Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc?
A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC.
Q5: Why was my image or external link removed?
A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL.
Q6: The map is wrong!
A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.
Q7: India is a superpower!
A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE.
Q8: Delhi is a state!
A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule.
Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport!
A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 September 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the commonly-used name (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see Turkey, where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 151 million views since December 2007.
The rationale behind the request is: "Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners".
@Flemmish Nietzsche I don't know why I need to discuss this, but I have to add national sweet and reptile, and elephant in mammals. Also, I want to move that infobox from government to somewhere more suitable, like culture. Can I do it?
Also, if I shouldn't write National XYZ: None instead of leaving it blank, then why is national language written like that? Pur 0 0 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not "have to" add anything beyond the national symbols listed and you didn't give a good reason why we need to add them; anything beyond the symbols listed is pure trivia and not very important to the top-level article of India, and should rather be listed in National symbols of India. "None" for language is fine as that's one of, if not the most important identifier of a country; national sport, lolipop, shoe, paper size or any other minor symbol does not need inclusion if there is none as it's not an essential item. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have that table at all? National language can just be mentioned as none in the country infobox, the currency is already mentioned, and for the other things the Main Article: National symbols of India template can be used. As such, no other country has that infobox. Pur 0 0 (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are national symbols not government symbols.....wrong section and in my view sidebar link spam. Should be all integrated into prose.Moxy🍁 05:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take: As nations are cultural constructions, their symbols are usually legislated symbols, which the symbolized—the Bengal tiger, the Ganges river dolphin, the Indian elephant or indeed the Ganges, are unaware of. Joya Chatterji, I think, has written about how the partition of India, for example, imposed new limits on the commonly nomadic wild animals, and gave them redefined national labels. As for what the recognition has brought them, witness the routine abuse of India's heritage animal, the elephant, in Hindu temples and tourist-rides in the palaces of former princely rulers, this despite good intentions. What good does the recognition of the Indian lotus as India's national flower, do to increasing tonnage of cultivated flowers tossed in the paths of vain politicians? The Indian lotus, is nevertheless, a wild species; but the Mango, domesticated from its origins in the wilds of Burma, Bangladesh, and northeastern India, is a much cultivated fruit, found also in Multan, Pakistan, Thailand, and the Philippines. As for other symbols, such as the flag, the state emblem, they too have become ossified, no longer reflecting the ideas they originally did. See for example: Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka#Legacy.
I've watched the table lazily for the last dozen years. Not sure I want to do away with it outright, but perhaps reduce it a little, and then move it:
Remove the mango, the rupee (it's name at least shared with many countries), the calendar (which is one of many of ancient or medieval India) and finally, the Ganges (the nomadic transboundary river) which is also Bangladesh's, not to mention Nepal's from which it gets most of its water. Integrate (in @Moxy:'s felicitious word) in appropriate places in main space or info box.
Integrate the flag, the state emblem, the national songs into prose, perhaps in Culture section somewhere.
Add a small table, "Some national symbols of biodiversity," tightly capped (as implied in @Flemmish Nietzsche:'s fine first reply), containing the Bengal tiger; the Ganges river dolphin; the Indian elephant, the distinct subspecies of the Asian; the Indian peafowl; Indian lotus; and the Banyan tree, if only they haven't already been duplicated in prose there. To these can be added the King cobra, India's national reptile. The table will be less "decorative" (as @Chipmunkdavis: has nicely put it) there. Thanks, @Pur 0 0: for bringing this up.
I'm generally wary of these notions as they can come to reflect ownership, rather than stewardship, of other forms of life by human communities, great and small. I think Wikpedia should aspire to higher forms of knowledge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The symbols here are only the official ones of the Republic of India, those legislated after 1950, not cultural symbols and motifs of Indian civilization. Unlike Canada, which is a relatively young country, India is a tired old civilization, a veritable cultural subcontinent, whose symbols can't be easily summarized, some going back 5,000 years. See for example Indus Valley Civilisation#Seals for a microcosm. If you next examine the third paragraph of India#Biodiversity, i.e. the one beginning, "Among the subcontinent's ...." you will see a Canada-like description of some biodiversity symbols. But these are not the official ones. In the following paragraphs, you will see other symbols, appearing in vignettes that illustrate synoptic or thematic prose. In the post-1950 official symbols, it might be possible to eke out themes, but even there one would be hard pressed to explain why the Indian peafowl is the national bird, and not the Indian white-rumped vulture or the Great Indian Bustard. If there is a consensus to remove the table, then creating a section in prose for the official symbols would be of little value; they are best represented in different sections, if indeed they need to be mentioned. The Ganges already appears in India#Geography, so what are we going to add, that is not cliched? Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From all this above sounds like a section is even more warranted to educate our reader's much more so then one at Canada. Why such an omission? Moxy🍁 02:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: Sorry, I didn't notice this post of yours earlier. Explanations are warranted, but they are too complex to be in one section. They are better off in the sections in which the contexts of these emblems belong. So, upon rethinking this, I agree that we can get rid of the table in government section. The first five or six entries in the table are already in the infobox and the remaining are treated—either individually or as subject topics whose constituents they are (e.g. animal families and their ecology)—in either India#Geography or India#Biodiversity.
Nations (as constituted by people) and governments (as elected by people) do take pride in these emblems or symbols, but reliable sources for both accuracy and due weight are better at identifying what is notable in an encylopedia
Mile is a larger unit (1 mile = 1.9 kilometre). Therefore, the population living in one square mile (covers more area means more people) will be high density and low density in per square kilometre (covers less area means less people). Dinesh | Talk04:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, the citations in the lead are excessive. They're best avoided for uncontroversial claims in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Second, there is a lot of information in the lead that's not super necessary; it can be condensed. Will boldly fix these issues myself barring objections but I thought I'd forewarn the regulars here. JDiala (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala can you provide what specifically in the lead you think is clutter? Such regulars you mention would also likely take objection to any edit you make to the lead, so these should be discussed here first as the lead has been scrutinized heavily over the past 20 or so years. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flemmish Nietzsche, removing citations for noncontroversial claims in the lead is the most important thing. In addition to that, aspects of the lead are far too verbose. FA guidelines are clear that the lead should be "concise"; this is anything but. Giving some concrete examples, "Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rigveda. Preserved by an oral tradition that was resolutely vigilant, the Rigveda records the dawning of Hinduism in India." No need to discuss how well oral tradition is preserved in lead. This is a specific detail better for the body. Could be condensed as "Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rigveda, one of the earliest scriptures of Hinduism". Another example, "Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also marked by the declining status of women, and the incorporation of untouchability into an organised system of belief." Should be removed entirely or substantially condensed, not clear why the status of women in some medieval kingdom is lead-crucial; furthermore caste system based inequality is already discussed elsewhere in lead. "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged..." not sure why "pioneering and influential" is needed. In addition to clutter, it's excessive flattery for a encyclopedia. The second sentence is also strange: "It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country with effect from June 2023; and from the time of its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy", why does the second sentence require discussion of two separate metrics with respect to India's democracy being the largest (most populous democracy since '47, most populous country since '23). Just say most populous country. "Their long occupation, initially in varying forms of isolation as hunter-gatherers, has made the region highly diverse, second only to Africa in human genetic diversity", it's not clear why this is lead-crucial. I mean in addition to it not being obvious why a very high "human genetic diversity" is interesting, it's not even first place here!
For comparison, other country articles that do the lead far better include the United States, Germany, Russia. These countries have histories no less rich than that of India yet still manage to keep the lead size under control. JDiala (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP's oldest country FA, soon to be 20 years old. We don't typically follow the US or Russia, which are not FAs. The version in place now was written for the page's second WP:TFA appearance on October 2, 2019, which was Gandhi's 150th. For several months before, several versions were discussed with several dozen editors on the talk page, now in the archives, Please read them. Other sentences such as the one about the Rg Veda and the Partition were added later after much talk page discussion. I for one am opposed to all the notions proposed by you, including the ones specifically about the lead sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk»08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that there has been debate on some of the specific issues. Could you explain how a lead with so many citations for claims not likely to be challenged passed the FA review when it is a clear violation of MOS:LEADCITE? Was this aspect ever discussed? JDiala (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have tried removing them, but the disruption increases exponentially.
As Fowler notes, it has turned out quite a lot is likely to be challenged. Where we could do better is aligning the lead sources with the body sources, but a sourceless lead is likely to lead to more disruption. CMD (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct as protocols evolves to make articles better so does our advice on what is best for accessibility. Have you looked at how ALL other FA and GA countries articles look? (no text sandwich, no horizontal scrolling etc) We are an active project that spends lots of time on managing our articles FA and GA as standards evolve. FA standards and accessibility problems from 5, 10, 20 years ago have changed alot...thats why the project sets recommendations and links to the protocols that have changed over the years. Accessibility should be the main concern......thus why all the projects recommendations our based/linked to our evolving guidelines or policies. As you can see editor after editor raises different concerns based on protocols here to no avail. JDiala makes some very good points...but basically you tell them and all l its an old FA article and you want no changes.....thus the article looks antiquated. The fact ever edit/change needs a talk is a problem. Moxy🍁 19:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the specific critiques that JDiala has raised, particularly on the human genetic diversity and Rigveda points ("resolutely vigilant"?) The current lead tends towards verbosity and flattery, and should be adjusted. — Goszei (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, flattery? Are you aware that the Rg Veda is the base of all reconstructions of Proto Indo-European, so rigorously was it orally transmitted.? It has no variant readings. There were some dozen different forms and orders of memorization and subsequent proof reading. It is easy to swing by an article and accuse it of verbosity, the usual complaint of WP:Lead fixation. It takes much much longer to learn the content. Please don't make silly accusations of flattery. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with some trimming (resolutely vigilant, for example, could be replaced by "a strong oral tradition" if we want to keep the emphasis). I also think we should give some space to Moxy to suggest changes relating to accessibility. RegentsPark (comment) 20:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong oral tradition" is vague. It could mean that India had a long-lasting but infirmly transmitted oral tradition. We are talking about an exceptional tradition of oral transmission.
I also think the lead should be shortened by removing excessive details that are just not important or interesting for the average reader who simply wants a concise introduction to India's history, culture and global perspective. I also think that many references in the lead should be removed, at least those covering largely undisputed claims. I mean, just the lead section and infobox alone already cite over 70 references, which is absurd for a featured article. Lead sections (and, to a lesser extent, infoboxes) are intended to summarize the most important key aspects of the article and therefore usually don't have to include references when their statements are cited later in the body of the article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the talk page archives of the Summer of 2019. This version of the lead was composed for the page's WP main page appearance on 2 October 2019, Gandhi's 150 birth anniversary. It received the input of over a dozen, maybe two dozen, editors including many experienced WPians. This page has some 5000 watchers and receives nearly 40K views a day.
You have not even bothered to read the beginning of this section where I stated that if you remove the citations, people begin to dicker with the lead. Its not like we always had citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it is easy to wax about generalities, but much harder to actually formulate something. Typically on this page, we propose changes a sentence at a time. Please propose a specific change in a specific sentence and give some evidence of its due weight in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You have not even bothered to read the beginning of this section where I stated that if you remove the citations, people begin to dicker with the lead."
Yes, I have read that part. And I think the fact that other users frequently challenge statements and add citations to the lead is not a valid argument against keeping it clean. It's very well possible; you can revert those edits, protect the page more strictly, and add comments for editors pointing out where certain claims are already sourced in the body of the article. Numerous other frequently edited and highly visited country articles like United States, Canada, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Russia have also managed to keep their leads clean. Also, I never said that this article has to have a completely sourceless lead: Simply reducing the number of citations would already make the lead much cleaner. For example, the United Kingdom article has approximately half the number of citations in its lead compared to this article, which is still relatively high, but looks already much cleaner. In addition, when the lead is shortened in content, citations would of course also become fewer in parallel. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose changes to one sentence, not generalities. Please also cite sources that bear out the truth of that sentence and its due weight in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my intention to propose specific changes here, and I would open a new thread if I did. I just want to convince and motivate others like you that it's very well possible to keep the lead clean and that we should do it. User JDiala already made some good initial suggestions for it which you opposed for odd reasons. Repeatedly referring to the age, number of page watchers and visitors of the article as well as the history of how the article became the way it is today and how many editors were involved in finding consensuses are no sensible counterarguments. Consensuses, no matter how old they are or how many users have been involved, are neither infallible nor set in stone and can change. We already gave suggestions for changes. Now it's your turn to give concrete and real arguments against them. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the point of offering dime-a-dozen generalities? Propose one specific sentence-change or for that matter one of JDiala's in a separate section. You can coordinate with them and cite some sources for reliability and due weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comment and proposal I just looked at the February 2020 version of the lead. As you will see, it was much cleaner and flowed better. But then various Wikipedians appeared and tied the page down in RfC's about one word in the lead that they did not like. So, a compromise was reached to accommodate them and the flow became disrupted. This has happened quite a few times. The version in place now is not how I would write it today.
This article has had a long run as an FA—20 years in a month or two. A better option would be to simply have the FA star removed and then you guys can duke it out and take it afresh to FAR or FAC, have six-month long discussions on which images to include and which to not. Frankly, I have lost interest in the article, tired of reading the very predictable manifestations of Lead Fixation. The article needs many pairs of fresh eyes. So, why not have the FA status removed? I can ask Sandy Georgia or Ealdgyth or DrKay at FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But when I say, "Why don't you rewrite the Politics section, or the Sports section, or the Education section, to raise them to FA standards?" not a peep is heard, or if one peep is, it fades away soon thereafter. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archive after archive page with simple suggestions to no avail. Most experienced editors have simply given up on the paqe. FA ststus in an editor bases data system .....meaningless to our readers so most dont care but can see the problems. Moxy🍁 18:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2024
Would it be appropriate to address the Indian diaspora in this article anywhere? I am thinking it could perhaps be added as a link as part of the "See also" template at the start of the Demographics section.
Discussing the diaspora would tie into some of the history of India (i.e. the British rule and the contemporary indentured labour system, as well as post-British India's significant emigration) and give a clearer picture of India's relationship to the world. Another way of seeing the diaspora's importance to India can be seen in the following excerpt on economics: "It is estimated that the total assets of the Indian Diaspora around the world is close to $1 trillion, half of which are financial assets [...] And according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) data, by 2017, Indian nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $2.46 trillion, while the annual income of the Indian Diaspora is estimated to be $400 billion, which is around 20 percent of the Indian GDP. India is the largest recipient of migrant remittances in the world, receiving over $50 billion in 2010."[1]
As an example of ways this could be done successfully here, a brief glance has shown me that there are two instances of the Chinese diaspora being discussed in the article for China:
@User:Fowler&fowler I have three sources that discuss the importance of the Indian diaspora in overcoming American resistance towards the nuclear treaty:
(the source I already used) "The diaspora then binds India to the West in turn. The most stunning example of this emerged in 2008, when America signed an agreement that, in effect, recognised India as a nuclear power, despite its never having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with Pakistan and Israel). Lobbying and fundraising by Indian-Americans helped push the deal through America’s Congress."
[2] "Next, it was mainly the lobbying efforts by The National Federation of Indian American Association to crusade to relax the U.S. policy over sanctions on India. As a result, the sanctions Imposed on India by the NSG (after Nuclear Proliferation in 1998) were removed on the U.S. recommendation. The former U.S. President Bill Clinton on his visit to India himself specified of immense pressure by the Indian Diaspora to uplift the sanctions. Another instance is the ID’s notable persuasion towards finalizing of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Co-operation Agreement. This ‘123 agreement’ got confirmed in July 2007 and signed in October 2008 enabled India to enjoy all provisions of the Non- Proliferation Treaty."
[3] "Lastly, we [i.e. the diaspora] attempt to influence our host country governments to pursue policies favorable to India, such as the intense lobbying by the Indian Diaspora in the US to get a recalcitrant US Senate to approve the Nuclear Treaty."
For nearly 18 years, the guiding principle of sourcing on this page has been to have as far as is possible only the following kinds of sources, per Wikipedia policy:
For due weight, i.e. in order to reflect the consensus in 1, or in the absence of a consensus, the notable controversy, we need WP:TERTIARY, especially
introductory text-books published by scholarly publishers as they are vetted for due weight, or
reviews of the journal literature, companions (e.g. Oxford Companion to ...), edited hand-books, etc published by scholarly publishers as they describe the consensus or lack thereof, (but generally not other encyclopedias such as Britannica)
Furthermore, there should be significant coverage in that tertiary sources, not just a sentence of two.
If you examine the history sections, or the visual art, the cuisine, the clothing, they all follow this broad approach. The reason is that our entries not only have to be reliable, but they also have to reflect the overall stable trend in the scholarly literature.
Your first source would be good for an illustration (necessarily narrow scale) of a trend (which on this page is necessarily broad scale). So, if something general, or broad scale, finds significant mention an introductory textbook published by say Cambridge University Press, then its illustration can be occasionally chosen from The Economist or The Economic and Political Weekly etc.—that way a reader does not become engulfed continuously in the prose of generalities.
Yes, Moxy, what I added to a new "Further reading" section today is, indeed, "a quote from one book".
It is an interesting review of a book that appears to shed some new light on the role of the over-touted "Silk Road" with respect to the amazing historic influence of Indian culture on Europe and the West.
If it is reinstated, please add at the end a quotation mark, which I forgot.
This is not the article for a random quote like that....and there is already a bibliography section that's vastly oversized. Moxy🍁 23:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]