal. They analyzed the development of real wages of workers in the organized manufacturing sector. Their findings were that wages have stagnated over the last several decades. [10]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long#izawol.425-figure-000012
Otherwise, it might be useful getting rid of the nominal per capita income number in the short description in general. It's a very reductive term that lacks crucial context (inflation, distribution of said incomes etc.).
Put together into a coherent text, the addition to the short description may look like this:
Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
maratha empire is acknowledged by western, british historians (no 1 point) that means it did existed. it also had an area about 2.5m sq km which means it was bigger that 1 m sq km hence a big enough empire to be added in (top) section. it crushed mughal empire by force (but you dont have to write that as it would be equal to indians defeating turks pbuh swt which is not possible so you just write something like "mughal empire was gradually followed by marathas however we dont yet know about how mughals declines"). then add a line stating that three anglo maratha wars resulted in british rule (istead of saying "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed" like if mughals were the greatest before british Uvrajgupt (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya3, RegentsPark has reverted my edit which can be seen here and asked me to get a consensus for the fact that the Marathas ended Mughal rule and established the Maratha Empire consisting of most areas of the Indian subcontinent but lost almost all those territories to the English East India Company in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha war using the sources mentioned in the diff (about the establishment of the Maratha Empire). Can you start a, 'Request for Comments" for the same?
Hey, may you please explain more about "request for comments", i would really love to help you out.
Making the Raj is good enough (ive only read first few pages) but it doesn't tell you that marathas ended mughal rule, we need another one for the same, we need to find some good source, these days im really busy but will surely look into them in a week or maybe after three or four days, till then if you find something similar, do let me know and tell me more about request for comments, i never heard of it and the web is showing different results for the same Uvrajgupt (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
India's Nominal GDP is 4.11 Trillion Dollars according to IMF forecast for 2024 you can check the official website please change it 49.205.121.76 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
This is meant to be a neutral and constructive addition in the Foreign Policy section: “The Center for Global India sponsored by New Jersey-based Princeton University in Bengaluru aims to bridge the gaps and address interactions between India and the rest of the world to confront humanity's most pressing issues, including human rights and climate change.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).”. Any thoughts or suggestions for improvement? Castncoot (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry Castncoot, that does not at all belong in this article in any form; it does not belong even one article down. If the mention of that organisation or its activities are due anywhere (which should be two-three articles down at least), it should be reworded to convey something substantive, not empty puffery. No offence but it's so basic, I don't even know where to start, WP:BALASP and WP:NOTADVERT maybe. — Usedtobecool☎️03:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I've recently updated the first sentence of the demographics section to no longer say that India is the second-most populous country, as this is now false, as well as removed the note that speculated it would achieve the most population by 2023, as this of course has come to be true. However, I would like some input as whether or not to state both population figures in the first sentence, as right now it seems a little wordy. One possible choice would be to keep it how it was, saying that with the 2011 census figures India was the second-most populous country, and have a note saying that per estimates it is now the most populous. Another is how it is now, saying both the official census data and the estimates, and that with the estimates it is the most populous. Lastly would be a reversal of option 1, which would state only the estimates. Thus, there are three options:
Option 1: "With 1,210,193,422 residents reported in the 2011 provisional census report, India was the world's second-most populous country." + note, "Estimated to be the most-populous country in 2023 according to the United Nations' World Population Prospects."
Option 2: "With 1,210,193,422 residents reported in the 2011 provisional census report, and an estimated 1,428,627,663 residents in 2023 according to the United Nations' World Population Prospects, India is the world's most populous country." (current)
Option 3: "With an estimated 1.4 billion residents in 2023 according to the United Nations' World Population Prospects, India is the world's most populous country."
Censuses and especially estimates are unlikely to be accurate about even the thousands, I would suggest 1.21 billion, 1.49 billion, etc. Or maybe 1,210 million, 1,429 million, whichever's more appropriate. As for the poll, I would like to see citations attached for proper evaluation. The current citation to the UN page does not verify the claim. I think it's widely accepted that India is the most populous country now, so we should not, in my opinion, be providing old data saying it was the second largest however many years ago, and we probably don't even need to attribute the claim to UN. — Usedtobecool☎️02:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree with not being overly specific, and with not needing to attribute to the UN inline. I would suggest further that the 2011 census is not needed in the opening sentence. It could however go into a later sentence, "The most recent census took place in 2011,...". CMD (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I will add the citations. While the 2011 census data is "old data", it is the most recent official data, and as this is a FA, I would think that would take precedence over the more recent estimates. With this in mind, both should be mentioned in the first or first two sentences, and just vaguely saying "The population is estimated to be..." can pose the question of who is making those estimates, in this case the UN's World Population Prospects, although the source for the estimates can be changed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Official name of India in the Devanagari Script in Infobox
Is there any particular reason why the official name of India, written in Hindi in the Devanagari Script (भारत गणराज्य), is not shown in the infobox and instead only a romanization is included? It is common practice for articles about countries that don't use the Latin script to include the official name of the country in its native language, both in its native script and a Latin transliteration (see China, Saudi Arabia, Bulgaria, etc). I'm just posting it here on the talk page to make sure there's no particular reason against doing so before adding the official name of India in Hindi written in Devanagari in the infobox. Thanks! David Jiang (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is it not in any way indicated that "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is a transliteration from Hindi? Even one of the cited sources specifies this (Routledge, p.108, "Official name: English: Republic of India; Hindi: Bharat Ganarajya"). In the current version of the first sentence of this article, it is unclear to the reader where the transliteration comes from and what it refers to. I would suggest to either remove the transliteration entirely or explicitly indicate that it is a transliteration from Hindi. 2A02:810D:8CC0:48C4:813E:CC10:B287:2E3 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The suppression of the inherent vowel specifically at the end of words such as भारत is a fairly consistent phenomenon called "schwa deletion". Different transliteration standards deal with this in different ways. Some indicate all inherent vowels always, some don't indicate any inherent vowel that is omitted in pronunciation, and some don't indicate only certain omitted inherent vowels such as those that are subject to schwa deletion for example. Omission of an inherent vowel in the transliteration does not necessarily suggest the presence of an explixcit virama in the original script. 2A02:810D:8CC0:48C4:813E:CC10:B287:2E3 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
More needs to be added about the economy in its present state. India is in the midst of an infrastructure boom the likes of which haven’t been seen since China went through theirs. However there is no information about it 73.210.30.217 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Lead
Hello fellow editors, I wanted to suggest a slight change to paragraph two, where I think this:
I find it odd that there is no mention of Indo-Aryan migrations in the introductory paragraphs as they are pretty important in the Indian context. PadFoot200810:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Noticed a slightly more important point, the body does not actually support the current text, although it does mention the migrations. CMD (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Chipmunkdavis, I'm a bit confused as to what you mean to say here. Are you saying that my suggested change is unsourced? And I know that rest of the article does mention the migrations, I am saying that instead of saying that "Sanskrit diffused into India" which sounds extremely odd and purposefully ambiguous, I think the migrations should be mentioned. PadFoot200816:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm saying the article does not say Sanskrit diffused into India. Your change is supported by the body. CMD (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
While India is indeed a left-side-of-the-road country, I occasionally run across mis-labeled videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aSkJCUDAes showing the traffic clearly on the right, which may be what prompted this edit request. According to the comments, that's Ethiopia, not India as claimed in the title. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Permission
Who is the owner (or gatekeeper) of this article? Fritz or whatever, ok, I'd ask for permission to add sourced content. Well, actually it is no one's property, but still some people have this unbelievable self-conceit. Ok, may I add sourced content? Cyanmax (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not "gatekeeping" and no one here thinks they own the article — per WP:FAOWN, most non-minor text additions, especially in a high-traffic long-standing Featured Article such as this one, should be discussed on the talk page. I, and other people who revert major additions or poorly-sourced content, aren't claiming ownership of the article, just trying to make sure it can maintain its featured article status. The article is also quite long as it is, so we shouldn't be adding too much more content at all besides relevant updates — most content can be put instead in child articles such as Economy of India, History of India, etc. The sentence you added seems mostly fine though. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, we're discussing it now. I have restored the sentence. Pollution is known to be an impactful socio-economic challenge. Increased health issues related to pollution translate to lower productivity and increased health-related costs. It's a reasonable point to make in that section. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Pollution is certainly a relevant topic for this article to cover; it is even mentioned in the lede and IMO should have a couple of sentences devoted to it in the body. However, this edit is not very good for a well-developed article because:
Since the article is about the country and not about urban India, the stat about the number of Indian cities in some global most-polluted cities ranking is not the most relevant one.
We can and should do better. For example, even this 2023 report produced by a unit at the University of Chicago would be an improvement in both relevance and source quality, although better sources are likely to available (ideally, ones that cover water pollution etc too). I suggest that we follow BRD and hammer out the exact sources and content to be added to the article here over the next few days. Welcome any suggestions about either. Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It's not "required" and you didn't make any argument why we should list it in the infobox (where I assume you want to put it). You also are not be going to "given" the permission to edit this article; to edit extended-confirmed articles such as this one, you need an account age of 30 days and at least 500 edits. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The emblem of India was and is in its true form the golden version. Although not defined in any act or notified under any rules, specifically, has it not been the precedent that the Emblem in all of the letters by Prime minister and the President's office has always been yellow (golden) in colour and not black. It is merely a misconception that the emblem is black because of the use of monochromic printing in early days after independence. Black in Indian cultural context is inauspicious and the government of India through the national portal has uploaded three images of the emblem, blue, black and golden. Presumably black and blue are merely the result of the popularity both colours enjoyed in the field of printing or calligraphy but the original was carved out of sandstone and later on brass was used to mold, both of which resembled closer looks to the colour of yellow (dull shade) or gold (in case of chrome brass). FlaminMongrel (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The emblem should be changed to the golden (coloured) version of the gazette. That is the official emblem originally made, black and brown being popular results of printing inks post independence, in all prime ministerial and presidential letters the original colour is gold and also the government of India website under the national emblem section posts the largest picture of gold with description of the emblem being carved out of a sandstone (closer to cream or very dull yellow) but more importantly the colour is representative of associated history with brass molding, black and blue are merely results of monochromatic printing. FlaminMongrel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Done I have done so as the edit which added back the schwa was only yesterday and was not discussed here; this does not mean either one is "correct", just that the "Bharat" spelling is what has been standard usage in this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering if WP:INDICSCRIPT should apply to this article. If I am not wrong, the decision to not use the scripts were made because it was unclear which script was actually used / should be used in a particular case and whether the spelling in the Indic script is correct was difficult to verify. However this doesn't appear to be an issue here as the spelling and the script are official and well-known. Thoughts? @Fowler&fowler, @Flemmish Nietzsche, @RegentsPark. PadFoot (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Well of course it applies to this article, but if it didn't what changes are you proposing? It is already stated in a comment in the infobox that translations and transliterations do not fall under WP:INDICSCRIPT; the main reason for INDICSCRIPT is due to the ambiguity over which translations in which Indic languages should be included in the various India-related articles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Flemmish Nietzsche, had almost forgotten about this discussion, but I had meant to say that this ambiguity doesn't exist here, as we do know the official language and official script. So, should it apply to this article and should we be excluding the name in Devanagari script? PadFoot (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
PadFoot2002, search the talkpage archives for the many proposals to add the country's name in one or more of the 22 scheduled languages. IIRC the endless and frivolous discussions on this topic at this article were part of the impetus for adopting WP:INDICSCRIPT in the first place. Don't see any reason to revive that mess by entertaining exceptions to INDICSCRIPT, which has saved so much valuable editorial time. Abecedare (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done This is the English language Wikipedia. For example, at Germany, we don't say Germany, also called Deutschland, officially the Federal Republic of Germany.... It is however mentioned in the infobox - as it is on this article as well. Black Kite (talk)11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: I'm not sure what you mean; the Germany article doesn't list the other official name, and neither does Japan, which doesn't say something like "Japan, also called Nihon,..."'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
And why should we do this? We have INDICSCRIPTS and no Indic languages in the article for a reason; you'd have to make a very strong case for why we should include these languages, as the past arguments over the translations in different languages are not just about which languages to include, but also the "correct" translation and other issues. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
past disagreements have been because people were edit warring over which language to use...that's why WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS even exists. it's because people were disagreeing in 2012 about what language to use in a page for a multiethnic Indian actor (see Rajnikanth)
But that was 12 years ago and technology has come far, this is an appropriate solution, just like the EU and South Africa pages I have linked.
why should it be done? well, it's done for every other community page, and on top of that we have a solution now
The only official languages of the Indian Union, as has been discussed in uncountable discussions in the talk archives, are Hindi and English. Please note that the Scheduled languages are "recognised languages", not "official languages". PadFoot (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I've left a post on Flemish Nietzsche's use talk page. Those of us who normally maintain the page have been away for a couple of months. As you must know, editors here discuss even minor changes in the lead for weeks, indeed occasionally even months. Restoring this article to a last consensus version has been done before in the article. The article are majorly rewritten for Gandhi's 150th on 2 October 2019. (See the talk page discussion of the months preceding that date for a comparison with the casual discussions of the last month.) It had an FAR thereafter. It is Wikipedia's oldest country FA, soon to be 20 years old. I'm strapped for time. Pinging @RegentsPark, Abecedare, SpacemanSpiff, Vanamonde93, Chipmunkdavis, Kautilya3, and Joshua Jonathan:Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm well aware why you are restoring to a consensus version, as I cite the same reasons when I have made reverts here in the past; however, as I have said I don't think mass-reverting many good edits is always necessary, as if someone doesn't work back in those good edits, the page quickly becomes out of date, which is what happened the last time you restored to a consensus version, ignoring many (now-archived) discussions where there was, in contrast to the Sanskrit edit discussion above, a proper discussion and consensus to make changes to avoid the page becoming out of date. The reason I reverted your recent edit so quickly was because I wrongly assumed it was a restoration to a much earlier version, (as in, before my and other's edits which updated the page) and any good minor edits since then have been worked back in to the article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps in the future if substantial edits in India are being proposed in a discussion here, could some of us (e.g. the people I have pinged above) be pinged, even use-talk-page-messaged? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving this amiably F&f and Flemmish Nietzsche! Just wanted to drop a quick note since the article is being reverted to (roughly) the June 20 version that I last edited, that that version itself may need a review and should not be taken to be the version preferred or attested by me. Frankly, as I believe has been discussed previously, the article could use a proper reread to check for drift and need for updates if/when someone has the time to start the process. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The article already received two WP:FARGIVEN and the (larger FA) community peer reviewed version is over 13 years old. Yes, we have discussions and consensus establishments over time, but a full fledged review is very imminent. I'd like to propose an article review soon which can analyse the article in depth and prevent it from the overhanging FAR. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure there is any overhanging FAR.
Two years ago, or thereabouts, when a notice for improvements (to head off an FAR) was given on the talk page, SandyGeorgia said that only a few things needed fixing, and we fixed them. Two paragraphs, climate change and energy, were added by two editors. Around that time an Education section was added by user:Rjensen and a Visual Arts section by user:Johnbod. Earlier, in preparation for the article's second TFA on October 2, 2019, I had rewritten the lead, and added two new sections: Cuisine and Clothing. You are probably looking at the talk page milestones not at the discussions. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
With the caveat that I haven't read the article in a long time, I believe that most of it (lede, history, biodiversity, arts) etc should be fine and only need to be checked for changes since the last "stable" version. A couple of sections (eg, Economy, and Politics) may need periodic updates though, while keeping WP:RECENTISM in mind. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
In my experience piecemeal improvements are usually better than grand reviews. Speaking of piecemeal, there are some changes that are probably needed:
The first ten years of Modi's rule are now widely documented in the scholarly literature: economic growth, infra-structure development, but also back-sliding democracy, crony-capitalism, more assertive religious nationalism, increased economic inequality and rising unemployment. They deserve a distilled mention in the lead perhaps.
The excess mortality in India during COVID-19, by far the world's highest (according to the WHO, Lancet, Economist, ...), probably needs a mention, though not necessarily in the lead.
I think suggestions for changes, supported by scholarly sources (in order to meet WP:RS) and by tertiary sources (for due weight; see WP:TERTIARY) are usually better. As you will see from past discussions, even changing a sentence fragment can sometimes take weeks on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
"By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within Hinduism, and Buddhism and Jainism had arisen, proclaiming social orders unlinked to heredity."
This is simply untrue and definitely not required.
Jainism and Buddhism have forms of caste hierarchy. This is factually incorrect. Please change it. 117.230.128.76 (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2024
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@Flemmish Nietzsche I don't know why I need to discuss this, but I have to add national sweet and reptile, and elephant in mammals. Also, I want to move that infobox from government to somewhere more suitable, like culture. Can I do it?
Also, if I shouldn't write National XYZ: None instead of leaving it blank, then why is national language written like that? Pur 0 0 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
No, you do not "have to" add anything beyond the national symbols listed and you didn't give a good reason why we need to add them; anything beyond the symbols listed is pure trivia and not very important to the top-level article of India, and should rather be listed in National symbols of India. "None" for language is fine as that's one of, if not the most important identifier of a country; national sport, lolipop, shoe, paper size or any other minor symbol does not need inclusion if there is none as it's not an essential item. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Then why have that table at all? National language can just be mentioned as none in the country infobox, the currency is already mentioned, and for the other things the Main Article: National symbols of India template can be used. As such, no other country has that infobox. Pur 0 0 (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
These are national symbols not government symbols.....wrong section and in my view sidebar link spam. Should be all integrated into prose.Moxy🍁 05:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
My take: As nations are cultural constructions, their symbols are usually legislated symbols, which the symbolized—the Bengal tiger, the Ganges river dolphin, the Indian elephant or indeed the Ganges, are unaware of. Joya Chatterji, I think, has written about how the partition of India, for example, imposed new limits on the commonly nomadic wild animals, and gave them redefined national labels. As for what the recognition has brought them, witness the routine abuse of India's heritage animal, the elephant, in Hindu temples and tourist-rides in the palaces of former princely rulers, this despite good intentions. What good does the recognition of the Indian lotus as India's national flower, do to increasing tonnage of cultivated flowers tossed in the paths of vain politicians? The Indian lotus, is nevertheless, a wild species; but the Mango, domesticated from its origins in the wilds of Burma, Bangladesh, and northeastern India, is a much cultivated fruit, found also in Multan, Pakistan, Thailand, and the Philippines. As for other symbols, such as the flag, the state emblem, they too have become ossified, no longer reflecting the ideas they originally did. See for example: Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka#Legacy.
I've watched the table lazily for the last dozen years. Not sure I want to do away with it outright, but perhaps reduce it a little, and then move it:
Remove the mango, the rupee (it's name at least shared with many countries), the calendar (which is one of many of ancient or medieval India) and finally, the Ganges (the nomadic transboundary river) which is also Bangladesh's, not to mention Nepal's from which it gets most of its water. Integrate (in @Moxy:'s felicitious word) in appropriate places in main space or info box.
Integrate the flag, the state emblem, the national songs into prose, perhaps in Culture section somewhere.
Add a small table, "Some national symbols of biodiversity," tightly capped (as implied in @Flemmish Nietzsche:'s fine first reply), containing the Bengal tiger; the Ganges river dolphin; the Indian elephant, the distinct subspecies of the Asian; the Indian peafowl; Indian lotus; and the Banyan tree, if only they haven't already been duplicated in prose there. To these can be added the King cobra, India's national reptile. The table will be less "decorative" (as @Chipmunkdavis: has nicely put it) there. Thanks, @Pur 0 0: for bringing this up.
I'm generally wary of these notions as they can come to reflect ownership, rather than stewardship, of other forms of life by human communities, great and small. I think Wikpedia should aspire to higher forms of knowledge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The symbols here are only the official ones of the Republic of India, those legislated after 1950, not cultural symbols and motifs of Indian civilization. Unlike Canada, which is a relatively young country, India is a tired old civilization, a veritable cultural subcontinent, whose symbols can't be easily summarized, some going back 5,000 years. See for example Indus Valley Civilisation#Seals for a microcosm. If you next examine the third paragraph of India#Biodiversity, i.e. the one beginning, "Among the subcontinent's ...." you will see a Canada-like description of some biodiversity symbols. But these are not the official ones. In the following paragraphs, you will see other symbols, appearing in vignettes that illustrate synoptic or thematic prose. In the post-1950 official symbols, it might be possible to eke out themes, but even there one would be hard pressed to explain why the Indian peafowl is the national bird, and not the Indian white-rumped vulture or the Great Indian Bustard. If there is a consensus to remove the table, then creating a section in prose for the official symbols would be of little value; they are best represented in different sections, if indeed they need to be mentioned. The Ganges already appears in India#Geography, so what are we going to add, that is not cliched? Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
From all this above sounds like a section is even more warranted to educate our reader's much more so then one at Canada. Why such an omission? Moxy🍁 02:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@Moxy: Sorry, I didn't notice this post of yours earlier. Explanations are warranted, but they are too complex to be in one section. They are better off in the sections in which the contexts of these emblems belong. So, upon rethinking this, I agree that we can get rid of the table in government section. The first five or six entries in the table are already in the infobox and the remaining are treated—either individually or as subject topics whose constituents they are (e.g. animal families and their ecology)—in either India#Geography or India#Biodiversity.
Nations (as constituted by people) and governments (as elected by people) do take pride in these emblems or symbols, but reliable sources for both accuracy and due weight are better at identifying what is notable in an encylopedia
Mile is a larger unit (1 mile = 1.9 kilometre). Therefore, the population living in one square mile (covers more area means more people) will be high density and low density in per square kilometre (covers less area means less people). Dinesh | Talk04:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Question: What misinformation and misinterpretation can result from this current term? Please elaborate. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1.
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. 
The redirect INDIA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 4 § INDIA until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Done I have done so as the edit which added back the schwa was only yesterday and was not discussed here; this does not mean either one is "correct", just that the "Bharat" spelling is what has been standard usage in this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done This is the English language Wikipedia. For example, at Germany, we don't say Germany, also called Deutschland, officially the Federal Republic of Germany.... It is however mentioned in the infobox - as it is on this article as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)