Talk:India/Archive 65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 60←Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66

Poorly written/biased sentence

From "Clothing" section: "The dhoti, once the universal garment of Hindu males, the wearing of which in the homespun and handwoven khadi allowed Gandhi to bring Indian nationalism to the millions, is seldom seen in the cities." This sentence seems to not be from a neutral point of view and uses rhetoric to promote a specific view. Can it be removed? ALittleClass (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Too wordy, too sentimental. It reads like a history essay, not an encyclopaedia entry. Needs clean facts, neutral tone, and sharper framing. Rackaballa (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Please explain what the POV issue is. Are you claiming homespun Indian fabric was not a part of the Indian nationalist movement? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
As someone not very familiar with Indian clothing, I take from this sentence that the decrease of the dhoti is a bad thing, which is an inappropriate moral claim. By interjecting information about Gandhi, a beloved figure, a reader could infer something like "The decrease of the wearing of the dhoti represents the decrease of Indian nationalism, and both are bad" or "City people have devalued their Indian identity", which is too much. The source which the paragraph in the article derives most of it's information, while being a usable source, also has parts that are more of a subjective essay from the author, which must be taken into account (I will try to get another source for this section).
I would use a separate sentence about the historical link between the dhoti and Indian nationalism. As an example from the Dhoti article: "During British rule in colonial India, the dhoti remained a national symbol of resistance and cultural identity when worn without a shirt." Information about how western clothes are becoming more common in the cities is already explained earlier in the Wikipedia article's paragraph. ALittleClass (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I suppose a split for clarity is reasonable, but calling it an NPOV violation is a stretch, I'm struggling to read the sentence that way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The sentence does violate NPOV by presenting interpretive symbolism as fact. Calling the dhoti “universal” among Hindu males is a sweeping and unsourced generalization that ignores regional, caste, and class differences. The framing around Gandhi romanticizes a specific political moment and embeds a narrative of cultural decline tied to urbanization. This isn’t neutral encyclopaedic writing, it’s nostalgic editorializing. Rackaballa (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Generally, for festive occasions, traditional clothing are used. While for normal day people use modern clothes. In India nowadays, specially among women, there is a trend of mixed styles. Such as jeans with short kameez or dupatta, or any other Indian dress. I don't know whether its relevant or not, but I think is useful info here. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Too poorly written for Wikipedia's oldest country FA, now 20 years old. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
You’re sidestepping the actual point. Mocking the critique with a legacy flex doesn’t make the sentence better. It’s a weak response disguised as wit. If the sentence stands on its own, defend it. Rackaballa (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Fully agree. Its too sentimental and not neutral at all EarthDude (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Fully disagree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I am not calling for the sentence to be removed entirely. I am simply calling for it to be reframed. It seems unnecessary and kind of irrelevent to talk about nationalism and Gandhi when the subject is the dhoti. In my opinion, just saying it used to be extremely common and no longer is, or something along those lines, would be enough. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
It reads like a white boomer historian trying to sound thoughtful but ends up projecting Gandhi cosplay onto a whole country. Calls the dhoti “universal,” ignores regional and caste differences, and romanticizes decline as if cities killed culture. It’s not reverent, it’s reductive and colonized. Rackaballa (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's clearly an overly sentimental sentence. Support removal. JDiala (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Where's the POV here? — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    I reworded this page because I'm not fully sure if NPOV is the current description of the issue. That being said, I do believe that the way the sentence is constructed creates hidden implications (that Indian nationalism has declined, or that city livers specifically have devalued traditional culture). And as others have mentioned the tone is sentimental and non-encyclopedic. ALittleClass (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    The sentence fails Wikipedia’s core content policies. “Universal garment of Hindu males” is an overreach. Even within Hindu communities, clothing varied by region, caste, class, and time period. The dhoti was not worn by Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, farmers in Punjab, or tribal Hindus in the Northeast. Calling it universal erases that diversity and lacks a source. “Allowed Gandhi to bring Indian nationalism to the millions” is a speculative causal leap. It credits the garment itself with mass mobilization, which oversimplifies complex political dynamics and has no direct attribution. “Seldom seen in the cities” is vague and unverifiable. Which cities, which timeframe, what data? Wikipedia requires precision, citations, and clear separation of fact from interpretation. A sentence can sound polished and still violate core standards. Rackaballa (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • The last sentence "is seldom seen in the cities" needs improvement. It reads like we are lamenting over a decreased amount of significance of dhoti in the cities. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    "is seldom seen in the cities" by itself has no connotations of lament, that's all weakly in the preceding text. CMD (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Alternative reason for removal: Redundancy

Separate from the ongoing tone/accuracy/POV discussion, there is also a straightforward argument for removing this sentence on the grounds of redundancy. The "Clothing" section already introduces the dhoti in the first paragraph.

For men, a similar but shorter length of cloth, the dhoti, has served as a lower-body garment.

The first mention is sufficient for an article of this scope. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:CONCISE, a second mention that adds no critical new information. — Rackaballa (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I would also support this, and honestly I would mark that entire paragraph for review. It almost exclusively cites 2 pages from one source (Bollywood's India: Hindi Cinema as a Guide to Contemporary India, pages 244-245), and at that, it's not a source that's particularly focused on Indian clothing. The section mainly focuses on how Indian clothing has changed in the present day and western clothes have become more prominent, and I believe this could be summarized in maybe only 1 or 2 sentences. ALittleClass (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Ironically, the entire "Culture" section doesn't have a word on Bollywood or Indian cinema. Rackaballa (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
This is blunder failure of this article to give fair and balanced view Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

A proposal for changes to the Culture section

I have mentioned this before, but I believe that this article currently has gaps in it's culture coverage. This is a proposal for correcting this and giving a wider coverage of Indian culture, without causing the article to be too inflated in size.

My main two concerns are: There is no writing on music outside of one mention in the lead, there is no writing on film outside of one mention in the lead. All of the top 25 most populous nations have a dedicated body section on the music of the country, and India is home to the second largest film industry outside of Hollywood (actually, the largest in terms of total ticket sales and the amount of movies produced), so to me these are glaring omissions. Here are my proposals for how to change this and also introduce coverage on other areas.

A) Convert the "Visual arts" section into a general "Arts" section

This would involve adding details about music, performing arts, and potentially literature and architecture (although there some implicit coverage about architecture scattered around the article). To account for this, we would trim some of the current detail about visual arts, and convert the gallery into traditional sidebar images (Galleries are also generally discouraged per WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE)

B) Add a "Media" section

This section would cover movies, television, newspapers, magazines, and more modern forms of media allowed by the internet. This would add to the article size, but below I've added some proposed trims to make space, and I don't think this section needs to be very long.

C) Add a few sentences at the top of the Culture section summarizing broad aspects of Indian culture

This is probably the least necessary change, but I still think it could be beneficial. Looking at the other featured article countries, 6 out of 7 (all except Cameroon) have a general paragraph at the top of the culture section. Things to mention here could include the diversity of India's cultures and traditions (this is really only mentioned once in the lead, characterizing India as a "multi-ethnic" society), influences from other regions on India's culture and the influences India exerts on other cultures, and any movement to create a cohesive Indian identity. This is a lower priority addition though.

Making space

How would we make space for these proposals? Well, I see 2 other sections in the Culture section where detail could be trimmed: Clothing and Cuisine. They both expend 4 long paragraphs to describe their sections. Looking at the other featured article countries, at most they seem to have at most about half as much writing about cuisine (Australia and Japan), and some don't include a dedicated cuisine section at all. And surprisingly, only two of the other FA countries (Cameroon and Madagascar) have any mention of clothing at all. I'm definitely not suggesting we cut the clothing section altogether, but these are two areas where trims could be made. In fact, there is one paragraph at the bottom of the "Clothing" section that essentially cites two pages of one source (and a relatively weaker source), which essentially amounts to multiple ways of saying "In the last 50 years, Indian clothing has changed and more people wear more modern or western influenced clothing", which could be cut wholesale.

Thus, all these proposals could be enacted, and the article would only grow marginally in size or not grow at all. ALittleClass (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Image in Geography section

The Anjarle creek boats image, while beautiful, seems out of place to me in the geography section. The focus of the image are the fishing boats rather than a geographical feature. It is also one of four images from Maharashtra included in the article. I understand that images on this article are heavily debated, so I looked through the archives. Apparently the relevance of this image to the section has been questioned by several editors (, ); one explanation, perhaps the best argument for the image (even if still inadequate) was that it shows "boats in a tidal creek in Maharashtra preparing for a Monsoon storm." But this relation to the monsoon is not well-illustrated neither visually nor through text. At the time this discussion took place, the number of featured pictures from India was significantly lower than today, so I can understand the image being chosen for technical quality more than illustrative value.

The section invokes the Himalayas several times: when elaborating the India–Eurasia collision, when talking about the formation of the Indo-Gangetic plain from Himalayan river sediment, when highlighting the 'strong influence' of the Himalayas on Indian climate, and finally when discussing climate change and retreating Himalayan glaciers. It talks about the Himalayas more than any other physical feature of India, thus I think a picture of the Himalayas would be a better fit.

If nobody has any objection to my proposal, I have carefully selected two images from Commons:Category:Featured pictures of the Himalayas of India, one of which may be good replacement for the boats image. I have also supplied the possible caption they could appear with, written with the geography section in mind.

A frozen glacial lake at Shinku La, a 5,091 metres (16,703 ft) mountain pass in the greater Himalayan range in Himachal Pradesh, abutting the boundary with neighbouring Ladakh.

One image each from Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim and Uttarakhand already appear in the article (in the culture, economy and clothing sections respectively), and there are no FPs from Arunachal Pradesh currently. So I have not chosen images from these states.

Of the two, I prefer the image showing a frozen glacial lake on the boundary between Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh (FP at both commons and here). The other image, reminiscent of a Roerich painting, shows several Himalayan ridges north of Shimla up until the snow-covered middle and greater Himalayan ranges in the distance (FP at commons).(strike withdrawn suggestion) Both images are by Timothy Gonsalves, author of several Himalayan FPs on wiki. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  • I don't believe I had seen or commented upon the Anjarle Creek image before you mentioned it but I really like it! It integrates information about the economy, weather and coastal geography in a very beautiful photograph and IMO for this article with its vast scope, it is good to have images/captions that add information to what is contained in the article body rather than simply illustrate existing text.
That said, I also like the Frozen lake image you propose, and prefer it the (admittedly very beautiful) aerial Himalyan image, since at the default scale that the images are displayed, the latter can be easily be mistaken to be a generic image of clouds. One small quibble about both the Himalayan images: I wish there was some element in the frame that helped establish the scale of what is seen. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@Abecedare: The thing is, at their gigantic scale it is easy to miss smaller elements: in the lake image, if you zoom in the middle, you can see two SUVs on a road freshly excavated out of the snow (this road is a strategically, historically and economically significant route that connects Ladakh through Himachal with the rest of India by land, and a tunnel is currently being built right under this pass to ensure all weather access on this road—the first such road when completed). In the bottom left of the image you can see human footprints in the snow. The footprints, the road and the vehicles give us a rough idea of the size of the lake and the huge Himalayan mountains. What's more is this image was taken not in winter, as the snow may suggest, but in the peak summer of June! In my opinion, it adds more value to the article than the creek boats image, since in this image (unlike the boats image) the focus is the geography while other important information and context is also present. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
You are right that I had missed the SUVs etc when I quibbled about the images lacking elements establishing the scale (and that happened even though I expected any "human"-related features in the image to be relatively small)! Btw, it would be good to add some of the additional information you note in your reply in the image caption so that the latter is more interesting and informative. I still prefer the Anjarle creek image somewhat but will let others weigh in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I have now withdrawn the other image suggestion, and named and linked Shinku La in the caption—so that readers could simply move to that page to read more about the importance of the pass. :) UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Since you noted above that you "would also support swapping the geography image: I agree it's an odd choice," perhaps you could participate in this section (which I opened before Patliputra's wholesale image replacement proposal, and which is unrelated to the FAR proposal as well). TLDR: the Shinku La pass frozen lake image (with accompanying caption) is the one I propose replacing the Anjarle creek boats image with, based on it being more focused on the geography, and being from a geographical feature (the Himalayas) which is talked about the most in the geography section (see above for the detailed suggestion). UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I support making a change to this image, but the proposed one wouldn't be my choice. It's a beautiful photograph but at 220px even on my large monitor it's mostly white, with little detail discernible. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: It is a frozen lake in a snowy landscape at nearly 17 thousand feet height, of course it is mostly white—but it is also a culturally significant mountain pass with a strategically important road connecting two states of India, and one of them to the rest of the country—I chose the image because of specific significance and the extra bit of information it carries. If a high contrast image is what you prefer, we do have another image from the same locality (File:Darcha Padum Road Below Shinku La Lahaul Oct22 A7C 03533.jpg, featured picture at both commons and enwiki) which has a higher contrast. We also have an entire gallery: Commons:Category:Featured pictures of the Himalayas of India, please have your pick if you would like to make a different suggestion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing the photography, only pointing out comprehensibility at a resolution for which the picture was not intended...my choice would be File:Ganges Delta ESA22274217.jpeg. It shows the full span of Indian geography, from coast to mountain. If we want a Himalayan image, I'd suggest File:Gurudongmar Lake Sikkim, India (edit).jpg, in which details are still visible at 220px. Ultimately this image is a matter of aesthetic choice among many reasonable options. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde93, for your inputs. I did consider the Gurudongmar image—I had edited and uploaded that image to commons, then nominated and gotten it featured at both commons (nomination) and enwiki (nomination) in April this year—but ultimately decided against suggesting it because another Sikkim image (of Tea gardens in Namchi, well-used imo) already appears in the article. Two images from Sikkim might be overkill. This is also the reason I didn't select any J&K image, because one from there is already used in the article (Srinagar Mosque), and why I thought a Himachal-Ladakh joint image would be nice since no image from either appears in the article. That said, the satellite image (which I annotated last year) is also nice but very low quality. I originally looked for a topographic map of India, but to my sad surprise I found none of feature-able quality on commons. Btw, what did you think of File:Darcha Padum Road Below Shinku La Lahaul Oct22 A7C 03533.jpg? Please be as blunt as you can be, and don't hold back on criticizing photography either, that is how we may find the best replacement. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The road picture is a good one, and I'd take it over the boats for certain, but the satellite image seems to illustrate...more. There must be something usable in commons:Category:Satellite pictures of India, but I don't have the time to look through the category tree at the moment. Your point about not repeating states is fair. The image is also of a significant pass, which is a point in its favor, but I'm not sure how many of our readers would appreciate that fact. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
It does illustrate more, Vanamonde93 though in my view a full, high quality and unconfusing topographic map (which I did try to find but couldn't) is more encyclopedic than satellite imagery. I went through commons:Category:Satellite pictures of India in May—when I nominated this image for commons FP status—and most of the more than 3,000 images are close-ups/zoomed-in shots taken from the ISS (example). But this all comes down to what type of image we should use. My original suggestion for a Himalaya image was because the section invokes the Himalayas repeatedly throughout it, though this was after I couldn't find a suitable map. (It is just now also occurring to me that there are two maps in the article, and it may have been a deliberate choice originally to not include another.) UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I will try to formulate another image+caption proposal in this section, say by tomorrow, and ping for views. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Support change. The boats don't belong to the Geography section. Rackaballa (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose change and support user:Abecedare. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Second image

