Wikiwand AI

Talk:India/Archive 41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Lead redux

2011

Here is the unedited original proposal on expanding the lead, starting with the history section, (after the FAR of summer 2011) and Saravask's feedback. It is not what I would write today, but it might be a good place to begin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I read a number of introductions and conclusions in Indian history books, as well as survey articles on Indian history and historiography, and this, in my considered opinion, is the modern historically sophisticated assessment of India's history that has the support of many of the leading historians of India. It is necessarily quite a bit longer than the old lead, but I have seen leads that are longer. With this history paragraph, the lead would be the same size as that of the United States page. Here it is:

Never truly isolated, India has had bonds with other cultures throughout its history. Never homogeneous, its many peoples and regions have charted distinctive historical courses. India's history encompasses the interleaving and mutual play of these bonds and local histories with what one historian has called the unifying "empires of rule, custom, and belief.a" The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent belonged to an arc of such cultures cutting through West Asia. The bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization participated in a broad trend of urbanism running across southern Eurasia. The iron age Indo-European languages-speaking culture that created the mythologically opulent Vedic Hinduism in India had also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia. The major political consolidations of ancient India, under the Maurya and Gupta empires took place not long after Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism matured, and the caste system created uniquely Indian hierarchies, but even as large swathes of the indigenous adivasi people of India continued to lead lives largely untouched by these. The culture and political systems of early medieval Southern India were spread to South East Asia by the Chola and Pallava empires around the same time that Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam arrived in India and helped shape its diverse culture. Much of late medieval Northern India was influenced by the Turko-Persian tradition for several centuries, as syncretic cultures took hold under the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire, as Sikhism arose, and as Southern India was united for the last time under the Vijayanagara empire. Gradually annexed and unified by the British East India Company from the mid-18th century and ruled directly by the United Kingdom from the mid-19th, India became a colonial economy, as parts of it modernized, and as some elites commenced engaging the Western world, leading ultimately to a nationalist struggle noted for non-violence, and to India's political freedom in 1947.

Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: a Robb, Peter (2011). A History of India. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
PS. Of course the explanatory first three sentences (ending ... custom, and belief.") could be left out entirely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - But for a few stylistic quibbles, I support this paragraph:

  • Like rgpk, I think that Gandhi can be added back.
  • The first sentence is somewhat vacuous: other than perhaps pre-contact Nauruans, Rapa Nui, and other island societies, what cultural entity has been utterly isolated? Even the technologically backward ancient Chacoans were trading with Mesoamericans thousands of miles away. Not to mention Arab traders, Varangians, etc. Most everywhere, members of most every group has been seemingly going here, there, and back over the long term. Is there something unique about those "bonds"—were they uniquely strong or tenuous, were they long-run, was there a distinctly Indian way in which those bonds trended or developed? If not, it and everything else not uniquely characteristic of India should be pruned.
  • I prefer serial commas for the same reason MOS regular Noetica insists upon them in the "Australia" page—they help rather than hinder clarity. And if we are going to keep this as one paragraph, we should split it into two for (perhaps frivolous) aesthetic reasons: you would otherwise have this huge thing more than twice the size of the preceding one. The current third and fourth paragraphs should be merged for the same reason. Of course it is ultimately Fowler's choice whether and where the break should occur.
  • I think there are way too many links—stuff like "Northern India", "Hinduism", "Western world", "South East Asia", "colonialism", "Central Asia", and many, many others, when blue, are just crowding out the really helpful India-related essential-context links like "Maurya empire" or to EIC. The surplus links are either patently obvious in meaning or are mere dictionary terms. See User:Tony1/Build your linking skills.

Again, I cannot offer informed comments on topical balance and other less superficial issues. But this one seems to sink its teeth into the subject. After critiquing is over, it should replace the current paragraph pronto. Saravask 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

2016

I think it's a pretty good replacement for the current one but I feel that in this one there is a also lot missing from 1947 to 2016. The paragraph ends as if Independence was the last major historical event in Indian history. What about Nehruvian Socialism, the Indo-Pakistani wars, inclusion of various states into the Union (Kashmir, Hyderabad, Puducherry, Goa, Sikkim, etc), Bangladesh Liberation War, and the millions lifted out of poverty since the economic reforms? Filpro (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first three sentences are vacuous without greater context and should be removed. I also agree with Saravask that bits not characteristic of India can be pruned for concision. Parts such as "arc of such cultures cutting through West Asia", "broad trend of urbanism running across southern Eurasia", and "also spread among pastoral people in Central and West Asia" are unnecessary, evidenced perhaps by the fact such links are not mentioned in the actual History section (which should bar such information from the lead as well, although it can be added to History if very important). The spread to Southeast Asia is perhaps similarly undue, although this is in the body. The sentence beginning with "The major political consolidations" runs on a bit and tries to do too much on its own, as does the last sentence. I agree that despite the length an additional sentence discussing post-independent history would be worthwhile, although perhaps not mentioning all the events Filpro mentions. CMD (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with others that the first three sentences, although polished and evocative, are too vague to remain. "Indo-European languages-speaking" should be hyphenated throughout, or at least have the hyphen break after "languages" rather than before. "...mythologically opulent..." is another instance of evocative but vague language. "...but even as large swathes..." should read "...even as large swaths...". Dhtwiki (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Will post a new version here in the coming days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the first draft of a new history section of the lead, as discussed above. Please offer feedback

The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Later, an iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, created Vedic Hinduism. Still later, Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism evolved, and social stratification emerged, based in caste. Major political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The early medieval era, saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending as far as Southeast Asia. Zoroastrianism, Christianity and, notably, Islam, arrived in India during this time, much of late medieval Northern India falling under the influence of the Delhi sultanate. Early modern India saw the rise of the Mughal empire and the expansion of India's economy; syncretic religious traditions emerged, including Sikhism. From the mid-18th century, India was gradually controlled by the British East India Company, and from the mid-19th century, ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy, but also modernizing in parts. A nationalist movement emerged at the turn of the 20th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 1)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Good balance. I like it. The only remaining complaint is that there are a bit too many links. One suggestion is to add, Through trade, immigration and conquest before the sentence Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and notably Islam, arrived in India during this time.... This is partly to break up the back-to-back linked phrases, but also to put "conquest" in perspective. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Your suggestion certainly improves the flow. For that reason, I'm including it, although I'm a little leery about using "conquest" explicitly, for it begs the question, "Are we sure that the rise of Hinduism, or the consolidation of the Mauryas and Guptas, did not involve conquest?" I do agree, though, that the blue-links are overwhelming. Saravask talks about them as well above, suggesting that linking be limited to "India-related essential-context" links. Here is one attempt:

The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Later, an iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, created Vedic Hinduism. Still later, Buddhism and Jainism arose in India, Hinduism evolved, and social stratification emerged, based in caste. Major political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The early medieval era, saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia. Later in the medieval era, through trade, immigration, or conquest, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and, notably, Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling under the influence of the Muslim Delhi sultanate; southern India united for the last time under the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. The 16th century saw the rise of the Mughal empire, and an expansion of India's economy; syncretic religious traditions emerged, including Sikhism. From the mid-18th century, India gradually came under the control of the British East India Company. From the mid-19th century, India was ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy, but also modernizing. A nationalist movement emerged at the turn of the 20th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 2)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm done for now. Please offer further feedback. I have not included the sentence about the history of post-independent India, as much of that history (as written in the history section) is already summarized obliquely in the last paragraph of the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Two corrections:

  • "Vedic Hinduism" is a non-term; there was no Hinduism at that time, but several regional religons, including the early Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans who migrated to northern India, and the Brahmanic religion of the later Vedic period, as it developed in Kuru-Pañcāla.
  • Hinduism 'proper' emerged only after the Vedic period, as a synthesis of various local religions, including Brahmanism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Perhaps "Vedic religion" in line with our article title? But, JJ, do note that it doesn't matter when hinduism emerged. Rather, we should look at how reliable sources characterize the culture of that period. Still, if 'Hinduism evolved" gives the wrong impression that Hinduism existed during the vedic period then, perhaps, we should use a term sans Hinduism (and changed 'evolved' to 'emerged').--regentspark (comment) 17:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I think these distinctions can be elided in the little summary here. Even though the present-day Hinduism is quite far removed from the Vedic religion, the latter is still a part of it, and "Brahmanism" is just a scholarly term that hasn't yet seen the light of the day. But, more importantly, saying "Vedic Hinduism" will avoid future edit-warring. For the same reason, I would also hyperlink "Islam" to Islam in India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I should have stuck to summarizing the history section (which doesn't say anything about Vedic Hinduism). How about:

    "An iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism. Social stratification emerged, based in caste, and Buddhism and Jainism arose in India."

    I've kept "iron age," even though, strictly speaking, the Vedas span the late bronze age and iron age, but "predominantly iron age" sounds to clunky; besides, many scholars such as Witzel regard the Rig Veda to have been composed in the iron age. To avoid future edit-warring, or, at least, intermittent fiddling with the text, I've hyperlinked "Christianity" to Christianity in India and "Islam" to Islam in India, even though it creates a sea of blue and goes against Saravask's advice (see sub-section 2011). However, I'm removing "trade, immigration, and conquest," as that is how religions arrive (from elsewhere), and the addition becomes a tautology. Here is Version 3:

    The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. An iron age culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism. Social stratification emerged, based in caste, and Buddhism and Jainism arose in India. Major political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The early medieval era saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia. Later, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and, notably, Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling under the influence of the Muslim Delhi sultanate; southern India united for the last time under the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. The 16th century saw the rise of the Mughal empire, and an expansion of India's economy; syncretic religious traditions emerged, including Sikhism. From the mid-18th century, India gradually came under the control of the British East India Company. From the mid-19th century, India was ruled directly by the United Kingdom, becoming a colonial economy, but also modernizing. A nationalist movement emerged at the turn of the 20th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 3)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Version 4

I like this as well in terms of content, but the length issue still worries me. This will inflate the middle para of the lead, note that I don't oppose all that is mentioned but it's worth thinking about the history section getting so much weight would imply the other sections be expanded as well. I don't even oppose that, that would end up with all three paras of the lead getting proportional additions. There's WP:LEADLENGTH, if we cross that (even overtly long four paras counts as crossing it), I personally feel we've failed our readers by making the lead not do what it's supposed to do: provide an accessible view. I don't know how the lead of US was made but I think it should be shortened--even given the exceptional circumstances we face on a country article.

Here a some thoughts after reading it the first time; this is what an average reader might think. Just want clarifications, though some might be obvious answers. Can't say if they're actually problems and if they are, what are their solutions.

  • "Indo-Aryan" is mentioned but a Dravidian fellow might complain about the lack of any explicit mention.
  • "syncretic religious traditions emerged," gives a reader the implication that there's more besides Sikhism
  • I'll have to rehash what was posted below as the Partition being not mentioned. I can think of it having a minimum few word mention attached to the final statement on the top of my head, so the question of length isn't an issue. This draft does mention most of the major civilisations now.
  • "but also modernizing." just sounds odd to me...can't point out why. Is this part necessary? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback. Here is a shortened version.

The earliest neolithic cultures of the Indian subcontinent evolved into the bronze age cities of the Indus Valley Civilization . Dravidian languages emerged. A culture, speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism. Social stratification emerged, based in caste, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. The Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exerted a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia. Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling to the Delhi sultanate; southern India united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the Mughal empire; Sikhism emerged. India gradually came under the control of the British East India Company, and eventually under British crown rule, becoming a colonial economy. A nationalist movement emerged, which, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 4)

However, I don't see that the Partition of India is lead-worthy for the India page, though it certainly is for the Pakistan page. It occupied a sum total anywhere between three and seven years of Indian history. To be sure, it caused a lot of upheaval as well as tragedy in the Punjab, but many famines wiped out ten times as many people ... But let's see what the others say as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC) PS if there is demand we could add: ", but not before the partition of the British Indian Empire into India and Pakistan." at the end. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

I agree that partition is not needed, given the history paragraph covers millennia of shifting political borders. I think this version is better than the current version, although I agree with the above point that it longer than the existing paragraph which throws that balance a bit. I don't think the Early Neolithic cultures need to be mentioned, as they are notable mostly for creating the Indus Valley Civilisation, which is where the current paragraph opens and which would work here too. The Dravidian language note feels out of place, and perhaps it alongside the Indo-Aryan language note can be removed as without context to how they affected history they may not add that much. Perhaps the word "Early" or words "Major early" (or similar) can be added before "Political consolidations", just to make it obvious that this is not an exhaustive list. The mention of Christianity Zoroastrianism and Islam feels out of place, as does the Sikhism drop, perhaps they could be combined into one sentence even if that means the chronology does not perfectly align with the political changes. CMD (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree and was going to point out the awkward mentions of Sikhism and Dravidian as well. Also same for the Christianity sentence being merged with the Sultanate. Another issue: technically the body doesn't mention these adequately (as the draft says) or at all: Bronze Age, "speaking Indo-Aryan languages, composed the Vedas" (compare the what the body currently says) and Pallava (just a passing mention). See what the body says about southern kingdoms, there's quite a few mentioned, so just asking how these two (Cholas and Pallavas) were picked? Same for Zoroastrianism--there's the issue of mentioning Judaism as well (current lead mentions it)? Before posting version 5, let's see how we're going to iron out these specific instances. Also the current article lead's "played a part in shaping the region's diverse culture." seems valuable, is it important? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Religions helping to shape culture? Seems like a statement of the obvious to me rather than something valuable. I think the fact that they're important enough to be mentioned in the lead demonstrates their significance. It is however a good catch as it is the only explicit mention of Indian culture in the lead, and the lead would be lacking without it. Perhaps the final sentence can be slightly reworded to get that wikilink back in. CMD (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC).

@Chipmunkdavis and Ugog Nizdast:

  • Neolithic should have been linked to Mehrgarh, the most important such site in South Asia, and precursor to IVC. Not mentioning it, in my view, makes Indian history begin abruptly with the loud urban volume of IVC. Mentioning it is a way of fading in the history audio, as it were. I'm open to changes though.
  • Agreed, there's no need to mention Indo-Aryan languages, Dravidian languages. One can simply say, "Iron age India saw the composition of the Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism."
  • True, "bronze age" and "iron age" are not mentioned in the history section because there we had the luxury of saying, "flourishing during 2500-1900 BCE." A lead summary need not use the same words. However we do need some kind of periodization; otherwise, it might sound that the Vedas (which were transmitted orally in a pre-literate, but later, culture) were composed by IVC, a literate, or pseudo-literate, civilization.
  • "Early political consolidations" sounds good.
  • As for diversity, how does "In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in India, and Sikhism emerged, all shaping India's diverse culture." sound? Or "all augmenting India's diverse culture."?
  • The Cholas and Pallavas were mentioned because they were the ones which had the most influence in southeast Asia. But how about: "The Middle Kingdoms of Southern India traded widely, their cultures and political systems especially influencing southeast Asia."? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that IVC would be a terribly abrupt entrance, but if the precursors are specifically Indian-related that's an improvement. Augmenting or similar is better than shaping, as it implies to me a process of addition rather than reforming, which is what shaping brings to mind. Can't think of anything additional to say at the moment. CMD (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ...shaping the diverse culture sentence sounds good, but now there's two broken statements from your draft: " Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam, arrived in India, much of northern India falling to the Delhi sultanate; southern India united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the Mughal empire; Sikhism emerged." how are they going to be reworded?
  • Like that new Middle Kingdoms of Southern India replacement sentence, but note the difference: "The early medieval era saw the Chola and Pallava empires of southern India exert a wide influence, extending into southeast Asia." -> "The Middle Kingdoms of Southern India traded widely, their cultures and political systems especially influencing southeast Asia.". "Medieval era" is gone and the former's "extending into" for some reason sounds like they expanded till there. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Version 5

@Chipmunkdavis, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and SpacemanSpiff: Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about this thread. I have taken your feedback into account into a version 5:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilization of the 3rd millennium BCE. In the following millennium, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, the Vedas, began to be composed. Social stratification in India, based in caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires. In Southern India, the Middle Kingdoms influenced cultures as far as southeast Asia. In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in India, and Sikhism emerged, all augmenting India's diverse culture. Much of northern India fell to the Islamic Delhi sultanate; southern India united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal empire. In the mid-18th century, India came under British East India Company rule, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule, becoming a colonial economy, both comprising its colonial period. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version 5)

Look forward to your feedback before this thread becomes archived! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's one, the religion for the Sultanate and the Vijayanagara empire has kept getting removed/added between the past drafts, make up your mind! Either keep for both and remove entirely right? I think I've run out of things to say for it and think it's ready. It would benefit additionally though by a fresh pair of eyes but I think it's gotten enough. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Religion scratched. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks ok. Might want to change "colonial economy" to "colonial nation" though. --regentspark (comment) 13:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. I checked the history section. It refers only to the "colonial period." I've snuck it in. Hope that's OK. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, Ugog Nizdast, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and SpacemanSpiff: I'm assuming we have consensus, more or less, for the paragraph above. I'm going to put it in the lead in place of the current history section. I am, however, leaving out the reference to the colonial period for two reasons: the link to colonialism is too general, and not India-related, and the reference to the colonial period is a small part of the history of the EIC and the Raj in the history section, not notable in a brief summary. I'm also leaving out the Vedas, as "oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism" says the same for a general reader. Here it is, the final version; hope it passes muster:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilization of the 3rd millennium BCE. In the following millennium, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism began to be composed. Social stratification, based in caste, emerged in India in the first millennium BCE, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires; in southern India, the Middle Kingdoms influenced cultures as far as southeast Asia. In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived in India, and Sikhism emerged, all adding to India's diverse culture. Much of northern India fell to the Delhi sultanate; southern India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. India's economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal empire. In the mid-18th century, India came under British East India Company rule, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for non-violent resistance and led to India's political freedom in 1947. (Version final)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fowler&fowler, just a minor gripe which can be done anytime, sorry for not saying this earlier when there was ample time (seeing it again after long gave me these ideas). Why aren't the remaining religions linked? I hate WP:SEAOFBLUE and prefer avoiding common terms as well but linking just two would be unfair. Also can I pipe link caste to Caste system in India (more specific) and maybe replace "India" with "it" in a few places? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast:. I unlinked Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism because of Saravask's admonition about not keeping anything that is not a "really helpful India-related essential-context link." I could pipe link Christianity to Christianity in India, Islam to Islam in India, Zoroastrianism to Parsi, and Judaism to History of the Jews in India, but those articles have quality standard issues, and an FA can't send readers off into non-FA land so early in the article. It is the same with Caste system in India: it is a problematic article. In my view, it has had OR and UNDUE added to it in the last year. Caste is the flagship Wikipedia article on this form of social stratification. The lead second paragraph is nothing but a summary of the history section with one mention of "diverse culture." It can't really create content forks for things that are nowhere in the history section. In fact, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are included only because they were already there in the old lead. Their influence on Indian history, or even culture, as a whole, especially of Judaism, is minuscule compared, for example, to those of tribal culture and animism, but the last two go unmentioned in the lead. They were mentioned, after a fashion, in version 1 of the revised lead, which had to be whittled down because of length issues. Finally, as I see it, India can't really be replaced with "it" anywhere, as it would create ambiguity, risking conflating "it" and something other than India. If you have a specific sentence in mind, please tell me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine, more or less. I echo your sentiment about the links but really that cannot be used as a rationale when undoing someone who adds them in future; them being unlinked does stick out.
1. based in caste, emerged in India in the ...2. adding to India's its diverse culture. 3. led to India's its political freedom in 1947.
Fair point regarding ambiguity, I found three places where it couldn't possibly mean anywhere else. 1. just say "emerged in" since it's pretty clear where (unless if, say, we meant just a specific part of it.) plus solved "in" getting repeated. 2. preceding statement stated "India" explicitly 3. Same reason. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are probably right about someone, sooner or later, wanting to bring back the links. Please add them again.
However, for the India/its issue, I'm afraid, we do have to say India in each of your examples. The referring "it" is used to continue reference to a noun phrase that has been established as the topic in the text. The very first sentence sentence refers to the Indian subcontinent, mainly because IVC sites are mostly in what today is Pakistan; the second sentence refers again to the subcontinent—as it is widely thought that the Vedas (or at least the earlier ones) were composed in the Sapta Sindhu region of what today is the Punjab in Pakistan and some adjoining regions of the Punjab and Northwest UP in India. In the third sentence we make the transition to India. Buddhism and Jainism arose, pretty much, in what today is India, except for the incidental fact of the birth of Siddhattha Gotama in the terai region of Nepal, bordering India. The third sentence is really about India, and thereafter we stick to "India" (Northern India, southern India etc). We can't use "its" with "diverse culture," as a reader might think we are talking about Sikhism's diverse culture. "It/Its" syntactically refers to what is the last-established topic, which in this instance is Sikhism, even though many people would be cognitively aware that the reference might be to India. It's the same with, "... was noted for non-violent resistance and led to its political freedom in 1947." The syntactical reference of "its" is to "non-violent resistance," not to India. Knowledgeable readers will be aware that something is off, but that we mean India, but new readers will get confused. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
PS Rereading the paragraph, I feel that a bigger problem might be any use of "India, or for that matter 'it'," since we mean different regions of the subcontinent. I've now employed a slightly different lexical subterfuge. See the second paragraph in the India lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The text is great, although I would like to propose a few minor additions and changes (additions in italics): The Indian subcontinent, a cradle of civilisation, was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilization | "...and led to India's independence in 1947." (Independence is the more common term and is easily identifiable with the Indian Independence Movement, 'political freedom' sounds funny) | wikilink (Greater India): influenced cultures cultures as far as Southeast Asia | wikilink (Vedic Period): oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism began to be composed. On a separate note, I'd love to know what people think of my proposal to add a new para to the lead passage (at the bottom of the talk page). Tiger7253 (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed to "independence." Cradle of civilization and Greater India have NPOV issues. There is little chance that either will be advertised in the second paragraph of the India page, especially since neither is mentioned anywhere in the history section whose summary that paragraph is. You may have a point about the geology etc, but I'm traveling and flat out of time. Let's have that discussion in a few months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Bit pedantic but shouldn't it be civiliSation as opposed to civiliZation since this article is in Indian English? (for IVC) Tiger7253 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

Wrong Flag published on this Wikipedia Page, as appeared on February 20, 2017, is highly objectionable. 101.63.36.150 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2017 (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. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

change the national anthem.The song displayed is only instrumental. RohhitHowlader (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Reopen the request when you have the file of national anthem with lyrics. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

World Bank poverty line and figures

For reference, this was raised previously when a recent sock removed the poverty figures stating they were wrong as per WB site. It turned out that WB revised their poverty line in 2015 and now their site only shows figures as per those. I recall that I tried at that time to fetch those old refs to it via archive.org but wasn't successful, maybe someone else might be luckier. Or search for some secondary source from that date covering WB's findings.

So the statement's figures in the Poverty section starting from In 2006, India contained the largest number of people.. till ...in 2005 are all not rechecked. All of those WB links are broken and go to its main site in general with its figures now seem to only show it as per the updated poverty line.

I've added a note with one revised 2011 figure. Also, reverted an addition which showed an estimate post 2011, per WB's main site used, they don't seem to have any official figure past that year and they said it was a prediction (this bare ref url added said this and gave a link to the WB study which I'm reluctant to intepret further. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March section

Should March section be added to the infobox like it is present on the Bangladesh page ? Indian Armed Forces official march is Sare Jahan se Accha with music by Ravi Shankar. Should it be included ? (I had already added this, however, it got reverted saying consensus was needed).King Prithviraj II (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Does it have any official recognition besides that like national song, anthem etc? Right now sounds more relevant to armed forces than this page. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It's officially recognized as the official march of Indian Armed Forces (as stated on the Sare Jahan se Accha page). But hey, Armed Forces are the ones that usually march representing the country right ? So thinking that way, I added it. King Prithviraj II (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? We don't have to add every official thing to the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 18:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
More relevant on the Indian Armed Forces page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is an important part of India's history as this song was used during Indian independence. Also, if we are adding it on Indian Armed Forces page, where should it be added ? There is no category.King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
True, and it probably shouldn't even be put there, as the article is currently. The armed forces page doesn't mention anything about its symbolism etc, and it would be awkward putting just that, let alone in the infobox. IMO, it isn't urgently needed to be put anywhere since the song's page and Republic Day (India)#Beating Retreat, for instance, mention it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that the Indian army has one official quick march. It seems it marches in quick time to several songs, dozens in fact, which are used on various occasions by various regiments. There is an INA song, whose name I am forgetting, which too has been used in marching to military quick time, and labeled official. That SJSA is the official one, is very likely an urban legend, which began somewhere and has since been making the rounds in increasingly indistinct circles of fact in the Indian media. I'd like to see an official, or a WP:RS, acknowledgement of this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

GDP ranking

According to Wikipedia french nominal GDP is $2.422 trillion . British Nominal GDP is $2.340 trillion. Indian nominal GDP is $2.607 trillion, but ranked in the reverse order, why not correcting the rank? (117.194.190.236 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

Template creation

My previous experiment with adding the names of India in its official languages in the infobox a la European Union was popular, but was eventually undone because it messed with the infobox wikilinks for the flag and state emblem. I've been thinking of reinstating a list of names outside of the infobox, along the lines of the template found in the Names section of the China article. Although the source code for that template is in the Names section, it appears as a seamless continuation of the main infobox. The source code can be found here. There are parameters for some Indian languages in the source code, and filling them in gives me this result (right):

There are however some issues. The languages cannot be arranged alphabetically (Assamese-Urdu) with the pre-set parameters - Bengali, Assamese, Nepali, Hindi, Sanskrit, Tamil (I've deleted the Prakrit and Pali parameters as they aren't official languages in India). There are 11 'free' parameters that can accommodate other languages, but at least 16 parameters are needed to include the remaining languages, namely Punjabi, Santali, Sindhi, Telugu, and Urdu. I also cannot figure out how to make the collapse parameter work.

I therefore think a whole new template has to be designed from the ground-up, specific to WP:IND. Would this be a good idea? This could potentially solve so many problems. For example, WP:INDICSCRIPT disputes could be avoided with the creation of a dedicated template for Indic scripts. Rajinikanth could have both his Marathi and Tamil names listed in a collapsible template; the same goes for the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha, and many other articles in WP:IND that span various linguistic lines. Examples of this template being utilised can be found in Qing dynasty and Ürümqi. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick facts Names of India, Bengali name ...
Names of India
Bengali name
Bengaliভারতীয় প্রজাতন্ত্র
Assamese name
Assameseভাৰত গণৰাজ্য
Nepali name
Nepaliगणतन्त्र भारत
Tamil name
Tamilஇந்தியக் குடியரசு
Hindi name
Hindiभारत गणराज्य
Sanskrit name
Sanskritभारतमहाराज्यम्
Bodo name
Bodoभारत गणराज्य
Dogri name
Dogriभारत गणराज्य
Gujarati name
Gujaratiભારતીય ગણતંત્ર
Kannada name
Kannadaಭಾರತ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯ
Kashmiri name
Kashmiriجمہوٗرِیت بًارت
Konkani name
Konkaniभारत गणराज्य
Maithili name
Maithiliभारत गणराज
Malayalam name
Malayalamഭാരത ഗണരാജ്യം
Meitei name
Meiteiভারত গণরাজ্য
Marathi name
Marathiभारतीय प्रजासत्ताक
Odia name
Odiaଭାରତ ଗଣରାଜ୍ଯ
Close
  • are these all the langauges? I dont see Telugu language here. Also, if we add this to the article page, wouldnt it be too long/lengthy vertically? Instead of putting it in the main infobox, we can put it in some other section. We can do co-op experiments in sandbox (either yours or mine). If you want to reply/mention me anywhere on wikipedia, please add {{reply to|Usernamekiran}} —usernamekiran (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: No, but as I said, the template doesn't have enough parameters for all languages, so we need to customise a new template specifically for WP:IND. The list is collapsible, so the length is not an issue, but again, I can't figure out how to collapse the list. Tiger7253 (talk)
  • @Tiger7253: i will look up that function for infoboxes. I dont know how to create an infobox template though. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read MOS:DONTHIDE. There are already two collapsed lists in the India infobox. No other WP Featured Article has an infobox that dips well into the history section. This is dead in the water as I see it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I reckon the template is still a good idea. Even if not for this article, then for the other articles across Wikiproject India like the ones I mentioned above. It wouldn't need to be collapsed in that case as it'll be significantly shorter, and there's already precedence for this across China-related articles. Perhaps Indic script can be reintroduced via this template without clogging up the lead or the main infobox. Makes everyone happy and doesn't violate WP:INDICSCRIPT. Tiger7253 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tiger7253 and Fowler&fowler: you both present a good point. and also, why are people psting here random information? Kindly look at the two discussions at the bottom of this page.
    Couple of days ago, a guy asked to join INC on talk page of Rahul Gandhi. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2017

this is khan student federation page khan student federation is student union in the pakistan it was founded by umer khan durrani in 2000 in islamabad model college for boys

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanstudentfederation (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Khanstudentfederation: good general knowledge. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2017 (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. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Religare Health Insurance

Religare Health Insurance is a private sector health insurance company in India. Founded in July 2012, it has till now insured over 27,00,000 lives. Religare Health Insurance has 56 offices with an employee strength of about 2,200 people. 

Religarehinsurance (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2017 (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. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision 771236868

@Fowler&fowler: i didnt understand the reasong behind the edit. Kindly elaborate. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I really didnt understand the reason, honest! —usernamekiran (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:INDICSCRIPT, which explicitly prohibits us from inserting any native Indian scripts into the lead or infobx of an article. Please also read WP:OWN#Featured_articles which suggests that for featured articles you discuss the edit on the talk page first, and gain consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, WP:INDICSCRIPT says nothing about Indian scripts in infoboxes. But nevertheless scripts should only go in infoboxes if they are relevant, and when consensus can be established as to which scripts belong, which is often the case for articles on cities or geographic entities. For this article though, we don't need scripts in the infobox both because of how controversial and disputed the choice would be, and because we already have the Names of the Republic of India in its official languages article. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It says nothing because you just removed it. The editor who put the "infoboxes" in is not referring to the RfC, which any one can read is titled, "Rfc on native scripts in the lead," but further and continual instances of this issue cropping up in the context of infoboxes on the Talk:India page since. I don't see how it is more relevant in Delhi, which can have at least four (English, Hindi, Urdu, and Gurmukhi) scripts, or for that matter the Himalayas (Urdu, Hindi, Nepali, Bhutanese, Tibetan, Chinese,?), or for the river Ganges (English, Hindi, Maithili, Munda, Bengali). It is a slippery slope, especially for a subcontinent very much still in the throes of lingustic-subnationalisms. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed it because it claimed that there was consensus on this issue for infoboxes, when there isn't. See User talk:Sunnya343/Archive 1#INDICSCRIPTS. I agree with you about Himalayas and Ganges, but those are decided on a case by case basis. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 20:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean that you don't remove something which is the subject of an ongoing discussion without informing the participants that you've removed it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed it after I noticed it had been added, which was after I made my initial comment in this section (which I made while thinking that the page hadn't been changed), and then I informed the user who added it. You're right, I should also have gone back here immediately and added another comment, but you were quicker than me. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 20:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Mumbai/Bombay

@Genealogizer and Basawala: I am sensing a possible edit war here. So, in good faith, I am going to edit the the article to reflect only "Mumbai". Whether to add "Bombay" at all, if to be added then with or without "formerly", should be discussed. The change would be made accordig to the consensus. As the name "Bombay" is still somewhat controversial in Mumbai itself, and the state of Maharashtra, as the name Bombay has roots with Portuguese, as well as British Raj.

@Fowler&fowler: your suggestion is requested here. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought the edit war would be between you two :P. My opinion is that it either should just say Mumbai, or say Mumbai (Bombay). This is because I think there was a consensus on Talk:Mumbai to refer to 'Bombay' not as a former name but as an 'also known as' name (search the archives). I'm not sure what the general convention is on recently renamed cities; whatever it is, we should follow that. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Basawala. Mumbai (Bombay) is good enough in the infobox (or Mumbai, also known as Bombay, as on the Mumbai page in the text). Otherwise, we get into other issues that Wikipedia alone can't resolve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it should be just "Mumbai", or "Mumbai (formerly Bombay)". I will make a request to change the same on the article of Mumbai itself as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed before on Talk:Mumbai; I've linked on your talk page two places where it was discussed, but it's your judgment if you want to propose a change again. Ah, and note the 3rd brown box from the top on Talk:Mumbai. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 21:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're completely right that consensus can change, Usernamekiran. :) And ah, alas. My personal feeling is that unless circumstances change noticeably, reigniting a discussion about something as subjective (and controversial) as this would be unlikely to change the status quo, but you never know. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think using "Mumbai (Bombay)" in the infobox is probably the best idea. Most English speakers still say "Bombay", even though it has become more common to write "Mumbai". Genealogizer (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, see WP:WIAN: "Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current." For Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Britannica says formerly Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, respectively. Good luck with the consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

National game

India's national game is hockey Why is it written as undeclared WIZRADICAL (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read the Frequently asked questions (Q9) above, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Government of India's website

I believe the Government of India's website belongs to its own page, not to the India page. Someone has been trying to add it to the infobox. I don't know if this has been attempted before, but if we are agreed on this, then this section can remain as a talk page reference in the future. I'd like to hear from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, i cant be sure about that. I mean, this article is about "Republic of India". And the website, despite the name/domain, does not limit to the government of india only. It is confusing. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Looks like most country pages don't list the government website, and I agree it doesn't make sense to do so. A prominent exception is the United States, but I'll bring it up on the talkpage and see if there's pushback. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I've made the change, and see Talk:United States too. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017 

172.91.211.82 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2017 (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. — IVORK Discuss 07:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Long, article-length edits

An editor has been making article-length edits, whose salient feature seems to be removing semi-colons, or replacing them with, "as," "when," "where," and often altering the meaning. There are other issues as well. In the lead, he has changed the sentence, "A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which, later, under Mahatma Gandhi was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947." to "A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which under Mahatma Gandhi was noted for nonviolent resistance ..." implying that Gandhi could have been leading the nationalist movement from the late 19th century, not just after 1920, and so forth. Moreover, despite my informing the editor about WP:OWN#Featured_articles , WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS, there are no edit summaries, nor discussions, in this long article-length edit. I will be therefore reverting these edits. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this reminds me of /Archive_40#Copyediting_by_Anglophile27. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

India Map changing its original structure

It is observing from your wikipedia, my country India map changing its original structure i have enquire with various government officials they don't know the change of the my country map structure but wikipedia continuously changing its original structure.

I would like to request please change effected from where it got effect.

Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JYjag (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see none of the maps have changed recently or or are in a state of continuous change, can you give use clue which map you have a problem with but first have a read of the Frequently asked questions section above particularly Q6: The map is wrong! If that doesnt help then please come back and explain which map and what it wrong, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Serious changes needed in Early Modern India

I was quite shocked to see just a line of mention regarding the Maratha empire which controlled much of India in 1758. I have a very good amount of credible sources to add in support of my argument (You can get tons off the Maratha empire page itself). I'm surprised that the page does not even mention the Anglo-Maratha wars (and the Anglo-Sikh wars) which paved the way for the British to enter India.--Coconut1002 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ancient India

A map showing the Mauryan empire in its fullest extent under Ashoka the Great would be helpful, no? After all, it's the largest empire to have ever existed on the Indian subcontinent...--Coconut1002 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sports in India

Indian esports industry has begun to come in the limelight since 2015, its growing rapidly and should be added! --Coconut1002 (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

47.187.192.26 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: no request. — LeoFrank  Talk 18:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

70.121.11.78 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Game - not declared - this is not correct , Hockey is the national game

  •  Not done See question 9 in the FAQ at the top of this page. --regentspark (comment) 01:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

More powerful then U.S.A. DHEERAJSONI1 (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear request: please state your changes in the format of "change x to y" and provide reliable sources when needed. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

National Language field must in Infobox

National Language field is must in Infobox for India, as every time people confuse "Official Language" with "National Language". It must to clarify in a country which has 22 recognised languages in Constitution. unnecessary fields-Date format and Drives on the -removed from infobox. Recently there was another push to make Hindi compulsory language for CBSE schools.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Undertheinfluence/mind-our-language-attempts-to-depose-english-subject-our-universities-to-dangerous-social-engineering/
It must be clarified that courts in India have also said that no National Language exists in India
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omSfFK1oNjc --Rashkeqamar (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I reverted your edit before realizing that you had used the talk page. Regardless, please get consensus here before attempting to change entries in the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Needed National Language field as multi-lingual India always gets confused whether so-much promoted Hindi is national language or not. Its not and its better to remove unnecessary infobox fields and put the necessary field National Language there. In 1965 , there was anti-Hindi protest in my Tamilnadu, so I know many North Indians still dont realize that there is NO National Language in India.--Paneerdhelwa (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I too like the idea of putting "National language: None", if we only because of the unnecessary arguments we have every once in a while, stating that Hindi is the national language. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support For the same reasons stated above --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment and  Done: I was the first to revert this edit because I was unsure since I vaguely recalled that this was there before and maybe someone removed it/moved it below (there's a box devoted to all the national symbols at India#Government). Restored to how it was before presumably. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Military Expenditure: Year 2017 for 2016 Update

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Request to add "Bharat Janrajya" phrase in the InfoBox of the article in different Indian languages

External links modified

Inclusion of a new section.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

Addition of image of Elephanta Cave

National Bird- Peacock not Peafowl

"Social stratification, based on caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE"

Editing questions

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

External links modified

Editing questions

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

Shoud the Indus Valley Civilization be discussed in the opening section?

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2017

National game

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

Ram Nath Kovind

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017 - Chief Justice of India - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

Ancient India

Addition of new pics

Bhimbetka rock shelters

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

TFA rerun

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Coordinate error

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2017

Official name

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks