Talk:India/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Nice to see this on the main page

Thanks for your efforts Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark! Airbornemihir (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• I heartily endorse this sentiment. But Fowler&fowler, you need to cool it with the reverts. The article isn't in the best of shape and WP:OWN#TFA is not intended to prevent improving the article. You thanked me for the first of my copyedits, then reverted some out-and-out awful prose and spelling errors back into the article. Please don't. Samples (highlights)
  • India's foreign exchange remittances of US$70 billion in 2014, the largest in the world, contributed to its economy by 25 million Indians working in foreign countries Huh?
  • "center", "centers"
  • However, a report from 2011 has shown improvement in the gender ratio Tense.
• Unfortunately right now the article isn't up to FA standard, and you are at, what, 9RR? There may be a connection between the two; and while the first may take some fixing, the second could be avoided with a self-revert. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The comment adverb, "however," or the adjective "notable," are not redundant words in the English language. They express contrast, note asides, or single out aspects that are striking or deserving of our attention. They are semantic aids, very much a part of encyclopedic prose. You can't en masse employ ellipsis of syntax and sense, straining the tolerance of natural language, not to mention trap a well-meaning, longstanding, competent, editor who is attempting to do his duty to keep an article on Wikipedia's main page free from unencyclopedic edits. If the powers-that-be on Wikipedia seriously want to take me to the woodshed for a defense of Wikipedia ideals, I'll take the sentence. But before that, I'd like to hear from them. Sounding out @RegentsPark:, @Vanamonde93:, @Abecedare:, @MilborneOne:, @Doug Weller: and others who maintain this page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please also note this note from the GOCE coordinator. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to examine and get involved with disputes over minor syntactical errors at the moment. Looking just at the ones raised here, I will not in passing that adding "however" for flow isn't a problem; the long sentences about foreign remittances might be. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Huhsz: I fixed the error in the long sentence about foreign remittances in this edit long before you made your post here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Your edit was very much a part of my revert. Area before population has been the order on this page for 12 years. Please also see United States, and FAs Canada, Australia. Changing longstanding precedence on this, Wikipedia's oldest country FA, on which people spend days debating one word, will require a talk page consensus. Please self-revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the consensus ordering (though I'm open to consider reordering if a discussion is warranted. Naturally, since this is Wikipedia and nothing is easy here :) my preferred ordering might be entirely different!).--regentspark (comment) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's embarrassing that the article was displayed as TFA in this state. --The Huhsz (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations, & thanks for your epic amount of work here! Don't worry, the caravan is already passing out of sight, & normal levels of messing about will soon resume. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Johnbod: and @RegentsPark:! I do feel tired now. I like the caravan metaphor. No worries, when HuttonsPark speaks, people listen. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#India.--Moxy 🍁 03:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is worth a note that if all the hard work that is done recently by User:Fowler&fowler is not following consensus or not improving the article there is a over 4,000 watchers who would have made a lot of noise but prefer to support with WP:SILENCE. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Colour

How can I fix the difference colours seen in the pictures. Is it my browser settings? I see some boxes as yellow some blue and some white. Is there some sort of meaning behind different colours?.104.249.231.45 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

We are in the process of talking about colors and image overload above.....its not your setting but the page in question.,,that said is it causing inaccessible problems for you?--Moxy 🍁

The background colors are all Shades of white. The shade chosen for a particular picture is the one that most highly correlates to the average color of the picture.

All backgrounds (or frames) interfere with the color experienced, or apprehended, by a viewer. A white background, for example, will serve to bleach a picture, a black to darken its colors. The average shade interferes the least with a picture's color experience. I checked all four color-blindness filters. The background colors currently in place perform just as well as a white background for Protanopia, Deutanopia, and Tritanopia and do better than the white background for Greyscale/achromatopsia. The Indian flag, unfortunately, does very poorly on three out of four. Best regards, After the TFA ends, I will introduce a mention of the background color in the Alt text blurbs, most of which are now non-existent, or need to be redone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Just odd this page can't follow the norm when it comes to images.....never seem image problems come up more then here. Normally we try and address the concerns raised by readers over and over again.--Moxy 🍁 21:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• The pictures don't need frames. What is it that we think they add? --The Huhsz (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed. I really can't see any need to deviate from our normal style in this regard. -- Begoon 03:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

normal size image that is very legible

mini images that are non legible

Dear IP, and others, please note that the topic is being discussed in a section above. Please continue the discussion there. No consensus has emerged, as far as I can tell. Forum shopping, whether within a talk page or elsewhere, is not helpful in a full discussion of the topic, only in several fragmented ones. Note also: all pictures other than two panaramas are now in WP default size of 220 px. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure you understand the function of the multiple image template....220 is the size of the box.....meaning half size images....220 is split between the two images horizontally. As of now some images are only 75px wide others 160px etc. This is the reason there is a huge waring on the template page and 3 guidelines directly related to this.--Moxy 🍁 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest respectfully that there is an ongoing discussion in a section above, in which you have already spammed these pictures once. Please continue the discussion there, not here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This NEW screenshots give a great example of the problem with size. Would also be best not to tell others were they can post ...try to address the concerns raised by many editors....no forum shopping ...just different editors all bring up the same problems.--Moxy 🍁 16:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: As you will have seen the Template:Multiple image has two examples, shown here, respectively, on the left and right:

Adoxa (Adoxa moschatellina)

Surveying Equipment. Clockwise from upper left: Optical Theodolite, Robotic total station, Optical level, RTK GPS Base station.

A tea garden in Sikkim. India, the world's second-largest producer of tea, is a nation of one billion tea drinkers, who consume 70% of India's tea output.

You cannot at the same time complain that the Surveying equipment image box is too wide (300px) and the individual images are too small (bottom row, right, is 100px). You cannot, on the one hand, complain that a a shade of white used in the background color of the tea garden image (on the left, and used in India) is unacceptable, but say nothing about the much darker pixie green of the picture on the left. This is not the place to for thrashing out WP Policy. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well the green background does not meet color codes for accessibility so not sure why its there as an example...as for 300px that is better then what is here...again best read over WP:Gallery "Be aware different screen size and browsers may affect accessibility for some readers even with a well-crafted gallery." and MOS:CONTRAST " Especially, do not use colored text or background.." As of right now article is full of different small sized images ranging from 75px to 190px. No need to change policies ...as its all written in plan English...just need to follow them and heed warning at Template:Multiple image "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text."...does not say jam as many small images as you can using the template. -Moxy 🍁 16:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's go with an RFC for this. I will start one specifically for the colour and font size (and limit the scope).--DreamLinker (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@DreamLinker: What does it mean to "limit the scope?" You will have to include aptness for caption readability for color-blind readers at four color-blindness filters referred to at Wikipedia's image accessibility website. I suggest we wait until we hear from the admins who watch over this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@DreamLinker: Please try to make the case that for readers suffering from achromatopsia, on average, this test file is not easier to read with background colors than without at the four color-blindness filters site. (Note achromatopsia is the fourth choice of filter on the right on that page.) It is not simply a matter of something being easy on the eyes of the few readers who post here. It is not a matter of, "I like this, or that." Please also read MilborneOne's recent post below or above (I can't remember now) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Axis axis

A Chital (Axis axis) stag attempts to browse in the Nagarhole National Park in a region covered by a moderately dense forest.

Axis axis

A Chital (Axis axis) stag attempts to browse in the Nagarhole National Park in a region covered by a moderately dense forest.

Fowler&fowler By "limit the scope" I meant that the RFC would be only about the background colour and font/size of caption (not about image size or whether we should use single/multiple images). I hear your concern about achromatopsia. Please understand that my intention is not to enforce my preference or argue for the sake of arguing. It's just that I got a headache when I first looked at the images, hence my first post here. At least to my eyes, the default background is soothing, compared to the backgrounds of various colours. Unless there is a particular reason to not follow the default background and default caption fonts/size, I don't see a reason to customise these. My understanding is that the default colour scheme generally takes into account concerns about accessibility and it would be best to stick with it.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Any arguments about coloured/pastel backgrounds being more "accessible" than the default (as a professional graphic designer/printer I disagree, by the way) should be made at a MOS level, not for one particular article. As I said above, before being accused of 'forum shopping' for simply making my first response to a comment here (which was lovely), I see no reason we should deviate from our normal style in this regard. If there are concerns about the general style then take them up at that level. -- Begoon 03:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going away on vacation, so I won't be around for the proposed RfC. I'd like to record my gratitude to Moxy who over a month ago first informed me about Wikipedia image accessibility guidelines (to which I later discovered Wikipedia and MOS themselves pay short shrift) The accessibility page referenced the four color-blindness filters. These, in turn, led me to the pictures with background colors in their captions. (Before that I was unaware that there was an option to choose a background color. For the same reason, I had never used a background color in the hundreds of figures and images I have added to Wikipedia.) For each figure caption, the color I have chosen on the India page is the shade of white closest in RGB space to the average color presentation either of the entire image, or of the main feature in the image; the font size 110% of normal These values present the least issues in color blindness, especially for achromatopsia. You may compare the two versions: India: with no background color in figure captions and India: current version with background color in figure captions at the four color-blindness filters site using the fourth (Grey-level) filter. It will become painfully obvious that for achromatopsia the color caption backgrounds are much better than the white, especially for blue links. (For the other forms of color blindness, the two versions are the same.) And it has nothing to do with font size. You may reduce the font size to 100% and the results will be the same. Furthermore, the white captions (psycho-physically) distort the image perception by bleaching the pictures, as you will notice in the mist in the background in two versions of the Axix axis picture presented here. The distortion in perception is slight, but it is present nonetheless. The shade of white chosen in the top image, however, which is nearer in RGB space than is white to the average color presentation of the image, does not single out any one color for enhanced perception and distorts the image less. Clearly, also, as is apparent from the pixie green image "Adoxa" (see farther above on the left), background colors, more intense ones, are allowed by MOS. As for why the India article might be moving away from the Wikipedia norm, I can only repeat what user:Nichalp, the main author of the first version of this article, and the nominator at its first and only FA run in 2004, use to say: the India page has never quite toed the line, whether it is with the image rotation, the much greater emphasis on history, geography, biodiversity, and culture than on defense, government and politics, the general insistence on using featured pictures, or the general insistence on discussions before edits (witness is huge talk archive). Anyway, that is more or less what I have to say. I welcome, of course, the three new editors (Dream Linker, The Huhsz, and Begoon) as they make their first edits on this page. I also thank Begoon for his contributions to professional graphic designing and printing. I moreover empathize with Dream Linker's headache acquired in the course of viewing the colored backgrounds. I hope he has recovered. Best regards and good luck to all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References

Declining satus of women in Mauryan and Gupta emprie

It is mentioned in the second paragraph that "Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin.[27] Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity,[28] but also marked by the declining status of women,[29]". I think its baised assessment not appropriate because satus of women is lower to men in majority parts of the world until 20th century, women got voting rights in US and UK only in1920s. But it is not mentioned in their Wikipedia pages that until 1920s those countries have lower status for their women than men. It was in the very human evolution that women were declined equal status with men.

And can it be proved that before Mauryan and Gupta period the women had a better satus than in the Mauryan and Gupta period? The proof for that same should be added as a reference, if not the statement be removed for the better. BodduLokesh (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And when it is not mentioned in Wikipedia pages of any other country, selectively mentioning in the India wikipedia page and that too mentioned that in a peirod 2500 years ago seems abaurd. And reference required that women enjoyed superior/equal status to men before Mauryan and Gupta period, if not the statement be removed. Showing proof that low status of women existed in Gupta and Mauryan era says only that it existed in their era, it doesn't say whether it existed before them or not. So, proof is required that women are not treated lower to men before Mauryan and Gupta era, if not general assumption can be made there existed same situation for women even before Mauryan and Gupta period if this assumption/argument is not negated with proof. BodduLokesh (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't engage in long diatribes. Read the cited sources. The condition of women in India deteriorated during the Maurya and Gupta periods. That means it became worse:

Political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta empires, their collective time span suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also with the declining status of women, ..."

I'm on vacation. Responding because I received an email. I won't be here to respond to more irrelevant points. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Green Area on Globe Discuss

"Area controlled by India shown in dark green; regions claimed but not controlled shown in light green" you have written this... But now light green area is also controlled by Indian Government by revoking article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir... Please colour all area in dark green. Imvivekchaudhary007 (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Light green areas are Pakistan administered Kashmir and China administered Aksai Chin.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Reordering superlatives sentence

A sentence in the lead paragraph currently reads It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. I propose that it be changed to It is the second-most populous country, the most populous democracy, and the seventh-largest country by area. This reordering helps to emphasize the traits that make India unique by listing them first. (In very basic terms, when one thinks of India, "lots of people" comes to mind before "lots of land.") I understand that listing area first has been a long-standing norm, but I think we ought to adapt to the noteworthy elements by country — readers won't take up pitchforks if we list population first here but area first for Russia. Thoughts, everyone? Sdkb (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that "It is the second-most populous country, the seventh-largest country by area, and the most populous democracy in the world." is a better option, as population and area are one of the primary characteristics for a country (and population matters more in the case of India). Bharatiya29 19:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Since you were the one calling for consensus before this change gets implemented: do you have any objection to or preference between my/Bharatiya29's proposals and the status quo? Sdkb (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds ridiculous. Silly. Awful. I'm returning to my vacation. Consensus does not mean that two people can write claptrap and agree with each other. I'm returning to my vacation, like I just said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Whoa! Don't know how a minor suggestion like this can warrant such an absurd response, but it will be better if you do your part towards keeping this discussion civil. Calling others' opinion "claptrap" is kinda unbecoming for an experienced contributor like you. @Sdkb: Since this impacts the lead of a highly important article, I suggest you to initiate an RfC regarding this. Bharatiya29 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIIW, I prefer the current order. Other than the logical sequencing, the most important thing is what we end with, not what we begin with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer the current version It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. If I remember correctly from my history textbooks, I have always seen the area mentioned first and then the population/largest democracy. I did a search for Google books just now ("india the seventh largest country" without quotes) and checked the first new pages. A significant majority of the results state the area first and then the population.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the original version. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Out of africa theory is a THEORY

Resolved

-WP:NOTFORUM

remove that modern humans settled in India from Africa 55000 years ago. The OOAT is not proven and is still a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.102.219 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph here; it explains very succinctly why your understanding of the terminology is incorrect. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:India/Archive 46#Remove out of Africa THEORY.--Moxy 🍁 00:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on superlatives sentence

Which of the following sentences should be used as the second sentence of this article?

• Option A (status quo): It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world.
• Option B: It is the second-most populous country, the most populous democracy, and the seventh-largest country by area.
• Option C: It is the second-most populous country, the seventh-largest by area, and the most populous democracy in the world.

Sdkb (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment Discussion so far on this issue can be found above on this talk page here. In a nutshell: Bharatiya29 and I argued that options B or C help emphasize what makes India unique and important by placing them first; Fowler&fowler and DreamLinker argued that there exists some precedent for listing area before population. Sdkb (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option A (status quo): It is the normal order and it is right for emphasis at the end, as I have already noted in the above discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option A, though the difference is trivial and any of the options presented might suit. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that this couldn't be resolved short of RfC with someone just giving way, but seeing as input is being sought, I think any of the options is viable, but the difference between the options is slight enough that we might as well adopt the status quo version. For that matter, I will say that there is a certain kind of conceptual continuity to the order presented in this option (a purely geographic distinction, a geographic and demographic distinction, and then a purely demographic distinction). I'm not entirely sure Sdkb means when they say that the other two options better emphasize what makes India "unique", but it seems to me that is going to be a highly subjective thing at the end of the day, and hard to determine through any application of WP:WEIGHT as this project approaches it. By the same token, I'm not sure if there is a real strong tendency in other articles to which we can easily point as an empirical matter, if that is indeed an argument advanced by others--in any event, I'm pretty sure we do not have policy or even style guidance on the point to codify any community consensus on the point. Taking this all together, I'm inclined to go with the current version as a perfectly reasonable option and the one I think I probably would have slightly leaned towards myself, had I composed the initial prose here. WP:STYLEVAR is also arguably at least somewhat relevant here. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• A or C, No strong preference between the 2, but I oppose B. I'd prefer it if the "most populous democracy" line was part of a separate sentence. There's no reason to bundle this subjective section over the objective area and total population statistics. Iffy★Chat -- 09:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option A the status quo makes most sense to me, but all of these are relatively acceptable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option C. The first two facts are what make India special; it has not always been a democracy; in fact, it's relatively recently that it became so. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A, Looks good to me. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option C states two easily verified "hard" facts first, the more remarkable one first, those two facts combined speaking to the fertility of the area. While I'm more aware that India is considered the "second most populous democracy" than that it's the seventh largest geographically, that is more of an arbitrary statistic: what constitutes a democracy? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A - the status quo makes the most sense atleast to me anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option B It's very subjective but I think B makes the most sense. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A - starting with size and then, the population, makes sense to me. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A Keep the original version. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC) (copied from an earlier section where the user had posted erroneously. Copied by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC))
• Option C, then A, oppose B. A makes sense if you want to start with the size first then population second, but C also makes sense if "second-most populous" is more remarkable/notable than "seventh-largest by area" and should be listed first. I'm leaning towards Option C. Someone963852 (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option C. I think it makes the most sense to list the population first followed by the area. The bit about Democracy belongs at the end. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option C: Option A is perfect and nice end of sentence.Rocky 734 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rocky 734: Do you mean "Option C" or "Option A?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option A,Sorry option A.Rocky 734 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Sdkb: It is over three weeks now. Those editors who have kindly taken the time to add their comments here have given no evidence for a consensus for change. The wording has stood in the page for upward of ten years. I might add that the India page is one of the most-edited pages on Wikipedia. It is the oldest country WP:FA on Wikipedia, and the most viewed. It has over 4,000 watchers. Most regulars on this page have not bothered to weigh in at this RfC. The India page went through an FAR in 2011, a WP:TFA appearance on 2 October 2019, in the preparation leading to which dozens of editors contributed to the discussion on this talk page in August and September, and which was finally copy edited by Twofingered Typist, the coordinator of Wikipedia's Guild of Copy Editors. No one in this long stretch of time, over hundreds of discussions, has ever uttered a peep about the order of the characterizations in the lead sentence. That silent majority unrepresented here counts as well. Thanks for your contribution to discussion on this talk page, but please request an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, you don't get to just inflate your preferred side's !vote total by claiming a silent majority; that's not at all how this works. Looking at the counts, we have 7 editors expressing a preference for listing area first and 7 (including my own preference for Option B or C) for population first, with a slight trend toward the latter. I had taken this page off my watchlist, so I'm surprised to see this discussion still going on, but it's worth remembering that we're talking about reordering a single sentence. Your behavior above and here suggests to me that you may want to take WP:OWNERSHIP more to heart. Sdkb (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Sdkb:, you made your first edit on the India page when it appeared as a WP:TFA on 2 October 2019 by changing the characterizations of India in the lead sentence. (The lead sentence in India has three descriptions, "seventh-largest country by area," "the second most populous country," and the "most populous democracy in the world," in that order.) Your edit was reverted. The following day, you made a post on this talk page. This garnered little support for your point of view in the ensuing discussion over several weeks. Without making a second post in that discussion, or sounding out the editors at the India Project Page, WT:INDIA, you began an RfC on this talk page on 20 October 2019. In its statement, you offered the readers only three of the six permutations (please see the accompanying diagram) of a 3-element set. It is now nearly a month. There are ten editors who have expressed a preference for option A, including DreamLinker and me; in that group, there is only one who has effectively voted twice by voting "A OR C" There are three who have expressed a preference for option B, including Bharatiya29 and you who have voted "B OR C," both of which I am counting. There are seven editors who have expressed a preference for option C, including, again, Bharatiya29 and you who have voted, "C OR B," again, both of which I am counting. One editor Rocky 734 has made an ambivalent vote and I have queried him. Again, the count is 10 for A, 3 for B, and 6 for C, pending clarification of one vote. How is this an example of my ownership, when you began an RfC and took it off your watchlist. You are not required to keep it on your watchlist, of course, it might be even seen as ultimate abnegation, but this page sees a lot of random, drive-by, edits, and dangling RfCs are not good for it.

@Sdkb: In light of Rocky 734's clarification, there are 11 votes for option A (the status quo), 3 for option B, and 6 for option C. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging admins @Doug Weller:, @MilborneOne:, @Vanamonde93:, @RegentsPark:, as well as uninvolved ones @SlimVirgin:, @Bishonen:, @Dbachman:, as well as FAC coordinators (as this is an FA) @Laser brain:, @Ealdgyth:, as well as @Dank: (as this was a recent TFA). I'm on vacation, and I need some advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like the status quo has consensus. Presumably an uninvolved editor will close this RfC now that a month has gone by. --regentspark (comment) 01:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

In the right box, change "Official Languages TO Union Languages". And, change "Recognised regional languages TO Official Languages". Hindi and English are not the only official languages, it is only used in the Union and it does not mean they are the only Official languages. When we search in google, it lists wikipedia content as the top search and says there are only two official languages in India - which is entirely misleading. Aru8 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please refer this link stating that Hindi and English are only used in the union. https://knowindia.gov.in/profile/the-union/official-language.php You can refer the below link for the list of languages recognized as Official langugages. https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/languagebr.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aru8 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Aru8, you need to reset the request to unanswered for it to be reactivated again. Note that searching the talk page archives for "language", "official" and "national" gives multiple discussions on the issue. This is one of the best and most rigorously maintained article on Wikipedia, so it is unlikely that a simple edit request will get anywhere. Unless it was just an oversight which I find quite unlikely, you need to go over the previous discussions on the subject in the archives, and bring something new to the table, and try and convince the principal contributors of the article. Just a heads up, I don't have the expertise to say whether the links you've given does that. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Indo-European languages are a language family of several hundred related languages and dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.79.233 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've "quoted" the first sentence of Indo-European languages... Was there some particular point concerning that, and related to this article, which you wanted to make? -- Begoon 09:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

India is one of the first Civilizations which emerged in the planet, it is contemporary to China and fertile crescent, called as Indus Valley today, Modern Indians share same genetic history to themIndus valley from basis of Modern Indian DNA., and Indus people form basis of Modern Indian DNA, Indus Culture brought earliest form of Hindu or Sanatana Dharma, Sari and other ancient clothing, Cotton farming, Yoga, Terracotta. I know that Indus Script is yet to be deciphered but it has proven connection to Dravidians/South India. Sagnique (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

bhaona

As mentioned in the Performing arts and media section, the bhaona of Assam is often "based on Hindu mythology, but also borrowing from medieval romances or social and political events". "It is a traditional form of entertainment, with religious messages, prevalent is Assam, India. It is a creation of Mahapurusha Srimanta Sankardeva, written in the early sixteenth century. He created the form to convey religious messages to villagers through entertainment. Later Srimanta Madhavdevaalso wrote some plays. The plays of bhaona are popularly known as Ankiya Nats and their staging is known as bhaona. Bhaona is generally staged at xatras and namghars in Assam. There are some special characteristics of Bhaona like the plays, dialogues, costumes, ornaments, entry and foot-steps of the characters. These characteristics helps to differentiate Bhaona from other plays." Therefore it should be included in the mentioned section. Abhroneel 09:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Comprise in the meaning of constitute is perfectly legitimate usage

@Smjg: It goes back more than two centuries:

Oxford English Dictionary: (OED) Comprise 8b To constitute, make up, compose.

1. 1794 W. Paley View Evidences Christianity I. i. ix. 212 The propositions which comprise the several heads of our testimony.
2. 1850 W. S. Harris Rudim. Magn. iv. 73 These substances which we have termed diamagnetic..and which comprise a very extensive class of bodies.
3. 1907 H. E. Santee Anat. Brain & Spinal Cord (1908) iii. 237 The fibres comprising the zonal layer have four sources of origin.
4. 1925 Brit. Jrnl. Radiology 30 148 The various fuses etc. comprising the circuit.
5. 1950 M. Peake Gormenghast xiv. 86 Who, by the way, do comprise the Staff these latter days?
6. 1959 Chambers's Encycl. XIII. 653/1 These fibres also comprise the main element in scar tissue.
7. 1969 W. Hooper in C. S. Lewis Sel. Lit. Ess. p. xix These essays together with those contained in this volume comprise the total of C. S. Lewis's essays on literature.
8. 1969 N. Perrin Dr. Bowdler's Legacy (1970) i. 20 As to who comprised this new reading public, Jeffrey..guessed in 1812 that there were 20,000 upper-class readers in Great Britain.

(Hide quotations)

c. passive. To be composed of, to consist of.

1. 1874 Art of Paper-Making ii. 10 Thirds, or Mixed, are comprised of either or both of the above.
2. 1928 Daily Tel. 17 July 10/7 The voluntary boards of management, comprised..of very zealous and able laymen.
3. 1964 E. Palmer tr. A. Martinet Elements Gen. Linguistics i. 28 Many of these words are comprised of monemes.
4. 1970 Nature 27 June 1206/2 Internally, the chloroplast is comprised of a system of flattened membrane sacs.

Webster's Unabridged:

Comprise (v): 5a : to consist of : be made up of <the fortress comprises many miles of entrenchment and well-hidden artillery positions> <the thirty-five essays it comprises … are mostly reprinted from previous collections — Harry Levin> b : to make up : constitute <the receipts … comprised the fifth-largest gate in boxing history — John Lardner>

May I respectfully suggest that you not change that sentence until you have gained consensus for it on this talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Those two require subscriptions. But here is one available freely online:

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

2 [transitive] to form part of a larger group of people or things SYN constitute, make up Women comprise a high proportion of part-time workers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's another: Collins/COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary:

2. verb The things or people that comprise something are the parts or members that form it.

Examples: The proposals exclude three of the four nations comprising the UK.. [VERB noun] Women comprise 44% of hospital medical staff. [VERB noun]

Synonyms: make up, form, constitute, compose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why anybody would have an issue with "Comprises", I certainly use it regularly in my real life work. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler and MilborneOne: So what? How is the article improved by using this word rather than any of the alternatives? Furthermore, where is the consensus to use this word rather than any of the alternatives?

MilborneOne, when you say you "certainly use it regularly", with which meaning do you use it? The meaning "be made up of", or the opposite of this?

People don't have issues with the word. People have issues with the use of it to mean "make up" or similar. There are a number of reasons for this:

• It is diametrically opposite to the traditional, literal meaning of the word, which remains undisputedly correct.
• It is rooted in confusion between "comprise" and other similar words like "compose" and "constitute".
• It makes no sense for a word to have two meanings that are diametric opposites of each other, and even less sense when one of these meanings is a duplicate of one for which we already have one or more perfectly good words.
• Many of us are taught that it is just not the meaning of the word. As such, it is not "perfectly" legitimate as you are claiming.

I shall also refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contested vocabulary. The link to List of English words with disputed usage there shows that to avoid using a word with a meaning that is disputed is part of the spirit, if not the letter, of what it's saying. — Smjg (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, as a rule, dictionaries reflect usage. That a dictionary lists a certain word with a certain meaning doesn't automatically mean it's a correct usage of the word. — Smjg (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where this is coming from, I use the word like loads of other people like "The Thing comprises a, b, c and d", in normal use of English it is perfectly understood and I am not aware that it means anything else. It is unlikely to be confused with anything else as in normal usage it only has one use. In the end it does the job says what it means and I see no reason to change it. MilborneOne (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging WP's resident expert on "comprised", Giraffedata. - Sdkb (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Smjg: Who's residence? Not this article's.

Here is a history lesson. You will agree that "comprise" in the sense of "constitute" (hereafter CITSOC), or "make up," or "form" is documented in dictionaries. The evidence is overwhelming that CITSOC was used without dispute or controversy during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Unfortunately, early in the 20th, at the conclusion of the war to end all wars (hereasfter WTEAW), half my namesake, mourning the loss of the other half of my namesake from consumption contracted in the selfsame WTEAW, which in any case had not lived up to its name, forgot the dicta of their pre-WTEAW effort, viz.:

Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
Prefer the short word to the long.
Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance. (hereafter PPPPP)

and began to wage a WTEAW of words (hereafter WTEAWOW) against CITSOC in his eponymous style guide. For half a century, thereafter, others such as the plain-speaking Ernest Gowers, also waged WTEAWOW against CITSOC. However, with the onset of detente, rapprochement, and the Fall of the Berlin Wall, WTEAWOW against CITSOC became a spent force. The pent-up yearnings of the people to employ CITSOC in the speech and writing were released and the evidence is again overwhelming for CITSOC. So where are we now? We could write, "India makes up the bulk of the Indian subcontinent." This would be in line with PPPPP. But that would sound too ordinary, befitting more the Simple Wikipedia. But, of the two sleeping dogs, comprise and constitute, one has precedence in the article, by many years, which is a strong case for letting them lie. I'm now returning to my vacation, as I've already stated twice upstairs. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, such a lot of work proving what is not disputed: that CITSOC is in common usage today, and has been used for hundreds of years. But the claim that the evidence is overwhelming that it was used without dispute or controversy during the 18th and 19th centuries needs a lot more proof. I've seen no evidence at all of the absence of dispute or controversy, and I have been studying the word "comprise" for decades, with the help of dozens of people who defend its secondary meanings. I've actually looked more at "comprise" used to mean "compose" rather that "constitute", but it's the same question. And the most important evidence of its historical acceptance is the actual counts of usage in historical documents, which show CITSOC has been used since at least the 1700s, but at a very low and stable level, rising only in the 1960s. That makes it clear to me that while people were making the mistake for hundreds of years, other people were correcting it all along. A writer might use CITSOC, but his teacher or editor would correct it and he wouldn't do it anymore. Kind of like using "effect" to mean "affect" today. The 1960s brought a laissez-faire culture where it was not cool to force people to conform to arbitrary standards, so corrections like this declined.

But this is all kind of beside the point, because the fact that millions of English writers think CITSOC is just plain incorrect means its legitimacy must be something less than perfect, even if all those writers are basically wrong. And when there are alternatives that don't have such opposition, why would we even waste our time trying to defend CITSOC?

I actually gave up arguing about correctness and legitimacy of English usage long ago; it's kind of fun, but way too abstract, since there is no official specification of English. So I won't say CITSOC is not perfectly legitimate, but I will say it's not the best possible wording for a Wikipedia article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Giraffedata: Under more congenial circumstances, bending the elbow with an India Pale Ale for instance, I might have agreed with your last statement, but (and there's always that "but") this is a tired old page (to be precise the 16th most tired old on Wikipedia) the shifting sands of whose phrasing drafted in such shifting mysteries of edits that even the tired old hawks of usage, such as I, who wheel overhead, are unable to watch with the eyes that are commonly attributed to us. The full sentence of the dispute is: "India comprises the bulk of the Indian subcontinent, lying atop the Indian tectonic plate, a part of the Indo-Australian Plate." Although I had written the Geography section a long time ago, this didn't sound like something I could have written. At first glance, it seems too jerky, too terse, for my taste. At second glance, the bigger problem is not the "comprise," but the participle phrase, "lying atop the Indian tectonic plate. It is not clear that it applies to "India" or the subcontinent. (That the subcontinent lies entirely on the Indian Plate is sometimes disputed.) So I delved, ... and found this edit of 2011, which read, "India, the major portion of the Indian subcontinent, lies atop the Indian tectonic plate, a minor plate within the Indo-Australian Plate." That sounds more like something I would have written. How did the sentence change? Why was "minor" taken out? These are mysteries that I have learned not to probe. But the sentence in its present condition cannot stand. How about changing it to: "India makes up the bulk of the Indian subcontinent. It lies atop the Indian tectonic plate, a part of the Indo-Australian Plate." Sure, they are simple sentences, but a reader has a lot of new information to process. ("Make up," is also higher up the totem pole in the 5Ps; "comprise" is French and "constitute" Latin.) I will leave it there. My better half is reminding me again that I'm on vacation, and that this means doing the things that are the hallmarks of a vacation. So I won't return to check. But make whatever edit you think is judicious. I will look at it three months later. (Also pinging @MilborneOne: @Smjg: @Sdkb: @Kautilya3:) Best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, that sentence (which I'm seeing for the first time) is actually an acceptable use of "comprise" in its primary, undisputed meaning, though for a slightly different meaning (in emphasis only) from the "constitute" sense. And that's all the more reason to use something else if we really want to say constitute. One can think of a country as including territory, so India can comprise most of the subcontinent in that sense. I have used it hundreds of times that way in Wikipedia. We can also think of a land mass as including the countries whose territory is part of the land mass, so India can constitute most of the subcontinent too. So do we want to say India uses up the subcontinent or generates it? I like "makes up", except I'm not crazy about a single thing making up something. I'm going to try "accounts for" instead. Let's see how that wears for three months.  :-) Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Just realised I hadn't got back to you guys on this. For the record, until the late 1990s, as far as I can remember, I hadn't even heard of CITSOC (as in hadn't even heard of the phenomenon, let alone the acronym), even among other words with opposite meanings that I had heard being confused with each other like plug/socket and lend/borrow (mostly by non-native English speakers). I think the first I ever heard of "comprise" being used to mean anything other than "be made up of" was in Word 6's grammar checker. I'm not sure now how exactly I came across it. It was probably a case where the grammar checker couldn't work out whether I was using the word correctly and was just asking me to check.

But I realise this is a tricky case. But "accounts for" seems to me better than "comprises" or "constitutes" or anything else I can think of. So if there's no objection, I say let "accounts for" stand.

Thank you very much Giraffedata for your input on this. — Smjg (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a clarification about the acronym CITSOC: Fowler&fowler apparently made that up just for use in this discussion. I'm probably the world's leading expert on the word "comprise" and the controversy over its usage, and I've never heard the acronym before. I like it, though; the issue is widely enough discussed that it probably ought to have a name. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

India is quasi federal

India is not a fully federal nation.Its a quasi-federal strcucture.USA is a federal nation however India is holding together nation witha strong union so its quasi federal stateSrijanx22 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Colossal pictures

How does one make the colossal pictures smaller on this article so sentences are not fragmented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.229.215 (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Font change

Hi, can someone please change the font in which the national anthem (Jana Gana Mana) is typed? It seems out of place in all the text here... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOS. Fonts are standard. 2405:204:3489:FC7E:3D4B:E708:B64:F75E (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

India's historical genius and super power status in the ancient and medieval world

Can we please add some sections or allow adding them with following subsections

• India's scientific, literary, medical and religious contributions and their significance in the modern world

 * e.g. first true university was established which accommodated pupils from across the Asian and other regions
 * First formal treatise in grammatical linguistics was written in Sanskrit which paved the way for major academic work in other world languages

• India was military super power in 1st millennium with its cultural influence spreading in most of central and south Asia.

• India's contributions in mathematics

* positional value system was conceived and operational in India which lead to use of 0 (decimal zero)
* close to accurate earlieestf approximations of Earth's circumference and astronomical observations with regards to planetary system with Sun being at the center and other planets revolving around.
* Earliest conceptualization of quadratic inequalities and roots using Dharacharya method
* Faster approaches for complex calculations with lesser steps required than present in modern day mathematics.

• First soap opera and classical plays were written in India in Sanskrit by Kalidas who was the greatest poet of his time only to be matched later by the likes of Shaeksepere and Wordsworth among western poets.

• India was the richest country until end of 17 century.

Despite western beliefs and history written by contemporary western historians, large part of India was always free and was flourishing in terms of cultural advancement and scientific way of thinking. The British and other colonial powers had influence only in smaller coastal areas where they had managed to be in peaceful nexus with local landlords or rulers. Indian subcontinent in its entirety was never part of any empire. By the end of circa 1000 AD, Indian western frontiers were the only regions in Asia which had successfully reciprocated Islam's spread for many centuries in India.

Also despite popular belief and literature about the effects of non-violent methods, its was the successful armed resistance which effectively routed the British out of India in 1st half of 20th century. The leading figures behind the armed but still patriotic resistance were Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Chadra Shekhar Azad, Ashfaq Ullah Khan and many other freedom fighters whose efforts paved the way for formal declaration of Indian control over coastal regions which were arguably under any colonial influence.

Can we also add some better images under culture and costume as the one currently there don't reflect the modern way of living in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin nitins (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this article is about the Republic of India, the national entity created after the partition of India in 1947. This is also a summary article. Historical detail for the pre-1947 India should go in History of India. Also note that you need to provide academic reliable sources for any historical claims that both back up the claims and assert that they are mainstream ones (i.e., they are accepted without controversy by the academic community). --regentspark (comment) 11:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Republic of India was actually a successor of Union of India which is an infant political nationstate per establishment, not in terms of history. Predessor civilizations on national territory or historical expansions of their indigenous culture & political hold of countries, are mentioned in their history sections. This main article has brief summaries of Indian Dominion, British India and even medieval and Vedic eras. Even this article isn't an exception. As there is no other country called India, I don't think there will be any controversy adding same. History of India is relevant section for same but per notability, some more of notable aspects are supposed to be added in summarised history we have on the main article. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

>>>"Also despite popular belief and literature about the effects of non-violent methods, its was the successful armed resistance which effectively routed the British out of India in 1st half of 20th century." Really it was? The prime minister of the United Kingdom, Clement Attlee, must have been out of his mind, when on the evening of 30 January 1948 he broadcast on behalf of the British government and people from London, and among other things said, "For a quarter of a century this one man has been the major factor in every consideration of the Indian problem." (hear at the 1:00 mark in this audio, "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi," from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) You seriously want to waste our time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That is your perception, and the probably the perception of few others like you. Fact is, there were at least few 100 prominent freedom fighters who fought till their lives against British like Gandhi, 10,000 more not-so prominent freedom fighters who had superior leadership qualities. Gandhi was one the prominent who was successful in completing the task of the Indians. Every Indian wanted to get freedom from British, but most could not even get basic nutrients daily due to the pathetic conditions British kept them in, literacy rate was below 20% when the left. Sagnique (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

About driving side ....

Right hand site driving happens in India now.... So change driving site in this article pls... KR studios (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for the change in the driving side in India. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 02:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

GDP per Capita

can somenody change the nominal gdp per capita on the page? It's meant to be $2301. Thanks Kamthi732 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Here: India's population grew from 361 million in 1951 to 1,211 million in 2011.[44] During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$1,498, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%.

The data is for 2011. Better put all new updates with official stats after 2021 census. Till then, new estimates are there in infobox till then. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. The data is from a book, A population history of India, 2018. We can't change those sentences. They are about a period of history, not about what is true now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to have backgrond image in this article in cream color

This article should use the syntax described at MOS:IMAGESYNTAX instead. Hddty (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

Hi, somewhere in the article, the word 'defense' is mis-spelt as defence. Could you guys please fix that ? Thanks! 74.118.5.254 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "Defence" refer eng-var. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the early civilizations: Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

Please add the line "India emerged as one of the first civilizations in the Indus river valley" in the beginning of second paragraph. India is one of the first Civilizations which emerged in the planet, it is contemporary to China and fertile crescent, called as Indus Valley today, Modern Indians share same genetic history https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/genome-nearly-5000-year-old-woman-links-modern-indians-ancient-civilization and Indus people form basis of Modern Indian DNA, Indus Culture brought earliest form of Hindu or Sanatana Dharma, Sari and other ancient clothing, Cotton farming, Yoga, Terracotta, etc. I know that Indus Script is yet to be deciphered but it has proven connection to Dravidian's/South India. Sagnique (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what your statement is for but this India is not that old only just over 70 years, perhaps you need to look at History of India. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: this India is not that old only just over 70 years

No, i disagree, new Indian constitution is 72 years old, that does not mean it is 72 years old, Indic culture started from Indus Valley, perhaps you need to learn about Indian history, and i have already provided citation. I am going to report you next time, for miss-handling Indian history as a foreigner. Sagnique (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Reporting me because I wrote over 70 rather than 72 is a bit extreme. This article is about the country of India and it already has a pre-amble about the pre-1947 history and links to relevant articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: this India is not that old only just over 70 years

You are misinterpreting the statement. The reference he is giving to is for civilization and early political states which were succeeded by modern India. It's strictly Republic of India, the current regime whose age doesn't exceed 70 years and not the region, territory, culture and diaspora that are referred as India that are as old as first civilizations by mankind. IVC is very relevant to pre-republic history and the among oldest civilizations nowhere would specify a political state or Republic of India just like similar terms don't equate communist People's Republic of China to imperial Ming dynasty and so on. Indeed it's Republic of India but as there is no other state in world that claims to be India, restricting the article more and more to Indian dominion ane republic will only contribute to loss of high quality content that won't be covered anywhere else. And most certainly isn't going to help project in anyway. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 11:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:

Thanks, i wouldn't have started the argument if China was not mentioned as "China emerged as one of the world's first civilizations, in the fertile basin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain", present day China is very different from what it was back then, it purposely put off most of it's ancient culture with Great Leap Forward. Sagnique (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"India emerged as one of the first civilizations, in the Indus Valley" I don't think that there is any need of putting same just because it's written in China. A better drafted line would be better because India is WP:TFA. But yes, it should be there. As for China, India, Iran, Egypt or any other country, we aren't concerned with what their culture was and whether they are different from what they used to be in past. China refers to the civilization in a particular geographical region of East Asia. People's Republic of China happens to be the state or regime that holds jurisdiction over partial, complete or additional (neighboring states) parts of place called China. Similarly, India refers to region between Himalayas and Indian Ocean which is as of now administered by state called Republic of India. Per regimes, Republic is a system governing India, Islamic Republic is a system governing Iran, communism is a system governing China. Obviously, People's Republic of China, Republic of India or Islamic Republic of Iran weren't world's early civilizations. These are states with jurisdiction over a nation (whatever identity it chooses to have as its base). So saying that the place or nation (and not state) called India is not older than 70 years is inconsistent itself. If you have a good quality source to quote same what you wish to edit, you must do. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 14:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: "If you have a good quality source to quote same what you wish to edit, you must do"

If your point is that if the modern country has control over the pre-established civilization, then India has many such sites which are within the boundary of Modern India, Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Surkotada, Kuntasi, Lothal, Kaligangan and Banawali are Indus Valley/Harrapan sites which are present in Modern day India no some Pakistani nationalists will claim why aren't they referred as one of the oldest, for that. Indus river which runs from India to Modern day Pakistan Vedic period (1700 BCE to 1100 BCE) Bharata was mentioned then later Vedic period (1100-500 BCE) Flourished entirely in India Gangetic basin i brought in the Indus cultural similarities with Modern day India's and Indians because it is the most basic character of a developed society, many ancient civilizations are not able to carry such cultures as Indians did, cultural factors have always been ignored to measure the length of a civilization . Sagnique (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for your random musings. The main sites of IVC are in Pakistan. These bronze age urban sites evolved from the neolithic site of Mehrgarh in Pakistan. The movement was from west to east. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: There is no use for 'main sites' or less important sites, Indus Valley Flourished in Ancient India, the people there moved from there to South, you're clueless about ancient Indian history, modern Indians share same ancestry with Indus people, there culture and along with their DNA, i have already mentioned where Indian civilization flourished, that is 'North-western India' the main river that is Indus flowed from India to Pakistan. It is completely still unclear how Vedic Indians came to existence, whether from Central-Asia, or where they the Indus people themselves, however Vedic ages flourished on the river 'Sarayu', 'Ganga', 'Yamuna' 'Shutudri', 'Parusni', flourished inside modern Indian border. Also name 'India' comes from the Greek word 'Indika' 516BCE. Sagnique (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: "The main sites of IVC are in Pakistan"

Pakistan has nothing to do with Indian history, their people are remains of Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, and Turkish Invaders. There are in no way related to Indus people, both in culture and genetic identity. It is a JOKE to call them even a part of Indian civilization. Sagnique (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Pakistan has nothing to do with Indian history" is a very odd and inaccurate combination of words. Irtapil (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what happened? no response since 3 days, i have provided all possible citations, please do what's needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagnique (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the entity formed post-independence which happens to share the same name as the historical India. We need to be careful we keep the two separate and the edit you're proposing does not do that. --regentspark (comment) 17:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? then why is it that in China page China is referred to as China emerged as one of the world's first civilizations, in the fertile basin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain is this is a joke? what wrong have Indians done to you? at least a million people visit this page every year, it will only provide them accurate history. I have given sufficient links and information, put the line 'India emerged as one of the first civilizations near the Indus river' or remove every other 'first civilization' tag from any modern country associated with it. You want more sources? Sagnique (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Pending Sagnique (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

No Science and Technology section in the article?!

That's absolutely crazy! India has started investing in both and it's time that the world's third-largest country (PPP GDP) gets that section. Healthcare, space exploration, nuclear and solar power can be included in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NervousRing (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

Please, that Indians are also called Bharatis and Hindustanis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseKingPMSAW (talk • contribs) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Local name in Devanagari and other local scripts

Why is the country name not in Hindi in Devanagari script? Most other country pages have the name in the local script, so I was about to add it, then I realised that for such a big country if it's not there it's likely a deliberate omission? What's going on? There was a note in the info box "Do NOT remove this from the infobox as infobox translations and transliterations do not fall under WP:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Indic scripts in leads and infoboxes", but it was a bit unclear whether that was the reason it was only in Latin script, and i'm sure i've seen Indic script in info boxes on other pages. Can i add it to the body text but not the info box? Can we discuss whether we should include it, and if so where? I know some users may get blank boxes if their device doesn't interpret the characters properly, but currently nobody can see it. Irtapil (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

For fairness / balance should the local name be in other major local scripts as well (Malayam, Gugerati, etc.)? which should be included, and are the Wikipedias in these languages an appropriate source for the names? Irtapil (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The article behins with "India (Hindi: Bhārat), ...". Please correct (Hindi: Bhārat) to (Hindi: भारत) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4001:6A70:493F:5FD6:8BD6:5F8D (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a good reason the name of India is not included in local script(s) such as Devanagari? details: - If it's because some readers might get empty boxes or "�" instead of the correct characters, surely it's better for some readers to see it than none? - If Indic script is incompatible with country boxes, can it at least go in the body text, please. (Though the box for Bangladesh has Bengali with no apparent glitch.) - If it is to avoid giving preferential treatment to Hindi/Devanagari we included a few others as well? - If there are far too many, could it be a separate table? - Alternatively, Hindi and English being the official National Languages seems to be justification to include just Devanagari and English, it's still better than just English. And lot of different Indian languages are written in Devanagari script currently as the main formal script (even if another script was used previously) e.g. Marathi, Maithili_language, Nepali language, Konkani language, Bodo language, or use Devanagari as an alternate script, e.g. Punjabi language, Gujarati language, Santali language, Kashmiri language, Sindhi language, Dogri language, and Urdu (Devanagari Urdu has some slightly different vocabulary to Hindi). Irtapil (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See WP:INDICSCRIPT and then make a proposal to discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC) – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How do i establish consensus before i even mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You can establish consensus by making a proposal on the article talk page (here). But read the linked-to articles first, especially WP:INDICSCRIPT, for consensus previously established. It is likely, as you surmised, that this issue has already been discussed and a still valid consensus arrived at ("valid" in that it's unlikely to be changed). Dhtwiki (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the template and I combined the edit request with the above section, does that fix the problem? Irtapil (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I already looked to see if it had previously been discussed, i couldn't find anything on this talk page that showed a prior consensus. I admit i haven't read every last word, but the only thing i can find is me and one anonymous user today suggesting that transliterations alone are insufficient. If it has been discussed already please specify which sub-section includes a consensus being reached on this issue? This is the only page i can find on en.wikipedia.org which omits relevant use of south Asian scripts. Irtapil (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the material at, and linked-to from, WP:INDICSCRIPTS. The linked material includes the results of two requests for comments and seven discussions at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That contradicts the general style guide on Indic scripts. The style says that the local script should be included in the introduction to the article. Such a big exception should be mentioned in the relevant section(s) of the Indic scripts style guide (or if i've missed it, mentioned more clearly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Preferred_format_for_introducing_the_article_subject Irtapil (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I read the link, previously i thought it was the same as the one i already read (linked above). So, the short answer to why just "too many", and too many dialects of each leading to disputes about variations? But the article on South Africa manages 10 names in the info box, in a "view more" expandable section. Irtapil (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed simple solution, the list exists as a separate page, so in or after the first sentence someone add Names of India in its official languages, please. Irtapil (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

is that simple enough for an edit request box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, from memory, it's permissible to include Indic scripts, but in the body of the article and with reliable sources as references. So, the scripts aren't completely excluded from articles, they just can't be plopped down into the lead or infobox without any means of verification. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @User:Irtapil and Devagari should be used in every Indian political and informative page. Simply creating separate pages created completely in other Indian languages just won't work. Sagnique (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong or incomplete information on the page India

State given on the page is incomplete missing or incorrect. There are 28 states in India, which is stated correct, however while creating the chart there's 1 state is missing even the serial number as well. Under Administrative divisions point of the article the chart does not has Madhya Pradesh Mentioned on it, which should be on number 13. Kindly Include Madhya Pradesh as in the state on number 13, and also input number 13 in the serial number --Shubham R. B. Tripathi (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(slightly formatted and some references removed as they were not required)--DreamLinker (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed this; the error crept in when Dadra and Nagar Haveli was combined with Daman and Diu to form Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu a few weeks ago in this edit. The formatting is a bit clunky but at least the facts are accurate. If I get a chance I'll reformat the list later. YBG (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Addition of an "Education" section

Most major country Wikipedia pages have "Education" sections. Education is extremely important issue, especially in a large developing country like India. The following is my proposed content for a new "Education" section on this article with a link to Education in India as the main article:

--Doc2129 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Education 1

Main article: Education in India

Education in India is provided by public schools (controlled and funded by three levels: central, state and local) and private schools. Under various articles of the Indian Constitution, free and compulsory education is provided as a fundamental right to children between the ages of 6 and 14. At the primary and secondary level, India has a large private school system complementing the government run schools, with 29% of students receiving private education in the 6 to 14 age group. Secondary education covers children aged 14 to 18. Secondary education in India is examination-oriented and not course-based: students register for and take classes primarily to prepare for one of the centrally-administered examinations. After Secondary education students may opt for vocational education or university education. India's All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) reported, in 2013, that there are more than 4,599 vocational institutions that offer degrees, diploma and post-diploma in architecture, engineering, hotel management, infrastructure, pharmacy, technology, town services and others. In January 2019, India had over 900 universities and 40,000 colleges. Three Indian universities were listed in the Times Higher Education list of the world's top 200 universities — Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, and Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2005 and 2006. In April 2015, IIT Bombay launched the first U.S.-India joint EMBA program alongside Washington University in St. Louis.

--Doc2129 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• You haven't signed either of these sections! It's pretty bland, & gives little flavour of the distinctiveness of India education. The unique(?) Indian phenomenon of whole towns with cramming courses as a major industry isn't mentioned, nor the massive graduate unemployment, nor the pervasive influence of a few elite secondary schools. "fundamental right" or not, what % of children between the ages of 6 and 14 actually go to school? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, sorry, I have just signed the sections. Thank you for the feedback, I will work on including this information and post an updated version ASAP.

--Doc2129 (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, below is the update with the inclusion of the issues you mentioned

--Doc2129 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Education 3

Main article: Education in India

Education in India is provided by public schools (controlled and funded by three levels: central, state and local) and private schools. Under various articles of the Indian Constitution, free and compulsory education is provided as a fundamental right to children between the ages of 6 and 14. As per the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2012, 96.5% of all rural children between the ages of 6-14 were enrolled in school. This is the fourth annual survey to report enrolment above 96%. However, numerous issues pervade contemporary education in India including inefficient teaching methods, grade inflation, an urban/rural gap, low completion levels, massive graduate unemployment, corruption, saffronisation, a gender gap, and the tremendous influence of a small number of elite secondary schools. Modern education in India is often criticised for being based on rote learning rather than problem solving. Education in rural India is valued differently from in an urban setting, with lower rates of completion. An imbalanced sex ratio exists within schools with 18% of males earning a high school diploma compared with only 10% of females. The estimated number of children who have never attended school in India is near 100 million which reflects the low completion levels. This is the largest concentration in the world of youth who haven't enrolled in school.

At the primary and secondary level, India has a large private school system complementing the government run schools, with 29% of students receiving private education in the 6 to 14 age group. Although there are private schools in India, they are highly regulated in terms of what they can teach, in what form they can operate (must be a non-profit to run any accredited educational institution) and all other aspects of operation. Hence, the differentiation of government schools and private schools can be misleading. Secondary education covers children aged 14 to 18. Secondary education in India is examination-oriented and not course-based: students register for and take classes primarily to prepare for one of the centrally-administered examinations. After Secondary education students may opt for vocational education or university education. An analysis by the Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) reported that between September and December of 2018 reached 13.2% (with a 35% rate for women) compared to an overall average unemployment rate of 6.7%. The 2011 Census survey holds the National Literacy Rate to be 74.04%. The youth literacy rate, measured within the age group of 15 to 24, is 81.1% (84.4% among males and 74.4% among females), while 86% of boys and 72% of girls are literate in the 10-19 age group. India's traditional emphasis on higher education during the later half of the 20th century, as opposed to a focus on primary education as in Sri Lanka or South Korea, has been a major factor in India's long lasting illiteracy, with wider societal consequences. Corruption in the Indian education system has been eroding the quality of education and has been creating long-term negative consequences for the society. Educational corruption in India is considered as one of the major contributors to domestic black money.

India's higher education system is the third largest in the world, after China and the United States. India's All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) reported, in 2013, that there are more than 4,599 vocational institutions that offer degrees, diploma and post-diploma in architecture, engineering, hotel management, infrastructure, pharmacy, technology, town services and others. In January 2019, India had over 900 universities and 40,000 colleges. Three Indian universities were listed in the Times Higher Education list of the world's top 200 universities — Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, and Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2005 and 2006. In April 2015, IIT Bombay launched the first U.S.-India joint EMBA program alongside Washington University in St. Louis.

--Doc2129 (talk) 06:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

Is there a reason why the pictures are so big and have different colors?--2605:8D80:564:D499:C6A:C3B6:F618:F371 (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Education 2

Main article: Education in India

Education in India is provided by public schools (controlled and funded by three levels: central, state and local) and private schools. Under various articles of the Indian Constitution, free and compulsory education is provided as a fundamental right to children between the ages of 6 and 14. As per the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2012, 96.5% of all rural children between the ages of 6-14 were enrolled in school. This is the fourth annual survey to report enrolment above 96%. At the primary and secondary level, India has a large private school system complementing the government run schools, with 29% of students receiving private education in the 6 to 14 age group. Although there are private schools in India, they are highly regulated in terms of what they can teach, in what form they can operate (must be a non-profit to run any accredited educational institution) and all other aspects of operation. Hence, the differentiation of government schools and private schools can be misleading. Secondary education covers children aged 14 to 18. Secondary education in India is examination-oriented and not course-based: students register for and take classes primarily to prepare for one of the centrally-administered examinations. After Secondary education students may opt for vocational education or university education. India's higher education system is the third largest in the world, after China and the United States. India's All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) reported, in 2013, that there are more than 4,599 vocational institutions that offer degrees, diploma and post-diploma in architecture, engineering, hotel management, infrastructure, pharmacy, technology, town services and others. In January 2019, India had over 900 universities and 40,000 colleges. Three Indian universities were listed in the Times Higher Education list of the world's top 200 universities — Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, and Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2005 and 2006. In April 2015, IIT Bombay launched the first U.S.-India joint EMBA program alongside Washington University in St. Louis.

Numerous issues pervade contemporary education in India including inefficient teaching methods, grade inflation, an urban/rural gap, low completion levels, massive graduate unemployment, corruption, a gender gap, and the tremendous influence of a small number of elite secondary schools. Modern education in India is often criticised for being based on rote learning rather than problem solving. Education in rural India is valued differently from in an urban setting, with lower rates of completion. An imbalanced sex ratio exists within schools with 18% of males earning a high school diploma compared with only 10% of females. The estimated number of children who have never attended school in India is near 100 million which reflects the low completion levels. This is the largest concentration in the world of youth who haven't enrolled in school. An analysis by the Center for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) reported that between September and December of 2018 reached 13.2% (with a 35% rate for women) compared to an overall average unemployment rate of 6.7%. The 2011 Census survey holds the National Literacy Rate to be 74.04%. The youth literacy rate, measured within the age group of 15 to 24, is 81.1% (84.4% among males and 74.4% among females), while 86% of boys and 72% of girls are literate in the 10-19 age group. Corruption in Indian education system has been eroding the quality of education and has been creating long-term negative consequences for the society. Educational corruption in India is considered as one of the major contributors to domestic black money.

--Doc2129 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good deal better, though it may be controversial, and the start of the 2nd para needs more refs. I thought after my last comment I should have mentioned Saffronisation; you might squeeze that in. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Doc2129 Agree entirely with Johnbod. For greater cohesion, you might want to reshuffle as in in this self-reverted edit of mine. Also add some criticism of higher education. E.g. the late Myron Weiner at MIT wrote perceptively on how India's traditional emphasis on higher education (1950 to early 1990a), instead of primary as in Sri Lanka or S. Korea, was a factor in India's longlasting illiteracy, with wider societal consequences. I fondly remember a dinner conversation many years ago during which he talked at length about his then-forthcoming book. You'll have to find the references. I will now bow out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod for the recommendations and Fowler&fowler for your reshuffle edit, it flows much better now. I will post the edited version below. Please let me know if you think there should be any last edits before posting it. Also, do you consider it is best if it is posted as a subtopic under "Culture"? --Doc2129 (talk) 06:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No doubt there will be changes, but I have nothing just now. Country articles aren't my thing, but I was rather surprised to see that China, Russia and US all put education under "Demographics". I'd have thought putting in its own section was fine, but no strong views. I've numbered these sections to avoid 3 with the same name, which throws links etc. Thanks for doing this! Johnbod (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod. A separate Education section is fine. We now have a decent first draft. Congrats Doc2129! But this is an FA, so before the section can go into the article, it will require a thorough going over by other editors. Please add a Comments subsection to your last version, and give two to three weeks. Perhaps advertise in WT:INDIA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, think about a picture or two. As India remains a largely rural country, and as primary education is the biggest challenge, one picture of rural schoolchildren would be good. A real picture, not photoshopped or overly spiffy. You could invite contributions in a section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I can contribute one File:ThomasonCollegeOfEngineeringRoorkeeEst1847.jpg of IIT, Roorkee, formerly the Thomason College of Civil Engineering, named after James Thomason, the Lieutenent Governor of the North-Western Provinces, the first engineering college in India, founded in the 1840s to train engineers for the construction of the Ganges canal. Of the pictures in Education in India, I like: File:Madrasah1.jpg. I also like the mid-day meal scheme picture from Nagaland File:The Children being served the food under the Mid-day Meal Scheme at a primary school, Wokha district in Nagaland.jpg, a reminder (not necessarily of the Nagaland children) that quite a few children from poor families go to primary school in India because they are served a hot lunch. The pictures are balanced for region, ethnicity, gender, and age (inadvertently). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Should mention University of Calcutta to establish the fact Indian was ahead of its time...and instead of another building or random people use (Valued image) File:M N Saha, J C Bose, J C Ghosh,Snehamoy Dutt, S N Bose, D M Bose, N R Sen, J N Mukherjee, N C Nag.jpg to mention some historical individuals .--Moxy 🍁 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And they went to the same college. Quite a place it must have been! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

School lunch

• I like this one. Why does Commons Category:School classrooms in India] only have 11 files? We should repurpose WikiLovesMonuments India this year for that and similar subjects, rather than another 30,000 poor photos of the Taj Mahal, Qtub Minar, and Ellora. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It takes an art historian to spot the color. Spectacular color in the dresses. Who needs uniforms? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The writing on the blackboard in Johnbod's picture had been stumping me. This morning out of the blue it hit me that it said, "Jai Bhim," the Bhim a reference to B. R. Ambedkar the great Dalit leader. So, I rummaged: it seems the school is indeed one that gives opportunities to Dalit children. Given the color, the composition, and the context, I now prefer Johnbod's image to what I had proposed for primary schoolchildren. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Great - of course I was unaware of that! Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

I WANT TO EDIT Himanshu54000 (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Himanshu54000:  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. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 05:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Jaura is not a town of India, it is from brazil. Require to update this to make it correct. Himanshu0920 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page India. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

India is the 5th largest economy in the world by nominal GDP and 3rd largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). Also at 131, India is home to the most number of billionaires after US and China. Tyrion Lannister Maniac (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

India is a regional power and is also considered a great power and potential superpower. Tyrion Lannister Maniac (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

India has many official languages an not just 2 as stated here. I believe it has 22 offical langugates as per scheule 8 of the constituion Jsugumar (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See the notes and sources linked from the Official Languages entry in the infobox. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of a modern India?

Strangely, in the current version of the article [1] photographs of a modern India seem to be almost entirely lacking. Looking at the whole article, the most recent piece of technology appearing in photographs is an American tractor from the 50s . In the "Economy" paragraph, it's all about milking cows , and women in fields . In the "Industry" paragraph, otherwise mentioning Indian industrial prowesses in telecommunication technology or pharmaceuticals, the illustration is... a traditional tea field in Sikkim . The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar ... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? In the "Geography" article, the image of clustered rundown fishing boats could be advantageouly replaced by some nice landscape . Also, several of the current photographs are of a rather poor quality, and I am not sure they belong to a featured article, especially those related to clothing. Surely, we can do better than that. The general impression of this article in its current version is that of India as a backward nation, stuck in the past. What a difference with the China article for example!

So, I suggest we should do justice to some of the more modern aspects of India, by also illustrating some of its more recent achievements. For example:

• Some possible images of modern India
• 
  INS Vikramaditya, the Indian Navy's biggest warship.
• 
  India operates one of the world's largest constellation of remote sensing satellites with 17 satellites in operation as of 2017.
• 
  A candidate for the "Society" paragraph: Market in Chennai
• 
  Mumbai, the financial centre of India
• 
  Hyderabad is a major IT services centre.

I also suggest that we remove the cream-colored backgrounds of the photographs, as they give to the article an unnecessary decorative, stuffy, antiquated look, almost never seen elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I am not saying that everything in India is modern and beautiful, far from it, but at least we could be more objective and balanced in showing the various aspects of the country: modernity constrasting with backwardness, glamour contrasting with poverty, with a general trend towards improvement and modernization as the economy progresses year after year. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives for numerous earlier discussions. Dozens. All the images you have proposed have been proposed before; some such as the aircraft carrier, launched in Russia in 1982, retired and then refurbished for India, had been in the article. In the days of rotating images, it was possible to accommodate more; but in the lead up to this page's TFA last October the practice was abandoned.

India's agriculture sector is its largest employer, constituting 44% of the overall workforce, and 57% of the female. The tractor is a shining new one, its picture was taken in 2014; it is hard to see how it could be from the 1950s. The photograph of women working in the rice field is a featured picture from 2012. India is also the world's largest milk producer the overwhelming majority (between 80- and 90%) of whose milk output comes from hand milking in smallholder farms of herd size less than three. The representative, and iconic, picture of the cow, its calf, and the human dairy farmer, taken by the International Livestock Research Institute, has been in the page for years. All told there are 15 featured pictures in the article. Among them are those of the Indian tea industry, with an annual turnover of $1.3 billion; the panoramic Bangalore, the major hub of India's IT economy; and in the geography section, the fishing boats lashed together and moored in a small inlet in preparation for a monsoon storm. (Those boats are no more run-down than those in the harbor of a fishing town in New England not far from where I live.) None you are proposing are featured pictures, and China is not a Featured Article, it never has been. Discussions take a long time. The last—lasting over a month—was conducted in August 2019. The fullest lasted over six months in 2013. The pictures in this page have to be balanced for region, religion, ethnicity, and economic class. The picture of a mosque in Kashmir, with a 95% Muslim majority, taken in 2011, is more representative of regional society than a market place in Chennai from 2008. The picture of the female healthcare workers, whose stalwart work by the thousands led to India being declared polio-free in 2014, is a picture of heroes. It is more representative of health care in India than one of India's drug industry. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This message is to Fowler&fowler. I am sorry but I have to disagree with your justifications. I would like to point some of the inaccuracies:

1) India's Agriculture Sector: I agree that the agriculture sector contributes the most in terms of employment in India. However, as you point out that 44% of the overall workforce and 57% of them female are in agricultural sector, " a shining new tractor" does not do justice to India's modern agriculture. Perhaps, the following source and image can be used as a more appropriate representation of Modern India Agriculture / Farming Sector.

   1.1) Hydroponic Farming image: 

2) India's Dairy Industry: As you rightly said, India is the largest producer in milk and almost half of it's output comes in "smallholder farms". Nonetheless, the following source and image displays how homegrown, modern and creative breakthroughs helped these "smallholder farms" to evolve rapidly and made the dairy industry to become more efficient and productive is more appropriate and contemporary.

   2.1) New Age Technologies: 

3) India's Jammu & Kashmir Demographics: The 95% Muslim majority population you are referring to and it's source is only about 'Kashmir Valley', not the whole Jammu & Kashmir territory. While Kashmir valley constitutes to 95% Muslims and 4% Hindus, Jammu valley constitutes to 66% Hindus and 30% Muslims.

  3.1) Kashmir
  3.2) Jammu & Kashmir (State)
  3.3) Jammu & Kashmir (Union Territory)

So, if you really considered about the "representative of regional society", the following images should also be posted along with other religious architecture.

 Photo 1: Hindu Temple ruins in Kashmir region:

 Photo 2: Hindu Temple ruins in Kashmir region:

 Photo 3: Hindu Temple ruins in Kashmir region:

Moreover, this page is about India and when you consider the "representative of regional society" more accurately, with 79.80% of Hindus, I would think an Hindu temple should also be depicted/represented along with other religion's photos in "Demographics, language and religion" category.

I sincerely wish you or any other moderator here will earnestly consider my points without any colonial bias/favoritism.Vishme21 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishme21 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm. Coming to think of it there may be a point to this after all, though not exactly what you are saying. F&f, I'd support adding an image of a Hindu temple in the religion section. Not something in ruins (why Kashimr?) but an active temple. Something along the lines of Kapaleeshwarar Temple or the Mahalakshmi temple in Bombay. Unfortunately, neither article has good images but there might be something elsewhere.--regentspark (comment) 01:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is an FP of a Hindu temple: File:Dharmaraya Swamy Temple Bangalore edit1.jpg. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of something with lots of people. A functioning active temple. Along the lines of that image but with people would be great. --regentspark (comment) 01:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Four activities of a Hindu priest, clockwise from top left: (1) preparing the deity for public worship; (2) making sandalwood paste for ritual blessing; (3) successively dripping the altar with milk, honey, dry fruit, yoghurt, and bananas to make ambrosia; (4) distributing the Prasad, food viewed as blessed by the deity, to the worshipers.

Perhaps the following images (which are labelled for noncommercial reuse) of Ranganathaswamy Temple, which is the largest functioning Hindu Temple in the world would be appropriate in my opinion:

Image 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Ranganathaswamy_Temple_Vaishnavism_India.jpg

Image 2: https://live.staticflickr.com/3274/3033520679_879b8439b4_b.jpg Vishme21 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: This is a complicated situation. As you know we use to have rotating images. It was a lot easier to accommodate different likes and dislikes then. Now we have less room. At the time of the TFA I had gone back to Nichalp's old standard of using Featured Pictures (as much as is possible). I can't seem to find any FPs of temples with crowds. Assuming, though, that you would like to give a reader a sense of the activity, the ritual, the ceremony, associated with Hindu worship, the picture of a temple might not be the best thing. It might be better to have a picture we use to have, but one we took out. I have attached it here. In the other pictures Sikh, Jain, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, we have in the article, some aspect of worship is conveyed. This being India, and Hinduism being the majority religion, something more in-depth would be appropriate, such as the picture I have attached here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

India has 22 officialy spoken lamguages. In a state called Tamilnadu there is a very negligible population knowing Hindi. Only 0.6% of the people in Kerala are native speakers of Hindi, the least in India, and Tamil Nadu has the smallest percentage !-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> Arunrajahkl (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

Is there a way to view the pictures in a normal way. Not sure why the article is showing up so weird compared to other India articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:566:BBBE:41A3:DF73:AB7A:50FD (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please correct the data

India has 28 states and 9 union territory as jammu and kashmir is no longer states it divided into two union territory after the revoke of 370. Please correct the data Gauravtheeditor (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

English

Hindi Diller deepu (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but your one word comment does not appear to be related to article improvement. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2020

Hindi is not the official language of India but its the most commonly used language 02nipun94 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No. You're asked to "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it", but you haven't done so. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)