Fishing boats lashed together in a tidal creek in Anjarle village, Maharashtra
Current image & caption
View below Shinku La, a mountain pass in the Himalayas in Himachal Pradesh, showing a road which connects the state to neighbouring Ladakh.
Proposed replacement
pinging also @Abecedare: for inputs (and if you'd like to see the preceding discussion, see comments above this). UnpetitproleX (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Support. Replacing the tidal creek image with Shinku La better reflects India's geography. The current photo shows a narrow coastal scene with limited topographic relevance. The proposed image shows elevation, terrain, and Himalayan connectivity, which directly support the section. Per WP:IMAGEUSE, images should serve the article's focus. The creek photo fits better in an economy or culture context, if at all. Like come on, a tidal inlet with boats says more about local livelihood than national geography. Rackaballa (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@EarthDude: Like Vanamonde93 above you also seem to think the geography image needs replacing, as you noted "the only acceptable proposal [for image change] here is for the geography section ..." so perhaps you too could share your inputs here, where we are discussing such a replacement. My proposal is unrelated to the FAR, you can go through the discussion above for how the current proposal was chosen. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"India." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect India. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29 § India. until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Christianity

I certainly appreciate the good work done to make the introduction comprehensive and relatively short, given the enormous complexity of the subject of the article. I think to say that Christianity was established in the Early middle ages on the west or south coast is a bit tendentious. Significant components of the Christian community in India claim that Christianity arrived in the first century CE through the Apostle Thomas. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:A835:70C1:5804:EBEC (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2025 

180.241.123.53 (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello bro pls while this wikipedia page id indian

Pls add the indian gov website at last of the page Example:India.gov.in.com

Already listed in External Links Cannolis (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

"Endia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Endia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 31 § Endia until a consensus is reached. Gotitbro (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of 1962 war sentence; phrasing issues

The current text reads:

After cordial relations initially, India went to war with China in 1962. India was widely thought to have been humiliated.

I propose replacing it with:

After initially cordial relations, India suffered a humiliating military defeat to China in the 1962 war.

This is a style and tone improvement, not a sourcing or content dispute. Feedback welcome. If you oppose, please explain why so the issue can be evaluated on substance. Rackaballa (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. "Widely thought" is certainly in WP:WEASEL-y territory. Your proposed change is more natural. JDiala (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The change seems reasonable, but if you want evaluation on the substance please provide full sources rather than ambiguous inline citations. CMD (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Fair ask regarding the inline sources. I tried to include them here but I am struggling with Wikitext. Nevertheless, those inline citations are the same that are attached to the current sentence in the article. Rackaballa (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, in that case I agree they do make that view clear. CMD (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Mind making this edit. I don’t have edit permission. Rackaballa (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Done, although replace "the" with "a". CMD (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Y'all must be joking. That doesn't even mean what you think it means. What's the point of improving style, tone and flow if it doesn't say what you mean?

  • cordial relations initially: "initially" describes the timeline of relations, it was cordial in the beginning of the relationship
  • initially cordial relations: "initially" modifies "cordial" and it's hard to say what it means assuming it even means something; in any case, it doesn't mean what you think it means because you think "initially" modifies "cordial relations", not just "cordial" and you think it in doing so provides the timeline for events as it does in the previous case, which it doesn't; it attributes a quality of initialness to the cordialness of relations, whatever that means

After initially cordial relations, India suffered a humiliating military defeat to China in the 1962 war.

  • Intention: The relations were cordial at first. Then there was a war. India suffered a humiliating defeat in that war.
  • What it actually says: There was a war called the 1962 war. At some point in the war, the relationship was cordial and that cordiality had a quality of "initial"ness to it. Then, India suffered a humiliating defeat.

Forget beauty and flourish, you're saying the relationship was cordial after the war had already started. The only way to correctly and unambiguously parse the sentence is to already know the information it's trying to impart.

"After cordial relations initially” is clumsy. “After initially cordial relations” is clearer and more idiomatic. This has got to be an LLM.

I can parse English well enough but can not myself compose to FA levels and therefore refrain from trying. Y'all appear to have problems even parsing it. I suggest that people stick to areas they're competent in. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think LLM was involved, and I've reverted you so that it now says "After initially cordial relations". Your version said "After cordial relations initially,". Which seems to be what you think is correct. So I'm confused. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
I've signed the {{cait}} template to clarify that I was the one who collapsed the LLM-generated portion of the comment (in Special:Diff/1304809721) per WP:AITALK. I don't have an opinion on the phrasing, but from the above, it looks like Usedtobecool's preferred phrasing is "After cordial relations initially", and that is why Usedtobecool made the edit Special:Diff/1304813345; the edit summary there appears to refer to Rackaballa ("not CMD"). — Newslinger talk 10:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I don't see how I can elaborate any further; you speak as though the comment that you are replying to did not exist. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Didn't notice that the green meant you were copying. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Music absent from Culture section?

Is there a reason there is no music section under culture? You have Visual Art as a section, which seems to imply there should be something about music. I'm just curious. Drocj (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I have also pointed this out, along with the omission of other art forms like literature and performing arts, and media such as film. ALittleClass (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Nope. No any reason, I wonder why not its added despite being an FA Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Music doesn't have a lv2 section in Culture of India, it should not have a subsection here. (It has four paragraphs there, one unsourced.) CMD (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Why not??? Thats the structure and trend seen in most articles Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Because the section here is a WP:SS of Culture of India. CMD (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Would you be supportive of adding a performing arts section, or modifying the current visuals arts section to be a more general arts section that also covers performing arts and literature? ALittleClass (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I would love to support of adding arts section / modifying current visual arts section .................... But we must look at structure of other FAs. There is separate subsection under Culture for Cinema and Music. If "Arts" or "Visual Arts" includes music and cinema, then I am in support for it Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Updating Vice President

The vice president part of the infobox here has not been updated to reflect that Jaideep Dhankhar resigned as vice president this July. Anonpriest (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion to update Geography section image

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2025

Lead sentence redundancy

Duplicate request

Republic of India

Image update suggestion

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2025

Culture of India

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2025

Coordinates of India are incorrectly rounded

Simplification in the lead

Official Script Anthem Title

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2025

Change of inaccurate year of Gini coefficient in the infobox

I am rewriting some sections and revising others; please note

Spelling error

"viewed with tolerance"

"a a" in lead section

GDP ≠ income

Some input

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

Images might violate style guide policy

Too many pics and violation of Image styling

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2025

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected India Islamic ☪️ Country 1840 Old edit request on 19 January 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2026

Urdu in the info box

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2026

Pictures

Images in politics section

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2026

National Anthem English Title

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2026

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2026

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI