Talk:India/Archive 38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

Contents

Name of India in Hindi

Why is the name of India in Hindi written in the Latin alphabet, when the Devanagari script is official?  Liam987(talk) 19:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

DENSITY OF INDIAN POPULATION IS 382 PERSONS PER SQKM AND NOT 372 183.83.82.251 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please turn off Caps Lock. Thank you. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, all the other wikipedia articles state it as 382 too.It is 382, but the India article uses some converter(template) to get the density.I was unable to understand it.Maybe you can? Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 14:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks like it's using a "live" population tracker at Template:Indian population clock and then dividing it by the UN-recognized area of India. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2013

Please edit multiethnic to multi-ethnic on the third paragraph under the subheading India. Flarey300 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done: Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Self rule

Please add "Swaraj" to the section under Ghandi and self-rule. 24.15.131.32 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

crazy

1.no indian script in page like no devnagri, no tamil,telugu,kannada,bengali scripts and these are suppose to be classical languages.
2. why the hell article is lacking pictures showcasing out culture
3. why no tables
4. why so dull
5. even books on engineering and medical are more colourful than this article and we are suppose to be most colourful nation on face of earth
6. importance to edits made by enemy nationals based on highly debatable referances have more credit then neutral and indian
7. looks like editing india article is propritery of bunch of highhanded cyber zombies
8. compare india's article with other nations and u ll find it lacks life and indians are supposed to be most tech savvy ppl

crazy

1. in economy, 1 picture is deleted by wiki and there its dead body lies in red
  • Corrected the image file name. It is live again.
2. in sports section, where is Sachin Tendulkar face this is disgrace and can be considered as insult to cricketing gods
  • There is an image of Tendulkar celebrating.
  • agreed sachin is celebrating but i suggest sachin's face with a smile worth millions than his back to camera. Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
3. picture of Taj Mahal is hardly visible and its a wonder, least we can expect a full picture of it
  • The image of Taj Mahal also has people from another part of India visiting, which was thought to increase the human value of the image.
  • focus is neither on people nor on Taj Mahal, i suggest there are many other picture on wiki with people and taj with more clearity and focus on taj.Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
4. in Literature you people mention abt kamasutra but not a single picture of ancient manuscripts
5. and where are the pictures of famous Indus Valley Civilization the very basic of india, the great bath Dholavira , docks of Lothal
  • We have the image of Ajanta cave painting. Yes, Indus valley, Lothal or Dholavira could be equally important. Do you know of any image of those entities which are high quality, preferably featured picture?
  • there is a time gap of 2000 yrs between ajanta paintings and IVC you cant compare both in same context of time in history, u can find pictures of docks of lothal and dholavira on wiki itself please load it showcase our long history Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
6. no picture of Ancient Indian Coinage used in india i think we used GOLD coins
7. and where is parliment's picture instead we have rashtrapati bhavan's pic which is dummy useless position in india
  • There is an image of the inside of Samsad Bhavan.
  • comman man of india recognise outside of building easily than inside and so does foreign.Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
8. no image of Supreme Court of India or high court of any state nothing and we indians go on road demanding justice
9. "The Indian film industry produces the world's most-watched cinema" thts it one line end of our great indian cinema
10. and no talk abt health, education, poverty, transport and food
  • This is perhaps the most important point you have mentioned. I found some data on poverty in the article. Food should have been mentioned in Culture, at least it was before. We'll check. Education and Transport needs some mention, this is a really good point you have discovered. Let's see how we can do that.
  • if you could check it i had added some of those sections which were reverted back and my edits even had referances and i was working on creating other sections too Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

few bunch of jokers created a pathetic piece of craziness and they are going nutts to save it Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC) if at all you try to make some contructive changes then pops a message from other highhanded user that they will block you cause you are making changes,how can this muppets with out going thru edits ATTACHED WITH REFERANCES revert it back to stone age type of page lacking images and tables and more over images and tables and referances posted by me were taken from other wiki pages so it anything wrong with these then please change those pages also make it look dull and stone age like this 1, thank you and please do your best to make this page dull and image free Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I have provided some answers to your queries above. There have been many discussion on images in the article in the past. For example, see this discussion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • well i suggested few points if any 1 can go thru it and answer please Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Not done: This article provides valid information for people conducting research on India. This is not a page to boast about India and have biases. Only points with valid and unbiased sources will be accepted!!! All the points you made are just a pro India idelogy that makes India seem like an amazing place. This isn't a travel agency, we are not going to promote a nation and give false facts. Only valid information can be used. Also you made many pointers on images. Only approved images may be used. Wikipedia is really strict on using copyrighted work!! Only images available on commons or personal images may be used. I have a strong feeling that the sources you found are invalid or made by radical Indian organizations. Also the next time you make a change, you have to first conform with us on the talk page and get everyone's approval. Wish you luck on your research! If you do happen to find valid sources, just post it here and ill make the changes for you! Cheers!!!

84singh84 (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Infrastructure

Taking cue from the above user regarding coverage of education, transport etc, I was wondering whether it is time to consider a section on "Infrastructure". The section should include well-summarised description of health, transport, education, Power (? and irrigation), and possibly communication (unless it is already covered in Economy or somewhere else). I understand this has been discussed before. The main hurdle has been the difficulty in writing succinct prose. Any comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I support that. Infrastructure (and the lack of it) is an important topic for a developing nation. --regentspark (comment) 22:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
well i made few of those section with NEUTRAL REFERANCES ATTACHED which were reverted back to old edits with a warning that once again if i edit on this page i ll be blocked so now its upto you guys to do it i can suggest you data and pictures to be attachedSushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have provisionally started this sandbox, where anyone can contribute towards developing the infrastructure section. The present template is just a start, and subject to change as needed. Please contribute there to develop a good section, then we can move the section to India, once consensus is built. Also, since this is a sandbox, you can add references in any style, we can later make the style consistent.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job Dwaipayan, its great to see someone making edits the right way and not destroying the main article. I don't know a lot about India's infrastructure so I can't really help, Sorry!!! I wish you gusy luck! I'll ask some friends for some sources on this and I'll ask them to contribute!!!84singh84 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Concern,

Just would like to remind you for update on STATE count details of INDIA.

Regards, Lakhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.119.242 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013

on the line "India is also an observer-member of the Organisation of American States..." please correct spelling: organiZation Gledsonh (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Quite a common confusion between American and British english... Strike Σagle 15:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

The first image narration in the section Foreign relations and military says: "..... India and Russia share extensive economic.... ties." The term economic is regarded for trade, Foreign Remittance, import and export, and India does not have extensive trade relations with Russia even it does not comes in top 10 list (List of the largest trading partners of India and this). Thus we shall have to replace or better remove economic... ties. Hope its correct. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As Indian Performing Arts/arts are also universally known for its Paintings and handicrafts, thus I think we should add some stuff about both in the section Performing Arts, keeping stuff only about dance (Performing Arts/arts) in this section does not seems encyclopediac. looking for advices before move. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

__________________________________
(Economic facts and statistics are missing in economic section and Wikipedia article. Include the above reality into India main wikipedia article.)

While you may be right, this article is about the Republic of India, i.e., the modern post-1947 country, which is not the same as the historical India. Perhaps you could suggest incorporating this material in the History of India article instead. --regentspark (comment) 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
There is section called "History" (which deals with ancient India) in the main India article, where you can publish this. Your reply statement "may be right" is invalid. What I have stated above is now an economic fact and a real statistic (the works are published). Economic historian Angus Maddison clearly stated in the book that India has resulted to become a poor country for because of British colonization of India for 200 years. The problem is Europeans have problems dealing with the fact. There is also an another scholar named Will Durant is his book named "The Case for India" states that British rule in India is the greatest crime in all history. The book was unfortunately banned by the order of British monarchy in 1930; however I have a copy of the original book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.195.192.97 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

References

__________________________________
(Economic facts and statistics are missing in economic section and Wikipedia article. Include the above reality into India main wikipedia article.)

While you may be right, this article is about the Republic of India, i.e., the modern post-1947 country, which is not the same as the historical India. Perhaps you could suggest incorporating this material in the History of India article instead. --regentspark (comment) 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
There is section called "History" (which deals with ancient India) in the main India article, where you can publish this. Your reply statement "may be right" is invalid. What I have stated above is now an economic fact and a real statistic (the works are published). Economic historian Angus Maddison clearly stated in the book that India has resulted to become a poor country for because of British colonization of India for 200 years. The problem is Europeans have problems dealing with the fact. There is also an another scholar named Will Durant is his book named "The Case for India" states that British rule in India is the greatest crime in all history. The book was unfortunately banned by the order of British monarchy in 1930; however I have a copy of the original book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.195.192.97 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 May 2013

I have content for Wikipedia which can be helpful for others.

Gaurang Babele (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to state specifically what you think should be added, along with the sources you have that verify said information. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Objection in lead paragraph

I would like to mark my objection to the statement of " it continues to face the challenges of poverty, illiteracy, corruption, malnutrition, inadequate public healthcare, and terrorism." in the introductory section. Although valid, these statements should not be made in the first few paragraphs. This is analogous to citing a personality's physical or mental disabilities in the introductory section of his/her article. 15mayankm (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking, a featured article about a hugely influential physicist, cites his physical disabilities in the introductory section of his article. CMD (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The questions is, what is an accurate portrayal of the country, in terms of balance (in WP terms, WP:UNDUE). I'm no scholar in the field, so it's hard for me to say, but on at least some of these issues, they seem to be daily matters in Indian newspapers, the subject of both internal and external scholarship, the cause of major social unrest, etc., etc. So they seem in place for me, but, as I say, I'm no expert, and maybe I'm skewed by the articles I've edited here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The article is merely stating what is considered by scholars to be as important as its economic achievements. Personally, I don't see anything negative about stating something this well known. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To the author of the article India, Please mention 'bhaona of Assam' in the topic Theatre in India in Performing Arts section. Bhaona has been practicing in Assam since early 16th century. Here you can read about Bhaona, [[1]]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.62.41.66 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't it say ONE OF THE WORLDS OLDEST like China article?

In the China article, it says that China is one of the worlds oldest civilizations. But why is that not allowed here? Who decides what country is allowed to have that and not have that?

I used to ask this quesitno a long time ago, and the answer I would get is CHINA is not an official article and INDIA is....well.....CHINA seems to be official now. So may I make the edit please? I will do it nicely and proffessionaly.

If your answer is no, then WIkipdia is still an evil website run by dictators 72.67.92.200 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Calm down buddy. I have added that phrase in. --RaviC (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2013

Hardheadedness and failure to heed warnings despite effort to inform and relocate people to safe areas resulted to disasters, death and injury , suffice to say everything was too late to look back when your friends and relative 121.54.122.181 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: No edit requested. Begoontalk 18:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

India on the confidential, ancient Slavic map of Earth

On the most ancient map of Earth the territory of India, gulf of Khambhat, the Ganges River and Brahmaputra - "Secret of the Hydra is represented, the Crow and Bowls is opened" http://serg-karpov.livejournal.com/33393.html. Serg karpov (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: look you can write all the c...

Maaser1983 posted this comment on 28 June 2013 (view all feedback).

look you can write all the cultures of all states we have lot of cultures and languages many in wrtiting and many only spoken and about bollywood which make more movies than hollywood and we have tollywood and kollywood,and also punjabi and bhojpuri andwrite it is the home to ninty percent of the hindus all over the world and second majority of muslim after indonesia live here according to some source and sikh religion form here and jain form here ,and majority of parsi in world live here and had king like chandra gupt maurya who face alexander and king like akber and once it was called the golden bird of world the diamond kohinoor found in india and we have fifth largest and strongest military in world and in every state we have lot of dishes and like no other country have this much dishes like hyderabdi biryani is famous in the world and many sweet of every state and we have every type of people like black in south and fair in north and small eyes in east and in north people eat roti and in south eat rice and ramoji film city is the largest film studio in worl even hollywood also dont have that and we have singing and dancing very old culture no country can compare with us in this field also write our national anthem in hindi so that who ever should open page should see whole india and put every state monument and america has been found because of india columbus want to come to india but he found america and in every six people one is india in world and deont forget to write about scientist who gave world zero without that nothing would have happen

Any thoughts?

jay aluru (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC) hey Maaser definitely it is a good idea but this page is now under some kinda vandalism and we will wait until some big wiki editor reads and edits this be patience and cool we are here any way to add up extra uniqueness of INDIA cheers

Zoroastrianism originated in India?

The article currently says "Five world religions—Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism—originated here"

Zoroastrianism originated in India? That is a surprising assertion that doesn't seem to be supported by, say, the article on Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.246.135 (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism originated in Persia (now Iran). This claim in the lede of this article is ridiculous. Someone should fix it, or add "citation needed" to it. See: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/658081/Zoroastrianism 67.139.173.187 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I undid that edit. The editor who made it, User:Capitals00, left an edit summary saying "http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review Check it?" I'm not sure what he or she meant by that, but I went to that web address and found the Encyclopedia Iranica article on the history of Zoroastrianism, a reliable source. It traces Zoroastrianism back to the religion of the Indo-Aryans, a migratory people who originally lived in central Asia. As the Indo-Aryans migrated in different directions, they split into separate cultural groups with closely related but distinct belief systems: the Vedic Age peoples of northern India, whose religion was the earliest form of Hinduism; and the ancient Iranian peoples, on whose religion Zoroastrianism is based. Zarathustra, whose innovative ideas were combined with the original Iranian religious system to form Zoroastrianism as we know it, is tentatively thought to have lived in central Asia or eastern Iran.
That is the scholarly consensus as I already understood it, which also appears in the Britannica article. It does not support the claim that Zoroastrianism started in India. Perhaps Capitals00 misread the source. A. Parrot (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much, well, got one more source:-

http://people.duke.edu/~jds17/zoroast.html http://www.viewzone.com/zo.html

It's quiet in between that whether it was formed in Iran or India, because i know one story, that zoroaster was born in India afterall, when he was upset with some indian gurus, he formed his own beliefs. Capitals00 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

8th schedule languages

Why is Hindi both an 8th schedule and a official language. I think you made a mistake. 173.61.25.78 (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I too have the same question and need a response on this, Thank you. BijoyChakrabarty 14:36, 30 June 2013 (BST)/14:06, 30 June 2013 (IST)
I looked this up and the reason why Hindi is included in both places is because it is the official language of India and it is also listed in Schedule 8. I've added a reference for the 8th schedule.--regentspark (comment) 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2013

Please Add Game As Hockey it has been mention as Game Not declared 111.93.74.50 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Do you have a reliable source we can cite for that fact? --NeilN talk to me 13:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Was edit request 16 July 2013

Just for the record I have removed the edit request by User:99.162.89.137, the user did not actually make a request but copied the whole India article on to this page, I have asked them to come back again and detail any changes required, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2013

Vikky.wiki (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the information! --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A line about the Battle of Rajasthan

Is anybody here knowledgeable about what historians think about the importance of the Battle of Rajasthan ? To me, a layman, it seems important. Perhaps a line about this event should be added in the History section ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It hardly appears, if at all, in histories of India. Not important (and the article on it is very poorly sourced) --regentspark (comment) 23:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks RegentsPark, if you have any suggestions for improving the article on the Battle of Rajasthan, please add them to the talk page of that article. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel a line about the Battle of Rajasthan need to be mentioned, since these are a series of battles over a period, were invaders successfully repulsed from Indian soil.115.240.57.108 (talk)

I would not look at those events from a one-dimensional perspective. That was a different era, and it could have well been that the alliance between the Gurjaras, Rashtrakutas and Palas was borne out of a need to preserve their own empires than anything else. But it was an important event, regardless. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. But you would need reliable sources that demonstrate its importance. For example, Indian history textbooks that cover the battle in detail and explain how it was important. --regentspark (comment) 18:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ISRO

There should be some thing about ISRO in the article. Thanks. Ujjwal234goel 12:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujjwal234goel (talkcontribs)

Telangana and Semi-protection

I have just semi-protected the article for a week to stave off at least some of the addition of Telangana as a state (and corresponding change in the number of states). A quick look at any of the newspaper articles reporting this will clarify that at this stage, the only action taking is that a Working Committee of the Congress party has recommended that the government pass legislation/rulings to split Telangana into an independent state. Until such time as a law is both passed and implemented, however, there is no state of Telangana. Our articles on Telangana and Telangana movement clearly and accurately explain this state of affairs. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just checked in more detail; per Telengana movement#Congress Working Committee Resolution on bifurcation, the earliest possible creation of the state will be 2014...so the protection may need to be extended. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article List of states and union territories has become a target too, I don't know whether this warrants protection for it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

X mark.svg Not done Please explain the changes you want to make. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions to remove incorrect information, bias against India

The first paragraph of subsection "Society", in this article, makes several statements that are not widely accepted in reputed, reliable sources. Some statements are false, or were true long time ago but irrelevant now. The statements have citations, but these citations do not meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines.

Consider, for example, the statement: "Child marriages are common, especially in rural areas; more than half of women in India wed before reaching 18, which is their legal marriageable age.[297]"

The reference cited is "Human Trafficking" by Kathryn Cullen-DuPont. If you read Cullen-DuPont, you find that this book is not about marriage age of women, the claim of "before 18" is made in the passing, and it cites reference [200], which is a blog. The blog is now a dead link. Too many of Cullen-DuPont e-book cite random blogs, many of which are now dead links. So this claim is effectively unverifiable. If blogs are not acceptable source for wikipedia articles, then incidental comments citing blogs should not be acceptable. This article will be better if it cites reputed reliable secondary or tertiary sources.

In this case, more reliable sources are United Nations' publications and Census data from India.

I acknowledge that there are a few surveys reported in some newspapers, wherein about 1,000 to 10,000 people were polled, which give a different estimate of average age of female, at marriage, in India. However, I am unaware of any scholarly survey, including these newspapers, between 2005 to 2013 - small crude surveys or census-level country wide extensive counting - that India in any of last 10 years had "more than half of Indian women marrying before reaching 18".

Above is just one example. This should be corrected, above citations added, to improve this article. At the very least, if different reliable sources have conflicting data or dispute, this article should summarize all sides/data without taking sides - according to wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.173.187 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've changed 'more than half' to 'many' pending a reference check. --regentspark (comment) 22:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

1. This leading sentence of subsection "Society" needs support: "Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy." The phrase "relatively strict social hierarchy" is unclear. I just finished reading three encyclopedia articles on India, including Encyclopedia Britannica, and none include this or equivalent sentence. See, pages 26 through 29: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/285248/India/273190/Housing

2. To identify additional bias in this subsection, let me clarify the term bias. In one type of bias, only negative demeaning aspects of a subject are cherry picked from a source and highlighted. In second type of bias, only positive rosy aspects of a subject are cherry picked from a source and highlighted. Both these type of biases are undesirable. A balanced inclusive NPOV version is better.

Now consider the sentence in this subsection on society: India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives, albeit numerous reports suggest that many Dalits ("ex–Untouchables") and other low castes in rural areas continue to live in segregation and face persecution and discrimination.[288][289][290]

Reference 300 is Wolpert's History of India at page 126. The entire chapter is about India in 16th century. How is this chapter even relevant to "continue to live in...." or this subsection? I read Wolpert's chapter 26 too, one on modern India. I found nothing there to support this sentence. Why is this source cited here?

Reference 299 is Rawat's book on North India at page 3. It supports that sentence in North Indian context, but has no support for all of India. Furthermore, while Rawat at page 3 describes the negative, Rawat at page 5 describes the more recent equally important positive developments. Rawat writes that north Indian people have elected a Dalit and her Dalit party to power, four times to the highest office in a mostly rural state, even though Dalits are just 22% of the state's total population - something Rawat writes, is significant advance for Dalits in social and political realm in modern India. If Dalit minority being elected multiple times by majority of Indian people in a rural state is true, such positive commentary of Rawat should also be included. This is ignored in above sentence and this subsection.

Reference 298 is a World Bank report. The page number is not provided. The report has 71 mentions of Dalits. The report relies on secondary sources such as journal articles, compares the economic, social and political condition of Dalits from 1970s to those after 2005. The conclusion: the condition of Dalits in Indian society has largely changed and changing for the better, with some exceptions. See pages 230, 236, 265 note 19, etc. The world bank report states: Caste thus appears to be not the immutable frame that conventional stereotypes suggest, but an institution that is malleable to policy and changing opportunities.

While the current sentence in Society subsection states the 1947 law and qualifies it with the negative, nothing in that sentence or this subsection captures the positive recent observed trends in rural India and sentiments from the world bank report, or Rawat source either. This bias should be fixed by revising that sentence or subsection appropriately, to more close match what the sources are actually saying about rural India and India in general. Both the negative and positive aspects of India's society should be summarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.173.187 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 22 2013 request: Please remove or provide support on this talk page or add 'citation needed' tag after "Traditional Indian society is defined by a relatively strict social hierarchy" in Society subsection. Verifiability is wikipedia policy. Readers like me must be able to check that this Wikipedia article on India is not just made up by some authors with bias against or for India. This sentence was challenged above; it must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Not only am I unable to find any support for this being true in modern India, I do not even understand it. It is a sweeping claim, even for experienced sociologist to make, and it is unclear: "relative to what?" and what is strict social hierarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.173.187 (talkcontribs)

Is there a discussion board in wikipedia I can go to? Please guide me where to report, and get additional input on above content errors/dispute? Tschüss, 67.139.173.187 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone edited the Society section, and it is a bit better than before. Here are three suggestions to latest version:

1. Replace Cullen-DuPont reference after child marriage claim, because Cullen-DuPont book claim is inappropriate source and is itself relying on unverifiable source (see explanation above). Instead, use the following reference, because it is more reliable, complete and provides a comparative data for many other countries: The World's Women Report, United Nations (2005), http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/ww2005/tab2a.htm

2. Remove Wolpert reference, presently [298], because the cited page/chapter is about 16th century India and has nothing to do with the sentence it is cited after. Other chapters are equally irrelevant.

3. Replace the current sentence, before citations [296] and [297], with: India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 and has since enacted additional anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives. While Dalits (formerly identified as untouchables) have been elected to highest political offices, and their condition in Indian society has largely been changing for the better, still numerous reports suggest that many Dalits and other low castes in rural areas continue to face persecution and discrimination.[296][297]

Reasons: That is more fair and neutral summary of those two sources. For more, see explanation above. 67.139.173.187 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. 67.139.173.187 (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Jainism was not a reform movement

I think it is widely accepted among the scholars that Jainism is not a reform movement. It is also recognized that Mahavira was not the founder of Jainism. I have removed the lines which says that it was a reform movement. Rahul Jain (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources given state that both Buddhism and Jainism were reform movements. You claim that "it is widely accepted" that they were not reform movements, but so far you have not offered sources but rather removed the present ones. Cliniic (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Try any authorative source on Jainism. For example, Hermulth Von Glasenapp's Jainism, Natubhai Shah's Jainism: The World of Conquerors or any other book for that matter. None of them term Jainism as reform movement. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
We've had others ask these questions before. Please check the archives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
See RFC section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Hockey is the National game of India

202.153.37.162 posted this comment on 4 July 2013 (view all feedback).

Hockey is the National game of India

Any thoughts?

Tobinkoshy (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hockey is not the National game of India

Check this link: http://www.indiatimes.com/others/what-is-the-national-game-of-india-41732.html

Telangana

India is afederal constitutional republi governed under a parliamentary system  consisting of 29 states and 7 union territories .  Pushp1994 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No. See WP:CRYSTAL. Telangana does not exist yet officially. --NeilN talk to me 17:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Telangana is only announced by the ruling party. It will take several months to actually make it a reality. number of Indian states can be increased only after the new state fully materializes. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't find it at the moment, but there was a ref in the Telengana movement article that said that it could even take years, depending on how difficult the division process is. Even being passed by the parliament won't make it a state until all of the details are worked out. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Some, but not all info available at Explained: How the new state of Telangana will be created. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 August 2013

please remove the line However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, malnutrition, inadequate public healthcare, and terrorism.

many countries are facing challenges but these lines are not included in any of those countries wiki pages..

so please remove it

there is no valid citation that india faces inadequate public healthcare or any of the above challenges..

about terrorism,,terrorism never originated in india.....

country is trying its best to stop terrorism,how can u say its facing a challenge of terrorism?? many blasts occured in United States & in many countries but you people never mentioned anything about the country facing terrorism challenge in their wiki page.

so please stop it.

Dont be so partial 117.195.196.92 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please go through the talk archives for discussion on this. —SpacemanSpiff 09:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 August 2013

Please Remove the Words from the line However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, malnutrition, inadequate public healthcare and terrorism To

However ,it continues to face challenges of poverty & malnutrition.

Remove the words corruption,inadequate public healthcare and terrorism from the above line.

coming to corruption,,many countries face corruption even China faces corruption [citation provided(http://www.transparency.org/country#CHN)] but nothing is mentioned in China's wiki page not only china,,many countries face the challenge of corruption but there's nothing never mentioned in any of those countries wiki pages. not only corruption but also inadequate public health care and terrorism this is so partial so please remove those terms from the line.. http://www.transparency.org/country#CHN117.195.196.92 (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The correct solution is to edit China's article to include the info there. The fact is that reliable sources both inside and outside of India regularly talk about corruption there. Our article must reflect what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

India nation language is HINDI please update this Satyaprakashvaishnav27 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no official language in India, thus please provide reliable references. Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a minor correction to the above statement, as it comes up again and again here and on other articles: India has no national language, but Hindi (primary) and English (subsidiary) are official languages. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Why can't it be added to the FAQ above? This is the second time it's happening in this month. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Added, though this is referenced in the infobox already. —SpacemanSpiff 09:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work, now we can directly refer to this when anyone asks. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a more easy to access link as an inline citation just after 'official languages', which goes to the profile page in the Indian.gov website. On a lighter note, when I first read this (a year back), I too was surprised since that directly contradicted what all my language teachers kept telling me in high school to stress on its importance, in spite of it not being there in any textbook. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Images

All image additions (just as all significant text alterations) need to be discussed on this talk page first. We had our last major image nomination discussion in September/October 2012. Since systematic ones require considerable effort (of organization and energy), they are usually held only once a year. I have removed all images added during the interim (without previous talk page discussion). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated the rotating images that were added after months and months of excruciating discussion and consultation on the talk page of WP:FAC. They were removed without any discussion here. Please do not add or remove images without gaining consensus on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013

Please change "The Indian economy is the world's tenth-largest by nominal GDP and third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP)" to "The Indian economy is the world's ninth-largest by nominal GDP and third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP)" because it has been clearly given in the following link - "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India" Vivekvishnu2020 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I have changed the target article to read "tenth" to match the infobox and three out of the four sources present that source the ranking. --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Fowler&fowler, the changes i made are self-explanatory, India fought china not only in 1962, but also 1967. And with pakistan, the "siachen conflict" is not mentioned, so i simply added "and others". Next edit that "half of indian children are underweight" is false, because the estimate is 44% under 5 year old, the given stat was 7 year old. And lastly the labour force stat can be examined through this link:-

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2095rank.html

Bladesmulti (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a longstanding FA. You need to discuss non-trivial changes on the talk page first.
Wikipedia is not a list. The 1967 Sikkim incident and the "others" (a list of skirmishes here and there with Pakistan) have no chance of being included in such a highly condensed history. "Others" besides is too vague.
You are right, the economic and malnutrition statistics need to be corrected, but we will need better sources than the CIA Factbook. Try World Bank, IMF, UNICEF, WHO. Please present those sources here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you can't really generalize those military conflict by yourself, because the casualities of these wars are counted in thousand or more, so it's worth it to add, or you can simply remove the whole sentence regarding the war. And how come CIA factbook is not reliable? The false stat that has been given on the page itself puts CIA factbook, "Try World Bank, IMF, UNICEF, WHO" are no where sourced here nor they mention any "labour force".Bladesmulti (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
We'll wait for others to weigh in. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There were hundreds of skirmishes along the borders that cannot be accurately accounted for mentioning in the main page but if you would like add it to List of wars involving India or Foreign relations of India and just create a reference to that page. Also to maintain conciseness of the page, the entire foreign relations section needs rewording as it has too many details and not enough Indian foreign policy details. - Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil2000 (User talk:Neil2000Special:Contributions/Neil2000) 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what my point is, but remember, chola incident is mentioned in india-china relations properly, so is 1962 war, thus there's no need to mention it here, same with every pakistan war, including a huge war called "siachen conflict", i believe it's better to mention no military conflicts in this page. Just like in the page of United States they don't mention almost all wars. And this is not a military page either. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The wording is the result of a consensus that has emerged after some nine years of discussion. You fist made an edit that included a little known incident in Sikkim, now you are saying no wars should be mentioned. You then say: "Just like in the page of United States they don't mention almost all wars." Not sure, how to read that sentence. The US page has sub-section headings: "First World War, Great Depression, Second World War," "Cold War and Civil Rights Era." It mentions other lesser wars: Korean, Vietnam, Gulf (1991) and Iraq (2003). However, it does not mention incidents, such as "Gulf of Tonkin." I'm not sure what you are attempting to do, but let me suggest politely, especially in light of the arguments offered, your edits will not go through. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, first of all the edits regarding the subjects like "labour force" and "underweight" subjects seems to have been solved. Other thing is that US's page doesn't mentions wars like Libyan war, or Bay of Pigs Invasion, Iraq war is mentioned but only as causalities. That way India's role in world wars have been mentioned here as well. It would be better if we mention no war at all, just like i mentioned in the 2nd comment here, and if we are to mention, then we must revert back to my edits, because the 1967 military conflict is nothing less important than mentioning the 1962. Nor it's any less important to link to the list of India-Pakistan conflicts, that have taken place.

Because by saying that "india fought pakistan in 1947, 1965, 1971, 1999" is just misleading, as there are many more wars that took place. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the text goes like this :- "It has unresolved territorial disputes with China, which escalated into the Sino-Indian War of 1962;[109] and with Pakistan, which flared into wars fought in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999.[109]" If we change it to:-

"It has unresolved territorial disputes with China[link to (China–India_relations#1960s)] and Pakistan[link to Indo-pakistan conflicts]". This would be enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The edits you are recommending are appropriate. I would agree with the conciseness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil2000 (talkcontribs) 14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, with all due respect, just because the current page has emerged after 9 years of consensus building, doesn't mean it cannot use fresh pair of eyes to make it more concise and precise. Please don't rule out edits because its not your liking as long as they are within the guidelines of wikipedia.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil2000 (talkcontribs) 14:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Decorum

To all editors: I see misbehavior on both sides of these discussions. Please stay calm and remain civil per WP:CIVIL. Please limit your comments to issues of content only. Please refrain from making comments or judgements about other editors per WP:TALK. And please remember that we are all equal on WP and everyone has the right to edit any article and is entitled to civil discussion on the talk page. No one owns this article. I am not conversant on this topic but I know WP policies and guidelines and on that basis I do offer my assistance if by chance I can be of any help. Thank you and happy editing to you all! -- KeithbobTalk 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Science and Technology

I'm sorry, but I have removed the Science and Technology section to this page, until its content is up to par for an FA.

Science and technology

India has only 140 researchers per million population, compared to 4,651 in the United States.[1] India invested US$3.7 billion in science and technology in 2002–2003.[2] The ancient institutions of Taxila and Nalanda are sometimes considered the world's first universities.[3][4]

In mathematics, the positional Hindu–Arabic numeral system was developed and the use of zero as a number was introduced. Brahmagupta discovered the rules of arithmetic governing negative numbers and zero.[5] In physics, theories about atoms date as early as the 5th century B.C.E.[6] Satyendra Nath Bose, after whom the class of particles Bosons are named after, provided the foundation for Bose–Einstein statistics and the Bose–Einstein condensate. Jagadish Chandra Bose worked on wireless communication and was named one of the fathers of radio science by the IEEE.[7] In biological sciences, variolation, a form of inoculation to produce immunity to disease, probably originated in India and reached Europe by the 18th century.[8] Vaccination, a safer form of inoculation, was used in crude form in India before the more advanced vaccination of Edward Jenner.[9] A team led by Yellapragada Subbarao synthesised methotrexate,[10] one of the earliest and most commonly used chemotherapy drug. Dilip Mahalanabis's Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) methods to treat diarrhea, the leading cause of infant mortality in developing countries before ORT, have been called, "the most important medical advance [of the 20th] century" by the Lancet.[11]

Errors and Criticism

  • Taxila and Nalanda being the world's first universities is loose usage of the word "university." They were Buddhist monasteries and ancient centers of learning to which scholars came from other regions. A university by definition, grants degrees, and is a community with legal rights, most important of which is academic freedom. (There were many other Ancient higher-learning institutions and Monastic schools that are not considered "universities" in the modern sense of the term.
  • The Indian mathematics sentences are inadequate and random. (I should know, I wrote most of the Indian mathematics page.)
  • Atomism from fifth century BCE was philosophical speculation, not particularly profound; most ancient societies had them. Quite another thing to talk of electrons, protons and neutrons and the Rutherford model. The sentence is in effect an insult to the great revolution of early 20th century physics.
  • Satendranath Bose and Jagadish Bose are minor figures in physics, on par with many other creative Indian figures in other fields that have not gained mention in this article. There are only a handful of major scientists who did their major work while they were still Indian citizens. These are: CV Raman, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. They, ironically, are not mentioned.
  • Variolation was not an exact science and was tried in China and other societies; Vaccination had little to do with India. Malaria's vector, however, was identified in Calcutta by Sir Ronald Ross, and he is not mentioned.
  • The rest of the stuff about chemotherapy, ORI, etc etc does not belong to this FA.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be be pointed out that Takshashila was a well known center of learning even before Gautam Buddha (Angulimala studied there). The viharas at Takshashila came later.Malaiya (talk)

Good move. A laundry list of theories and inventions does not at all help readers understand the state of science and technology in India. CMD (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it was not claimed in the article that those were the first universities. It was stating that such is a common claim. That you have your opinion of who should best be called the first university is okay but not relevant here. A science and technology section, along with mentioning its heritage, is not deemed out of place by the editors who run many other country articles. Discussing whether Satyendra Bose is worth mentioning over Ramanujan can be done without removing the section. "Variolation was not an exact science and was tried in China and other societies; Vaccination had little to do with India" it is fine to let us know Fowler&fowler thoughts, but it's best if Wikipedia work with sources instead, which were cited. Unfortunately, you are not explaining your problems too much. "The rest of the stuff,.. does not belong to this FA", which is not a real reason that can be countered. Neurophysics (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid, there is a long standing policy on this page that non-trivial edits are discussed on the talk page first and consensus gained for them. This page policy is supported by Wikipedia's policy on editing Featured Articles. Since the India page is Wikipedia's most viewed featured article and its oldest country FA, this need to consult on the talk page first is even more essential. On 28th May 2013 in this edit, you added two new sections on "Science and Technology" and (I just discovered) on the "Cuisine of India" without any discussion anywhere. I'm afraid, the people who maintain the page are not always around, and when they come back they don't always know what was discussed on the talk page and what was not, but once a unilateral edit is discovered, it is removed. I will be removing your cuisine section as well. Please read up the relevant Wikipedia policies. Meanwhile I will be again removing the material you have added. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
PS. Neurophysics (talk · contribs), you say, "It was stating that such is the common claim." Neither of the sources you have cited—a BBC story and the Dean of the Yale School of Management, and likely expert on ancient India— makes that claim, besides nowhere is science and technology mentioned in Nalanda or Taxila. Can you tell me what science and technology was going on there. There was some comparative linguistics, to be sure, in Taxila, but what science were they learning in Nalanda? The notion that mathematics was being taught. and promoted by AK Sen, is just that a notion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

/* Ancient India */ Early human remain found - dates are incorrect

The current statement in the Ancient India, "The earliest anatomically modern human remains found in South Asia date from approximately 30,000 years ago" is dated and definitely inaccurate based on the human findings at Jwalapuram in 2007. This statement either needs to be removed or corrected to more than 74,000 years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-india-volcano.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talkcontribs) 20:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you looking to waste everyone's time? Because beyond a certain point it is disruption. Everyone knows (at least everyone who finds the Y-chromosome data credible) that culturally (not just anatomically) modern homo sapiens left Africa along a coastal route that brought them first to Yemen, Southern Iran, coastal Pakistan, coastal India, coastal southeast Asia, and on to Australia, where the oldest human remains outside of Africa are to be found. The general arrival date in India (based on genetic chronological assumptions) is posited to be 60 to 70 KYA (thousand years ago). The statement in the India page is not about theories, but about actual modern humans remains (fossil remains) found in India. These are from 30 KYA. Your popular national geographic article is about tools (which, it is not clear are those of anatomically modern homo sapiens or of early hominids); indeed if you had kept reading your sources on to page 2, you would have found it quoting an archeologist: "[The study authors] have a bagful of artifacts on which they're drawing conclusions that can only be confirmed by fossil evidence, and they don't have any fossils."
More seriously Lanet303, what is your game plan here on this page? Endless tinkering supported by bogus sources or incomplete reading of popular sources? Besides, what are "human findings?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
That is precisely my point, if the remains are found in current day India, the statement should be modified as India not South Asia. Ancient India section should reflect chronology of civilization that lead to Modern India in a very neutral way but the current representation appears to be skewed to represent western centric viewpoints giving importance to some and not others, not to mention whomever shouted the loudest using commercial materials to further bolster those viewpoint. To your other remark about wasting time, no sir, I'm trying to get the widely used source to be more neutral and more accurate representation of India. On one hand the page has photograph of Ajatha painting but on the other hand you refuse to let me add material about which dynasty created those caves. Double standard?
More seriously Fowler&Fowler, looking at your comments on each recommended modification suggest you look for ways to refute it, all the while leaving certain lopsided statements there. That shouldn't be so. The page should be more objective and should remove any ambiguity. If you are so annoyed by suggestions maybe you should spend your valuable time elsewhere. NatGeo article and subsequent publications by major newspapers during the period are not bogus material. They were reporting what was found. Granted they found tools dated back to 70KYA. I agree with you that since its inconclusive, you might not want to mention that human existence dated back to 70KYA. but at the same time could add color to the statement something like 'Although Humans tools were found 70KYA, humain remains were found 30KYA". This page should have guidelines around how much details will be allowed and which details will not be. One cannot help but see duality here. Certain cases there are too much details and other cases you don't want to allow details in the name of 'condense' material. Which is it? Lanet303 (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read about WP:Main article fixation. I very much appreciate your effort here, but you do not know enough about the history of India to write cogently here with perspective. The best strategy for a relatively new Wikipedian such as you is to pick some brief Indian-history article (or stub) and develop it to the next level. This way you will hone your skills and slowly begin to gain perspective. Warm regards and good luck, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Precisely my point - your view of everyone else's contributions are insignificant compared to learned self. You know nothing of me or for that matter others to be judgmental about one's knowledge to brush off like that. Please read WP:Civility . Don't tell me what I can and cannot do in a highhanded manner but just express your opinion if you disagree with any viewpoint here. Lanet303 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If suggested changes of Lanet303 are sourced, then what would be the problem? In fact i have read somewhere that it's 70,000 - 74,000 Old as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
What is and where have you read it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Evidence in South Asia definitely dates back to 46,000 to 63,000 years as evidenced by this article http://www.livescience.com/22529-oldest-bones-modern-humans-asia.html , unless one considers this more of a Popular Science site than U. Singh's book that's quoted as reference to the 30,000 years in South Asia. Neil2000 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You are going to present another paper that Laos is part of India? —SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think, since the sentence in the article is about South Asia, the fact that the bones were found in Laos, rather than India, wouldn't make much of difference. That said, I think we should take a conservative approach in this high-level article and report only what is widely accepted in the field; if and once the "cave of monkeys" find evolves from fresh research to textbook-fact, we can update the India page.
Secondly, I think a change along the lines,
  • "Based on archeological and genetic evidence humans are thought to have arrived in South Asia 60-70,000 years ago, though the earliest anatomically modern human fossil remains date to approximately 30,000 years ago", or the pithier
  • "Humans are thought to have arrived in South Asia 60-70,000 years ago, though authenticated anatomically modern human remains date to only about 30,000 years ago"
could be considered. The exact wording can be tweaked for accuracy and conciseness, and I assume, solid sources found (Singh itself may suffice; although I haven't found if and where heshe discusses the early arrival claim. F&F, help?). The only reasons I can imagine to avoid going down this path, (1) if the 60-70KYA are matter of significant dispute or flux, (2) this admittedly is somewhat peripheral to the article subject of Republic of India, so we should keep the discussion as concise as possible. Comments/suggestions? Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, Abededare, I don't believe Upinder Singh (it's a she who has adopted the Sikh male postnomial of her distinguished father as her surname. PS: The day is not far off when males will be raiding "Kaur," "Begum," and "Devi.") mentions the estimates based on DNA sampling. Yes, the genetic conclusions, based on DNA sampling of present-day populations, is not accepted by all scholars (though the dissenters are in a shrinking minority) and it has some flux (though perhaps not significant). In the late 1980s, when the estimate first appeared, only mitochondrial DNA (mother to daughter) was available and the estimate was 90-120KYA, by a land route. After the Y-chromosome (father to son) data became available in the early 2000s(?), as well as other knowledge (sea levels), the coastal migration with arrival around 60-70KYA came to be favored. The reason why "South Asia" (and not "Indian subcontinent") is used there is that the anatomically modern remains from 30KYA, I believe, were found in Sri Lanka. For the subcontinent (ie. mainland) specifically the earliest fossils are more recent (27KYA). (This is what I remember; will need to check) Clearly, if they had arrived in Sri Lanka by 30KYA, they had arrived in (peninsular) India. I like your formulation, "Humans are thought to have arrived in South Asia 60-70,000 years ago, though authenticated anatomically modern human remains date to only about 30,000 years ago." (Sources can be found.) From my perspective, it suggests that humans didn't arrive in India that long ago, that for much of its history India was the preserve of other life forms, many of which are still around. It is good to acknowledge that at the beginning of a history of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good source: Petraglia, Michael D.; Allchin, Bridget (2007), "Human evolution and culture change in the Indian subcontinent", in Michael Petraglia, Bridget Allchin, The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics, Springer, p. 6, ISBN 978-1-4020-5562-1, retrieved 5 September 2013  Quote: "Genetic studies indicate the arrival of modern humans into the region by 73–55 ka ... Microlithic tools and skeletons of Homo sapiens occur by 30–28.5 ka." (p. 6) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Tweaked Abecedare suggested sentence- "Although anatomical modern human remains discovered dates to about 30,000 years ago, Humans are thought to have arrived 73-55,000 years ago in South Asia" and citing Michael Petraglia and Bridget Allchin should be good?.Lanet303 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Great! We seem to have agreement on content. About the phrasing: here are the two proposed versions (I have slightly copy-edited both from the ones above):
  • "Anatomically modern humans are thought to have arrived in South Asia 73-55,000 years back,[12] though the earliest authenticated human remains date to only about 30,000 years ago.[13]"
  • "Although the earliest human remains that have been discovered date to only about 30,000 years ago, anatomical modern human are thought to have arrived in South Asia 73-55,000 years back.[12]"
I prefer the first version, but only slightly. Can some editor go ahead and cut-n-paste either one in the article? Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have gone ahead and edited in the first version because it links up correctly with the next sentence of the section that begins "Nearly contemporaneous Mesolithic rock art sites..." referring obviously to the 20-30kya time-period. If that is a sticking point (hoping not!) feel free to edit the language of those sentences and/or discussing it further here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Abededare. I prefer your version too, in part because historical narrative generally proceeds from earlier to later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hockey

This article states that the Indian Hockey Team is the sport's most successful team because of its record eight gold medals. However, the Pakistani team has won four Hockey World Cup titles compared to India's one title. I think the arguable, vague statement of 'most successful' be removed for objectivity's sake. Neurophysics (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tweaked it for now but perhaps the entire clause should go. --regentspark (comment) 00:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The phrase 'most successful' shouldn't be there regardless of the number of medals, unless it's a direct quote from a reliable source.-- KeithbobTalk 16:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Unilaterally added "Cuisine Section"

There is a long standing policy on this page that non-trivial edits are discussed on the talk page first and consensus gained for them. This page policy is supported by Wikipedia's policy on editing Featured Articles. Since the India page is Wikipedia's most viewed featured article and its oldest country FA, this need to consult on the talk page first is even more essential. On 28th May 2013 in this edit, Neurophysics (talk · contribs) added two new sections on "Science and Technology" and (I just discovered) on the "Cuisine of India" without any discussion anywhere. He came out of the blue after being away from Wikipedia for a years, and added these sections. I'm afraid, the people who maintain the page are not always around, and when they come back they don't always know what was discussed on the talk page and what was not, but once a unilateral edit is discovered, it is removed. I have removed the cuisine section and pasted it below. Please read up the relevant Wikipedia policies. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine

Main article: Indian cuisine

Indian cuisine features an unsurpassed reliance on herbs and spices, with dishes often calling for the nuanced usage of a dozen or more condiments;[14] it is also known for its tandoori preparations. The tandoor, a clay oven used in India for almost 5,000 years, grills meats to an "uncommon succulence" and produces the puffy flatbread known as naan.[15] The staple foods are wheat (predominantly in the north),[16] rice (especially in the south and the east), and lentils.[17] Many spices that have worldwide appeal are native to the Indian subcontinent,[18] while chili pepper, native to the Americas and introduced by the Portuguese, is widely used by Indians.[19] Āyurveda, a system of traditional medicine, used six rasas and three guṇas to help describe comestibles.[20] Over time, as Vedic animal sacrifices were supplanted by the notion of sacred-cow inviolability, vegetarianism became associated with high religious status and grew increasingly popular,[21] a trend aided by the rise of Buddhist, Jain, and bhakti Hindu norms.[22] India has the world's highest concentration of vegetarians: a 2006 survey found that 31% of Indians were lacto vegetarian, and another 9% were ovo-lacto vegetarian.[22] Common traditional eating customs include meals taken on or near the floor, caste and gender-segregated dining,[23][24] and a lack of cutlery in favour of the right hand or a piece of roti.

Notes

  1. ^ "India lagging behind in S&Tt: Govt". 
  2. ^ "India lagging in science and technology, says official". scidev.net. 29 August 2006. 
  3. ^ "India's ancient university returns to life". bbcnews.com. Retrieved 17 June 2013. 
  4. ^ "Really old school". nytimes.com. Retrieved 17 June 2013. 
  5. ^ "Brahmagupta". University of St Andrews. Retrieved 10 June 2013. 
  6. ^ "Early atomism" (PDF). Indian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 10 June 2013. 
  7. ^ Sen, A. K. (1997). "Sir J.C. Bose and radio science". Microwave Symposium Digest 2 (8–13): 557–560. doi:10.1109/MWSYM.1997.602854. ISBN 0-7803-3814-6. 
  8. ^ Lund, Ole; Nielsen, Morten Strunge and Lundegaard, Claus (2005). Immunological Bioinformatics. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-12280-4
  9. ^ "Economic and Social Developments under the Mughals". Columbia University. Retrieved 27 May 2013. 
  10. ^ "Anti-folics against Leukaemia come from Folics against Anaemia". Retrieved 27 May 2013. 
  11. ^ "Water with Sugar and Salt". The Lancet 312 (8084): 300–1. August 1978. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(78)91698-7. 
  12. ^ a b Petraglia, Allchin & 2007, p. 6.
  13. ^ Singh 2009, p. 64.
  14. ^ Bladholm 2000, p. 64–65.
  15. ^ Raichlen 2011.
  16. ^ Kiple & Ornelas 2000, pp. 1140–1151.
  17. ^ Yadav, McNeil & Stevenson 2007.
  18. ^ Raghavan 2006, p. 3.
  19. ^ Sen 2006, p. 132.
  20. ^ Wengell & Gabriel 2008, p. 158.
  21. ^ Henderson 2002, p. 102.
  22. ^ a b Puskar-Pasewicz 2010, p. 39.
  23. ^ Schoenhals 2003, p. 119.
  24. ^ Seymour 1999, p. 81.

References

Errors and Criticism

  • The tandoor has been used in India for 5000 years? Citing a popular New York Times article, which claims that a tandoor (?) was found in Rajasthan and dated to 2,600 BCE, is not enough for a Featured Article. Where was this "tandoor" found and where is the original source? It had to be Mature Harappan if it was 2600 BCE. Which mature Harappan site in Rajasthan was this? Besides 2600 BCE to 2013 AC is not quite 5,000 years. What about the period 1,500 to 263 BCE, for which there is no archeological evidence in India? How do we know that tandoors were being used then? Was it a tandoor or an ordinary clay oven? The word itself is from the languages of Northwest Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, and the Central Asian Republics. I know people in India (in Delhi) who are old enough to remember that no one in Delhi had heard of a "tandoor" or "tandoori chicken" before the partition of 1947 and the influx of refugees.
  • I could go on, but no addition has been discussed. It needs to be discussed here first, and then added. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    While I'm uneasy about the usage of words like 'unsurpassed', I think the tandoor reference is reasonably reliable. If the NYT says so, we pretty much accept it. Since the tandoor was definitely in use in the Punjab prior to 1947, I suppose it's ok to say it is Indian even if it didn't show up in Delhi until after independence (and I'm not sure that that's true). That's just one of the complications that have arisen from the division of India and its population exchange. --regentspark (comment) 00:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back RegentsPark! Well, I have to say I'm trying to wrap my head around how a NYT reporter writing a story about a man in Texas selling tandoors becomes an expert on the Indus Valley Civilization? But anyway, I'll get back to the IVC question in a later post. If the tandoor and tandoori cooking had been even a peripheral part of the cuisine of India, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the sources: in the Vedas, the Upanishads, in the Buddhist and Jain literature, in the Panchatantra, ..., but most of all in the prolific textual record that the British left behind?
Here are all 29 entries returned in the search for "bread" in Hobson-Jobson (published in 1903, half a century after the British had annexed Punjab and NWFP (including Peshawar). You have "ba(d)jra ki roti," "chaupatty (chapati)," "nuncatties (nankhatai of Bombay)", "Otta (ata, flour)", "sheermaul (sheermal), "bakir-khani (Bakarkhani), Soojie bread. But there is no mention of tandoor, tandoori bread, nan, or naan. There is no mention of "oven!" But there is "choola" ("The extemporized cooking place of clay which a native of India makes on the ground to prepare his food"). And the British had spent lots of time in Peshawar! They have other food items: "Kedegree or Kicherry, hindi: kichṛī (Yes, they knew the phonetic pronunciation in the vernacular)" (kitchri), "pilau, pilow, pilaf, Persian: pullāo", "Dhal, Doll, hindi: dāl" (dal), "moong dal," "Conjee, Tamil: kānji" (the water in which rice has been boiled, used as a diet for the sick), "gram, Hindi: chanā," "brass-knocker (corruption of Hindi: bāsī khāna, stale food).
PS It is worse than I thought, not just Delhi, I couldn't find a reference to India and (Tandoor or Tandoori) in any book published before 1947. See here. If someone can find a reference to a tandoor or tandoori cooking in any English language book published before 1947, I'd be very grateful.
PPS Btw, does Wikipedia really not have a page on kichri, kitchri, kicheri, kicchri, kicchhri, kichhri, kichheri, the comfort food of Indian civilization for two thousand years? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, According to the OED, the first attested use of "tandoor" and variants spelling in the English language for a clay oven used to bake bread etc is in this book by JB Fraser Travels in Koordistan and Mesopotamia, published in 1808. (It is about what today is Iraq.) Search for "Tendour" (that spelling) and you'll read a funny story about a child in the tandoor. Older references in English are to a oven used in Iran and Central Asia to heat a room in winter. The first attested use on the Indian subcontinent in an English language publication is in the 1925 edition of Punjab Peasant in Prosperity and Debt by Sir Malcom Dowling. The sentence is: "A significant change is that, when the cultivator goes to town, he is not as content as he was with the low-class tandur, but has begun to put up at the hotel." (Here "tandur" is used to refer to a what today would be a dhaba.) Do we really want to make tandoor and tandoori cooking the linch pin of Indian cooking? Historically, it really has little to do with India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Now to the IVC connection. Before I cite the specific reference, let me give the background. A few years after independence, Indian archaeologists, who were not happy that all the major Indus Valley Civilization sites (Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa) and early Buddhist sites (Taxila, Takht-i-Bahi) had gone to Pakistan, embarked on an aggressive drive to look for IVC sites in India. They soon announced dozens, ... then scores, ..., then hundreds of such sites, until the number had overtaken that of Pakistan. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) directed this effort with backing from Nehru and others. They said they had found a "dockyard" in Lothal etc. etc. But after a decade or more of waiting when the data was published, the only people who believed it were some Indian archaeologists. Increasingly, the ASI also began to pursue Hindu nationalist agendas. At Kalibangan in Rajasthan, they found alleged Shiva lingams (thus attempting to establish the idea that IVC was Hindu) and they found what they claimed was a tandoor. This was written up by people such as B. B. Lal, who soon was to also find an ancient Rama temple in the close vicinity of the Babri Masjid. The main point is that no archaeologist, except some Indian ones, believes this nonsense. I have on my desk: Rita Wrights Ancient Indus (CUP, 2011), and, although it discusses Kalibangan, there is no mention of a clay oven, tandoor, etc.
The elevation of the tandoor and tandoori cooking in India is the work of one man, Kundan Lal Gujral, a refugee from Pakistan, who opened the Moti Mahal restaurant in Darya Ganj, Delhi, in the mid 1950s. (Generally, as you can imagine, diet laws would not have allowed caste Hindus to have their roti to be made in a communal kitchen. In the Punjab it was low-caste and poor people, even among the Muslims, who went to a tandoor.) After Nehru went to it, it became popular in Delhi. By the late-1960s, it had spread to other cities and to Indian restaurants in Britain, and the rest is history. The historical food of India was: roti, dal, bhat (rice), sabzi, kichri and for some, fish, occasional meat and chicken. That remains in large part the food of India today (witness what is served to India's schoolchildren. There is a good reason why the two food pictures we added in the culture section template: File:Indian Kitchens Outdoor and Indoor, Rajasthan and Karnataka.jpg show File:Northern and Western Indian Home Cooked Lunch and Southern Indian Thali Dinner.jpg show no tandoori cooking. It is the cuisine of India we are writing about, not haute cuisine even if the flames of its publicity are being stoked by clueless journalists both in India and in the NY Times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know Fowler. I am loathe to go against what the newspaper of record says - right or wrong. Not that personal knowledge matters here but I can assure you that tandoors were present in Punjab prior to partition and chicken and bread were both cooked in them! Perhaps lentils are a better bet as the lynchpin since tandoors are only confined to a small part of India but everyone eats some sort of daal! --regentspark (comment) 23:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── :) Some of my best friends are (were?) tandoori chickens, so I don't undermine their importance. But seriously, the New York Times? I mean sure it is the best newspaper in the world, but it makes mistakes all the time. The stuff is written by your slightly above-average Joe Schmo journalist trying to meet a deadline. More on this later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, please read:

Did you know the Government of India organized special cooking classes in the 1970s to promote Tandoori? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Another approach

Hi Fowler and thanks for your vigilance in maintaining high standards for this highly viewed GA article. Taking things from a different angle are there any sentences or sections of the proposed Cuisine section that you feel are accurate and could/should be added to the article?-- KeithbobTalk 16:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think any answer will depend on what editors here want the scope of the section (and its length) to be. ... Meanwhile, I'll add the references below. (I can certainly see a lot of errors, both of undue weight and accuracy.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, user:Keithbob. Now to answer your question more directly, the following sentences:
  • The staple foods are wheat (predominantly in the north),[1] rice (especially in the south and the east), and lentils.[2]
  • Many spices that have worldwide appeal are native to the Indian subcontinent,[3] while chili pepper, native to the Americas and introduced by the Portuguese, is widely used by Indians.[4] .[5]
  • traditional eating customs include meals taken on or near the floor, caste and gender-segregated dining,[6][7] and a lack of cutlery in favour of the right hand or a piece of roti.
sound familiar (ie there might have been there in the article in some form earlier). They could use better sources, and more accurate rephrasing, but are more or less true.
I can't remember if the tandoori cooking part was there earlier, but some more accurate version of it could be added.
The remaining sentences:
  • Āyurveda, a system of traditional medicine, used six rasas and three guṇas to help describe comestibles.[8]
  • Over time, as Vedic animal sacrifices were supplanted by the notion of sacred-cow inviolability, vegetarianism became associated with high religious status and grew increasingly popular,[9] a trend aided by the rise of Buddhist, Jain, and bhakti Hindu norms.[5]
  • India has the world's highest concentration of vegetarians: a 2006 survey found that 31% of Indians were lacto vegetarian, and another 9% were ovo-lacto vegetarian
I'm not so sure about. They could be considered POV or undue. I'll have to look at some secondary sources for accuracy and some tertiary for weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
Just a drive-by comment for now, I'll try to dig up the sources later when I have some time, but it might be of help when you're researching -- I remember reading that the Tandoor was introduced into Indian cooking by the Mughals and other Afghan/Persian invaders. Not the typical tandoori chicken etc, but the Raan, of Peshawri origin was part of standard Mughal and Awadhi fare etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There sure are references. I've had them for years. I have one sitting on my desk: (a) Archarya, KT (1998), A Historical Dictionary of Indian Food, Oxford India, and one in the garage (which I'll have to retreat) (b): Acharya, KT, (1996?) Indian Food, A Hisorical Companion, Oxford India. The first book (citing for all its claims: Sahu, KP, (1973), Some Aspects of North Indian Social Life, 1000-1526 A.D., Calcutta, Punthi Pustak) says, "Amir Khusrau notes naan-e-tanuk (light bread), naan-e-tanuri (cooked in a tandoor oven) at the imperial court in Delhi. Naan was in Mughal times a popular breakfast food, accompanied by Kheema or kabab, of the humbler Muslims." Says Acharya in the second, citing Sahu again, that other food, included "flesh of various birds such as quail, sparrow (kunjshakka) etc., Halwa, Sabuni Sakar. They were also accustomed to drink wine." The main problem with all these books (Oxford India notwithstanding) is that they are unreliable, haven't been peer-reviewed by skeptical scholars. For example, the Delhi Sultanate began in 1199. Amir Khusrow, lived in the mid-13th century, and was the son of an immigrant from Central Asia. Sure the Turkic warriors probably continued to eat the food of their homeland for a few generations, but did it become a tradition in Delhi? I doubt it (where are the sparrow and quail restaurants?). Similarly, Sahu's book ends in 1526, the year of the formal beginning of Mughal rule. This time there was a new generation of immigrants (from Uzbekistan) in Mughal armies. Again how long were the humbler Muslims of Delhi eating nan and keema for breakfast? I'm not sure. The main thing for me is that the British left an unparalleled record of India (I mean they mention some half a dozen kinds of kichadi). If tandoori cooking was a notable cooking tradition (especially) in Delhi, it wouldn't have taken until 1925 for them to first mention it (per OED) and then to refer to a dhaba. There has been a lot of nationalistic history writing in India (and rewriting by the press), driven by a peculiar Indian passion for claiming unmatched antiquity. On the other hand, consider the Pakistan cuisine section, Pakistan#Food_and_drink. You would think a country with Mehrgarh (where domestication of wheat was first attested in South Asia), Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and a real tradition in its northwestern border regions of cooking bread in ovens, would be claiming all sorts of things. But the text, at least, doesn't mention tandoor! The Pakistan style, matter-of-fact, article is what readers are looking for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the cuisine section as it is right now (here) is perfect! Let's just leave it at that. --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────  :) I don't disagree. Well the thing is that I remember us spending hours crafting precise sentences for food. Where did they all go? I don't mean in your link, but more generally. The other thing is that if we are going to have so many sections in the culture section, people will inevitably be asking to add cuisine again or doing it unilaterally. Please give me a few minutes: I want to look at the parent article, Cuisine of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

PS I think all we need is a longish one paragraph (even two) summary of
(a) Cuisine_of_India#Ingredients
(b) Cuisine_of_India#Eating_habits
(c) Cuisine_of_India#Dietary_restrictions
(d) Cuisine_of_India#Etiquette
(e) Three or four sentences on the evolution of Indian restaurant food (because this is what an average India page reader will have awareness of) based on the four pages of the articles by Colleen Sen and Camellia Panjabi cited above. RP, why don't you take a stab at it? It would be great if you can. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Add content for 230 to 220 BCE

Added 230 BCE to 220 CE Satavahana dynasty rule of India, which was missing. Quoted primary and secondary source. Want to get comments from anyone who can offer alternative source that contradicts the following: "During the period 230 BCE to 220 CE, Satavahana dynasty covered much of present day India. The Satavahanas are credited for establishing peace in the country, resisting the onslaught of foreigners after the decline of Mauryan Empire. Satavahanas are also credited with furthering Budhism in India including Ellora caves." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That they "covered much of present day India" is a stretch. See: File:SatavahanaMap.jpg. They ruled over large parts of the Deccan Plateau, the region between the Narmada and Godavari basins, at various times during the period 100 BCE to 200 ACE; the epigraphical record is mostly of the first two centuries of the modern era. To the north the Kushans and the Shakas held sway; to the south the Pandyas did; to the east, the Sungas and Kalingas gave them heartburn. Besides, none of these inter-imperial dynasties achieved, "even the feeble centralization of the Maurya and Gupta regimes," in the words of historian Burton Stein. The Satavahanas were important, to be sure, but so were other contemporaries that are not mentioned in this highly condensed history.
"Resisting the onslaught of foreigners" does not rise to the encyclopedic register; it is also value-laden, for the Satavahanas were never in the vicinity of the border passes through which invading armies traditionally entered India. Please make your statements neutral and then add them, reliably sourced, to the History of India page; that is where it belongs, not here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you on two accounts 1. If 230 to 220BCE period's history belongs in History of India page, then the most of the "Ancient India" section of India page should be moved to History of India page. 2. During the period mentioned, the dynasty covered the largest area of any single kingdom post-Mauryan era. There are several referenced articles that validate the statements.

Barnett, L. D. (1938) Satavahana and Satakarni, Bulletin of the School of Oriental studies, Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Coningham, Robin (2005) The Human Past - From Early Villages to Buddhism, Thames & Hudson, London. Leese, Marilyn (1979) The Early Buddhist Icons at Kanheri's Cave 3, Artibus Asiae, Artibus Asiae Publishers. Trabold, Jeanne L. (1970) A Chronology of Indian Sculpture: The Satavahana Chronology at Nasik, Artibus Asiae, Artibus Asiae Publishers. as well as website like http://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/Ahmadnagar/his_ancient_period.html

http://www.factualworld.com/article/Satavahana

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524850/Satavahana-dynasty http://www.indianmirror.com/dynasty/satvahanadynasty.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talkcontribs)

The EB source that you cite, directly contradicts the statement you're trying to add. Besides, as mentioned earlier, in the larger scheme of things, this doesn't merit mention in this level of a summary. —SpacemanSpiff 14:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here. There is no single source that states exactly what I'm adding but its a amalgamation of all the research papers cited. For that matter, isn't it true for the entire page?. Please don't jump to conclusions based on single source but rather have patience to go over all the research material before making the statement. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talkcontribs) 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you should modify it to "During the period 230 BCE to 220 CE, Satavahana dynasty covered central India. The Satavahanas are credited for establishing peace in the country after the decline of Mauryan Empire and are also credited with furthering Budhism in India including Ellora caves. They are the first native indian rulers known to issue coins with rulers portrait." - Neil2000

Fowler&fowler, Not everyone has to be as old as you are to learn history and make appropriate changes. What wikipedia guidelines did the recommended changes violate professor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talkcontribs)

Once again, stop your disruptive editing, there is no consensus on adding anything right now, let alone any discussion on quality sources. You haven't yet provided a reason as to why this belongs in a summary as condensed as this article. —SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I find it highly objectionable that a small coterie of old boys club controlling the site like mafia. You really call the page condensed? when Chelas, Cholas & pandha's are mentioned and mention about devotional hymns for 6th and 7th century but ignore that fact that Satavahans ruled for over 450 years just because it wasn't suggested by the wiki-India page mafia? It goes against the entire spirit of Wikipedia.
What other reason you want sir? it is Indian History and I quoted multiple sources. Other than general objections like condensed, not a list etc.etc. I have not seen a concrete evidence contrary to what's being proposed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanet303 (talkcontribs) 20:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Lanet303, this kind of talk [I find it highly objectionable that a small coterie of old boys club controlling the site like mafia] is not appropriate for a talk page discussion. Please watch your tone and take a few minutes to read WP:TALK. I understand you are frustrated but WP works slowly and discussion takes time. Please be patient.-- KeithbobTalk 15:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob, Understand calling someone disruptive just because it's not to ones liking is not appropriate either. Anyhow, I'm still waiting for a substantive discussion on valid source that contradicts what I proposed. Lanet303 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


I've not heard any issues with respect to the veracity of the proposed addition of "During the period 230 BCE to 220 CE, Satavahana dynasty covered central India. The Satavahana's are credited for establishing peace in the country after the decline of Mauryan Empire and are also credited with furthering Buddhism in India including Ellora caves. They are the first native Indian rulers known to have issued coins with rulers portrait." I would take that as consent to add the sentence.Lanet303 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but, based on reliable sources I have looked at, I don't think it would be appropriate to mention the Satavahana in the condensed history of India we have on this page. You claim they furthered Buddhism and mention Ellora. But the UNESCO World Heritage Site for Ellora] makes no mention of the Satavahana, though they do mention the Rashtrakuta, who are absent from our history section. Similary, the UNESCO World Heritage Site for Ajanta makes no mention of the Satavahana, though they do mention Vakataka, who too are also absent from our history. We don't include many inter-empire dynasties (ie. between the Mauryas and Guptas), not even the Kushan empire, which was bigger and better known than the Satavahanas, both politically and as patrons of Buddhist art. See UNESCO World Heritage site for the Buddhas of Bamiyan. This is my final reply. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Fwiw, Ajanta has two phases, Ajanta_Caves#Caves_of_the_first.2C_or_Satavahana.2C_period and then the Vakataka, under whom most of the surviving caves were excavated. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Yes, I'm aware of the phases and the pages. You will see them described at the UNESCO sites as well. Some of the second phase caves were clearly excavated under Vakataka patronage, and there are inscriptions. But historians of ancient India (and UNESCO) say nothing about the patrons of the first phase, at least Romila Thapar doesn't. Walter Spink does, but he hems and haws with "possibly" and "by-and-large." See here: Spink, Walter M. (2007), Cave by Cave (Ajanta History and Development), BRILL, p. 4, ISBN 978-90-04-15644-9, retrieved 9 September 2013  (page 4). Note too, that if you search for Satavahana in the book (Google), they are mentioned only on that page, whereas Vakataka are mentioned 84 times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There are several point to note 1. There are many sources like Sailendra Nath Sen's "Ancient Indian History and Civilization" that points to Satavahanas as successors to Maurayas and ruled for over 450 years. 2. Satavahanas did maritime trade extensively 3. During that era, there were no other dynasties in the present day India that were bigger than Satavahana's. Regading Kushan empire, it was based in current day Pakistan and Afghanistan NOT present day India. Hence Satavahana deserves to be mentioned in an article that also mentions Pandyan, Chola and Chera's that are much smaller dynasties. With regards to Ajanta caves, as you are aware, The earlier group of caves i.e Cave 9, 10, 12, 13, 15A are called as 'Satavahana Period caves' and the latter group of caves were excavated during the late fifth century. Prof. Walter M.Spink proposed, in his book, that the second phase of activity at Ajanta was rather brief, incredibly so, spanning no more than 18 years. Many authors have also described the caves in terms of completeness. Except the Satavahana period caves, no other edifice on the hill and related sites, e.g. Banoti, Ghatotkacha, and Aurangabad were ever fully completed. All the Vakataka period caves sites are incomplete. I submit that this should not be a popularity contest that we should count the number of times someone is mentioned more than others. This section should be about accurate record of history. And there is no denying that the Satavahana dynasty covered over 450 years and it was the largest empire during that period that's within the present day India. Based on the evidence of their place in history, The debate about should Satavahana's be mentioned here should be settled and we should work on appropriate sentence to include in this section. Lanet303 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Lanet303, you may or may not be right about the importance of Satavahana's but you're wrong about how we judge the importance of historical events. To some extent, it actually is a sort of popularity contest amongst respectable historians writing in reliable sources. If that importance does not clearly and explicitly emerge from a significant number of reliable sources, then we're forced to treat the historical event as relatively unimportant, regardless of how long it lasted or how important any number of Wikipedia editors may consider it to be. Based on a reading of your statement above, it does appear that, largely speaking, historians do give short shrift to the Satavahana Empire and therefore so must we.--regentspark (comment) 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm referring to the wikipedia policy about Primary seconday tertiary sources, nowhere it mentioned about popularity, Unless I missed something. If the source is referable, then yes we can include it in the page. I quoted several respectable historians on this subject not the one's F&F quoted. If that's the measure, then the book written by Historian Ram Sharan Sharma has Satavahana referred 39 times whereas Vakataka mentioned mere 7 so is Romila Thapar's book about Early India: From origin to AD1300 mentions Satavahana 12 times where as Vakataka only 3 times.This is NOT to diminish Vakataka's contribution but to refute the claim that mere mention of the name as a measure is meaningful. What should count is what thse ancient dynasties contributed to the overall ideas and institutions that resulted in the Modern India.Lanet303 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────, Lanet303, what RegentsPark is referring to is undue weight. WP:TERTIARY clearly states: Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." That is why we use widely used textbooks published by internationally known academic presses, not specialist research papers or monographs. The former have already been vetted for balance and weight, both by the authors who are summarizing in a major way, but also by the pre-publication reviewers who are double checking the summaries. We also pay attention to what signed articles (i.e. written by experts, not editors) of the other well established encyclopedias are saying. For Indian history, the most comprehensive is the history section of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is 145 pages long and written collectively by historians: Frank Raymond Allchin, Romila Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Percival Spear, and Stanley Wolpert. In that 145 page history of approximately 72,500 words (contrasted with Wikipedia's India History Section size of 2,207 words), the Satavahanas appear under the sub-sub-section, "The Andhras and their successors"):

The Andhras are listed among the tribal peoples in the Mauryan empire. Possibly they rose to being local officials and then, on the disintegration of the empire, gradually became independent rulers of the northwestern Deccan. It cannot be ascertained for certain whether the Andhras arose in the Andhra region (i.e., the Krishna-Godavari deltas) and moved up to the northwestern Deccan or whether their settling in the delta gave it their name. There is also controversy as to whether the dynasty became independent at the end of the 3rd century bce or at the end of the 1st century bce. Their alternative name, Satavahana, is presumed to be the family name, whereas Andhra was probably that of the tribe. It is likely that Satavahana power was established during the reign of Shatakarni I, with the borders of the kingdom reaching across the northern Deccan; subsequent to this the Satavahana dynasty suffered an eclipse in the 1st century ce, when it was forced out of the northern Deccan by the Shakas and resettled in Andhra. In the 2nd century ce the Satavahanas reestablished their power in the northwestern Deccan, as evidenced by Shaka coins from this region overstruck with the name Gautamiputra Shatakarni. That the Andhras did not control Malava and Ujjain is clear from the claim of the Shaka king Rudradaman to these regions. The last of the important Andhra kings was Yajnashri Shatakarni, who ruled at the end of the 2nd century ce and asserted his authority over the Shakas. The 3rd century saw the decline of Satavahana power, as the kingdom broke into small pockets of control under various branches of the family."

This is a total of 274 words; those are interspersed with doubts about how long they lasted and their importance etc etc. Were we to decide arithmetically in the manner you have, we would reason: 274 divided by 72,500 is 0.0037793, that times 2,207 is 8 words. What can we say in 8 words? The Cheras, Pandyas and Cholas appear in many places in that history. In my opinion the Satavahana do not merit mention in a history section of the India page's size. This is as far as I go with the argument and this is my final response. You are welcome to pursue it in the various forums of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What a myopic view? Satavahanas are no more Andhra's than Maurya's are Bihari's. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. During the period of Satavahanas there was no clear delineation of regions of present day Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. There was lot of migration and evolution that you seem to conveniently ignore so that you can label them as one continuous lineage of people for over 3000 years Lanet303 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
(In reply to Lanet, after ec with F&f) To add to what RP said above: The relevant policy is WP:DUE.
Being verifiable through reliable sources is just a necessary condition for inclusion in an article; whether a fact is included, and how much coverage it is given in a wikipedia article, is decided by how much prominence that topic enjoys in those sources. By that criterion and based on the sources discussed above, I too think discussion of Satavahana (at least at the length proposed) would be undue in this article. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha if people are so anally retentive about wordsmithing, 8 words is enough for you to convey the central point "Between 230 - 220BCE, Satavahana's ruled central India"Neil2000 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

History section should say something about the North East

I have raised this issue before, but there should be atleast something about Assam and the North East in the history section. How about a line that goes like this, "After the decline of the Gupta Empire, the north eastern part of the subcontinent enjoyed political independence for more than a millenium. Mughal era attempts to conquer the region were rebuffed in the Battle of Saraighat, and the region did not come under central control till British conquest in 1824." I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that North-East history needs mention in the History section. But please find appropriate sources. You might have to break up your suggestion into two sections, Ancient India and Modern India to state it in chronological order.Neil2000 (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this will face due weight issue discussed a few sections above. If standard references on Indian history don't devote significant space to history of the North East (which they don't as far as I have seen), neither do we. The research and editing effort would be better spent creating, expanding, and improving specialized articles on the topic. Abecedare (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
India being a multicultural society, contributions of each region/culture must be represented in a balanced way. Neil2000 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Continuation of Science and Technology discussion

For the earlier discussion, please see Science and Technology, permalink: Science and Technology

I would probably drop this issue, seeing no one else seems interested. But I'd like to clarify, Fowler&fowler, is your issue that these sections, science and cuisine, should not be in the article or that you disagree with their contents? These are fairly standard sections in country articles but if you have different opinions to the contents' info (which are cited) can't we just discuss that without a deletion? Neurophysics (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing personal against the idea of those sections. But, as I've indicated above, the India page is a long standing FA, the most viewed FA on Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:OWN#Featured_articles and the clear consensus of previous RfCs on this page: All non-trivial edits are proposed on the talk page first. After consensus for the—or some suitably revised version of them—has been gained on this page, they are introduced on the India page. As you will see upstairs, in the RfC on Jainism, it took over a month of vigorous discussion to change a few words on the India page. I personally think both "Science and Technology" and "Cuisine" sections are useful sections to have. A numbers of editors are back now so there will be more interest. The safest approach would be to: a) Do a quick straw poll here to have community consensus for the suitability of such sub-sections, b) invite editors to suggest some core topics for them, c) one (or more) editors propose text with references, and d) discuss the text, amend it if needed, and reach consensus here. That is how all previous new sections have been introduced in the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

National Anthem

Every country has national anthem embedded on right sidebar. I request people to embed Inadian nation anthem too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.5.97 (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Who is the Emperor of this stupid page?

I've noticed every other country on Wikipedia can brag about themselves, but here on India, we can't state factual things if it sounds like were bragging. Why? Who is in charge of this page? Who is the emperor that decides what stays and what goes? Who gets to decide this and why? I want to make changes ALL FACTUAL CHANGES and yet I cant because some freaking emperor is going to take it out. They will probably take this out too. Sigh.

108.23.228.249 (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Featured Article" applied to India article is some sort of conspiracy on India article. The Featured Article (FA) criteria is limiting the article to not expand and not grow. I think it it time to throw this feature out or get India out of FA. The United Kingdom, USA, Israel and China are not on featured articles list and thus their country article have expanded with substantial topics and headings. However, India has reduced to some kind of joke due to FA. Get India out of FA article list. I think it is an overwhelming joke that India does not even have a topic or a section named Science and Technology. Maybe people who are editing should see China (PRC) article first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.11.5 (talkcontribs) 20:58, 29 September 2013
108 I am not sure what an Emperor of a stupid page is but if you mean who decides what stays and what goes then it is a consensus of all the editors here, no one person has any control. Also note this is an encyclopedia article not a blog or an arm of the Indian Tourist Board so it should not include "bragging" but give a balanced view of the country. If you want to suggest changes then you are welcome to do it on this talk page and get agreement from everybody else. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
116 this is a featured article one the highest standards that an article can achieve, users have put in a lot of effort to get it to this level and rightly so want to maintain it at that level. Just a note on Science and Technology this is an overview of the country it cant include everything and important topics like Science and Technology have a seperate article (Science and technology in India). If you want to suggest new content then you are welcome like 108 to do it on this talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the most recent set of edits because of some large scale changes, at least some of which were not really beneficial:

  • The RBI statement at the head doesn't provide any context.
  • The museum link doesn't seem appropriate.
  • The politics template just adds clutter to the entire area.
  • Dividing the economy section to import, export etc doesn't flow well in this.

I'll take a deeper look at some of the other changes to list them out here. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Also

  • Olympics is fine, but badminton is the incorrect link in that context.
  • Iron ore exports, is it relevant in the context of the summary style structure.
  • Major industries are sourced to an independent reliable source, why should it now be primary sourced?

Given the above, I think the additions need to be discussed before they are made in the article. —SpacemanSpiff 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My Remarks: Users are contesting the following additions to the page:

  • Add of Politics in India to Government section
  • Change of word "Milk" to a link
  • Add of Reserve Bank of India to Economy section <- Accepted by SpacemanSpiff and twillisjr
  • Add/Separation of sections in "Economy" to "Import" and "Export" sub-sections
  • Add of link to "List of Museums" in Art and architecture section
  • Add of link to "India at the Olympics" in Sports section <- Accepted by SpacemanSpiff and twillisjr
  • Add/Change of "badminton" to link of "Indian Badminton League"

Please respond as to whether or not these changes seem appropriate or not. Twillisjr (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not misquote me. In my post above, I have clearly explained what's objectionable. —SpacemanSpiff 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am just trying to write something that shows support for the 2 issues you did not object to, so that additional users on this talk page can see positive and negative approaches. It helps users realize you are not trying to show bias. Sorry for the confusion. Twillisjr (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines are very simple. See WP:OWN#Featured_articles and several RfCs on this page in the archives: for any non-trivial edit, we first gain consensus on the talk page. You not only didn't do that, you then edit warred. In such an article progress is made very slowly. You can't present reams of hastily written prose and ask people to point out mistakes. You have to start with a few sentences. Most sentences in this page have found their way in after many revisions and much though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Add

I would like to add the following:

Are there any objections? Twillisjr (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, adding RBI contextually would be fine, not just a random addition that it is the central bank. What's the point of MNRE? Neither has the ministry done much nor does it actually have much justification in such a shortened summary for governance. —SpacemanSpiff 02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Was Jainism a reform movement?

I think saying that Jainism is a religious reform movement is POV-pushing. While the evidence for Jainism to have been existed in Indus Valley Civilization and the existence of Rishabha in vedic literature is scanty, it has nevertheless been speculated by a good number of scholars. (Chapple 1993, pp. 6–9)(Sangave 2001, p. 107)(Rankin 2010, p. 44)(Sangave 2001, p. 106) It is known that the origins of Jainism are shrouded in considerable mystery. Scholars now accept that Mahavira, the twenty-fourth tirthankara, was certainly not the founder of Jainism and Parshva, the twenty-third tirthankara was a historical figure.(Glasenapp 1999, p. 24) Considering these, I don't think it would be correct to say that Jainism was a reform movement. It had its independent origins and hardly any book on Jainism says that it was a reformist movement or anything like that. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Fowler&fowler's comment: In addition to sources already cited in the article, here are some more sources for the statement that Jainism is a reform movement:

  • Kaviraj, Sudipta (2010), The Imaginary Institution of India: Politics and Ideas, Columbia University Press, p. 213, ISBN 978-0-231-15223-5, retrieved 10 August 2013  Quote: "The most significant upheavals in traditional Indian history were not dynastic or regime changes, but the challenges to the religious organization of society through the reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism against ritualistic Brahminism in ancient India, ..."
  • Michaels, Axel (2004), Hinduism: Past and Present, Princeton University Press, pp. 36–37, ISBN 978-0-691-08953-9, retrieved 10 August 2013  Quote: "Third Epoch: Ascetic Reformism (ca. 500–200 BC) The Brahmans did continue to hold a monopoly of sacrifice as the path to salvation, but economic changes allowed the growing criticism of brahmanic mode of sacrifice to assume a previously unknown form: Ascetic reform movements no longer remained limited to a local sphere of influence. Buddhism and Jainism, whose organization was initially hardly distinguished from other ascetic reform movements (e.g., the Ajivakas) are the best examples of that."
  • Smith, David (2008), Hinduism and Modernity, John Wiley & Sons, p. 200, ISBN 978-0-470-77685-8, retrieved 10 August 2013  Quote: "Jainism and Buddhism sprang from early Hinduism as reform movements."
  • Raju, Poola Tirupati (1985), Structural Depths of Indian Thought, SUNY Press, p. 1, ISBN 978-1-4384-1678-6, retrieved 10 August 2013  Quote: "The Buddhists and the Jainas considered their religious reform movements as the Aryan way and rejected the Vedic Way, as they did not accept the Veda as their sacred scripture."
  • Paul Dundas (2013). "Jainism". Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Quote: "Scholars of religion generally hold that Jainism originated in the 7th–5th century BCE in the Ganges basin of eastern India, the scene of intense religious speculation and activity at that time. Buddhism also appeared in this region, as did other belief systems that renounced the world and opposed the ritualistic Brahmanic schools whose prestige derived from their claim of purity and their ability to perform the traditional rituals and sacrifices and to interpret their meaning."
  • Rich, Bruce (2010), To Uphold the World: A Call for a New Global Ethic from Ancient India, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, p. 267, ISBN 978-0-8070-9553-9, retrieved 10 August 2013  Quote: "Jainism arose in India in the sixth century BC at about the same time as Buddhism. Like Buddhism it was an egalitarian reform movement of traditional Hindu Brahmanic beliefs, with a focus on reverence for life and nonviolence (ahimsa) as the basis for Jain ethics. The founder of the Jains, Vardhamma (Mahavira) was thirty-five years older than Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha."
  • Boraks, Lucius (1988), Religions of the East, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 7, ISBN 978-1-55612-140-1, retrieved 10 August 2013  Quote: "The bulk of the book will revolve around the origins and ideas of the world's major living religions of the eastern half ... In India, we will find four major faiths of varying degrees of antiquity: the very ancient ... Hinduism, then the contemporary reform movements of the enormously popular Buddhism, together with the somewhat more ascetical Jainism, ...."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Real Jain, you're going to need to provide some specific quotations from your works, given how very compelling F&F's are, stating exactly what the article says. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Historicity of Parsva These are the views of some of the scholars on the historicity of Parshva and consequently the origins of Jainism.

  • Glasenapp, Helmuth Von (1999). Jainism. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 24. ISBN 978-81-208-1376-2. Thus, not only nothing from the historical and philosophical point of view comes in the way of the supposition that Jainism was established by Parsva around 800 B.C., but it is rather confirmed in everything that we know of the spiritual life of that period. 
  • Huntington, Ronald M. (2002). "Jainism and Ethics". In Marvin W. Meyer, Kurt Bergel. Reverance for Life: The Ethics of Albert Schweitzer for the Twenty-First Century. Syracuse University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-8156-2977-1. With such a fertile ground for growth of a new religion, it is not suprising that buddhism began at such a time nor that Mahavira was until recently regarded as the founder of Jainism by those outside the faith. Now it is recognized that preceding tirthankara, Parshva, was also a historical figure. While there is nothing to prove that Parshva was the real founder of Jainism, we may be forgiven some skepticism about the historicity of the earlier tirthankara in view of the fabulous life spans and physical dimensions attributed to them by the Jain tradition.  The Rahul Jain 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
I'm afraid this is a bogus source on Jainism. It is about the "Ethics of Albert Schweitzer for the Twnty-First Century." How is that a reliable source on ancient Indian history? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Daniélou, Alain (2011). A Brief History of India. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-59477-794-3. Many historians of the nineteenth century were greatly attracted by buddhism. They consequetly asserted that the last jain prophet Mahavira was the founder of Jainism and that long list of predecessors was a fiction invented afterwords. This theory does not stand stand up to serious study. The historical reality of parshvadeva a jain prophet who preceded mahavira by two and a half centuries is now recognized. There is no real reason to doubt the jain tradition with its twenty-four prophets according to which the origins of Jainism goes back to several millenia, thus making it one of the great currents of Indo-meditteranian religious thought, reflected in most ancient currents of thought of both West and East.  The Rahul Jain 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
This is not a reliable source on ancient Indian history either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Rahul Jain (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a book on the Jaina path of purification, not Indian history Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Rahul Jain (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought the RfC was about the appropriateness of the term "religious reform movement." You seem to have sources that say, Parshva predated Mahavira. Nowhere in the text does the article say Mahavira was the founder of Jainism, only, "Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I was stating what the various scholars have to say regarding the origins of Jainism. The article states that "In the late Vedic period, around the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies that were known as the mahajanapadas. The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which became independent religions." it then states that "Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira." This make it seem that the article is suggesting that Jainism was created by Mahavira, as a reform movement, around 5th century BCE. However, with the historicity of Parshva established, it would mean that Jainism existed atleast since 8th century BCE. Can we change the wordings of the article to reflect that Mahavira was not the founder of the Jain faith and he restored the tenets of Jaina community which existed atleast from the time of Parsva (8th Century BCE)? Rahul Jain (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Fowler&fowler's reply: The notion that Jainism had a long succession of teachers of which Mahavira (ca. 6th or 5th century BCE) was the 24th, is not historically reliable. Most historians, even ones such as Romila Thapar, who allow that there may have been some Jaina presence before the 5th century BCE, make the point that it was Mahavira who really organized the sect. In effect, he is the putative founder. In the article we use the word "exemplar" (ideal teacher) for Mahavira; most historians, call him a founder outright. See sources below. I have done all I can. I don't believe more discussion will accomplish anything. I believe the current wording reflects consensus among contemporary scholars. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, p. 59, ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1, retrieved 12 August 2013  Quote: "The Gupta culture of the classical period owes much to formative processes dating from around 500 BCE, a period usually assigned to the religious careers of the founders of Buddhism and Jainism (although recent re-evaluation of the evidence now assigns their activities to a date closer to the end of the fifth century)."
  • Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India, Routledge, pp. 54–55, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0, retrieved 12 August 2013  Quote: "This new Gangetic civilisation found its spiritual expression in a reform movement which was a reaction to the Brahmin-Kshatriya alliance of the Late Vedic Age. This reform movement is mainly identified with the teachings of Gautama Buddha who is regarded as the first historic figure of Indian history. The date of his death (parinirvana) has always been a controversial issue. ... modern historians and Indologists had generally accepted c.483 BC as the date of his death. But ... archeological evidence seems to indicate that the Buddha lived in the fifth rather than the sixth century .... The Buddha, however, was not the only great reformer of the age. There was also Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, who is supposed to have been a younger contemporary of the Buddha." Fowler&fowler 01:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — continues after insertion below
  • If this source indicates that Mahavira was a younger contemporary of Buddha, I think it loses its credibility. Mahavira was older than Buddha. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Definition of Jainism in English". Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press. 2013.  Quote: "a non-theistic religion founded in India in the 6th century BC by the Jina Vardhamana Mahavira as a reaction against the teachings of orthodox Brahmanism, and still practised there. The Jain religion teaches salvation by perfection through successive lives, and non-injury to living creatures, and is noted for its ascetics."
  • "Jainism". Merriam-Webster Unabridged: Encyclopedia. 2013.  (subscription might be required) Quote: "Religion of India established between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE. It was founded by Vardhamana, who was called Mahavira, as a reaction against the Vedic religion, which required animal sacrifices. Jainism's core belief is ahimsa, or noninjury to all living things. Jainism has no belief in a creator god, though there are a number of lesser deities for various aspects of life."
  • Thapar, Romila (2004), Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, University of California Press, pp. 166, 171, ISBN 978-0-520-24225-8, retrieved 12 August 2013  Quote: "But, of all these sects, the two that came to stay were Jainism and Buddhism, both of which were to become independent religions. Part of the reason for this may have been that theirs was a more holistic understanding of contemporary changes than that of other sects, and, in the break-away from the earlier systems of thought and ethics, they reflected a more sensitive response to the pressures of the changes. Jaina ideas, thought to have been in circulation earlier, posited previous teachers — the tirthankaras or makers of fords — with the claims to an ancestry of the ongoing teaching. Claims to an earlier succession of teachers were also made by some other sects. Mahavira gave shape to these ideas in the sixth century, and this led to the organization and spread of the Jaina sect which was initially called Nirgrantha. (p. 166)" Quote: "Unlike Vedic Brahmanism, or the later Puranic Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism had specific historical teachers that have now come to be viewed almost as founders, .... (p. 171)"

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The word examplar is used, but the origins of Jainism is said to be around the 5th century BCE. This is problematic. Can the wordings be changed to reflect that there was Jaina presence before the 5th century BCE? Rahul Jain (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the major sources don't point to a significantly older provenance for Jainism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The view represented by this article is that Jainism was originated around 5th century BCE, i.e. around the time of Mahavira. I have pointed out that there are sources which differ. In case of there is a difference of opinion in the sources, Wikipedia policy asks to provide due weight to them. If there is a problem of number of sources I can point to more of them which state that Parsva's existence is now accepted. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────*Keep article as currently written:After looking over the information provided by F&F and TRJ, the article correctly seems to represent both points of view already. The article correctly states that Jainism basically arose in the 5th century; TRJ's sources don't really refute this, rather pointing out that the religion has earlier routes. Furthermore, F&F's sources appear to provide a much wider scholarly view, often representing an overall consensus among scholars, rather than TRJ's which often represent one scholar's view. On balance, the current wording seems to represent the general academic consensus, while not flatly contradict TRJ's position (for example, the article does not assert or imply that Mahavira is the founder of Jainism). Note that this position is strictly because this is the article on India. In this article, all we want is a simple, broad statement that summarizes the general scholarly consensus. Of course the Jainism article should involve significantly more detail and include both external and internal POV. There are quite a number of WP articles that follow this pattern--at the top level, we provide only the broad scholarly consensus, leaving the alternate theories to other, more specific articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the correct solution. There is no doubt about that that the India related articles suffer from Systemic bias as far as Jainism is concerned. This is proved by the very fact that the article claims Jainism to be a “reform movement.” When Christianity is not claimed to be a reform movement within Judaism and Islam not an offshoot of Christainty or Judaism, I do not know why Jainism and Buddhism are claimed to be an offshoot or reform movement of Hinduism? But, with majority of the editors pusing for the Hindu POV, this is bound to happen. For a long time the scholarship also suffered from the same bias. Hence you will find many old references/ dictionaries claiming Jainism to be a reform movement or an offshoot of Hinduism. Till 19th Century it was wrongly believed that Jainism was an offshoot of Buddhism. However, this is being corrected and now one will find scores of references that Jainism is not an offshoot nor a reform movement.Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Response by Indian Chronicles: References that clearly show that Jainism is NOT a reform movement

  • A History of Yoga By Vivian Worthington 1982 Routledge ISBN 071009258X: Jainism is another religion that is looked on by the scholars as a Hindu reform movement. But again the most cursory knowledge of this unique faith should aquaint the enquirer with the fact that its origin go back well before Vedic Hinduism. page 3
  • Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150: “There is no evidence to show that Jainism and Buddhism ever subscribed to Vedic sacrifices, Vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times.” Page 18
  • J. L. Jaini, (1916) Jaina Law, Bhadrabahu Samhita, (Text with translation ) Arrah, Central jaina publishing House: As to Jainas being Hindu dissenters, and, therefore governable by Hindu law, we are not told this date of secession [...] Jainism certainly has a longer history than is consistent with its being a creed of dissenters from Hinduism. P.12-13
  • P.S. Jaini, (1979), The Jaina Path to Purification, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, p. 169: Jainas themselves have no memory of a time when they fell within the Vedic fold. Any theory that attempts to link the two traditions, moreover fails to appreciate rather unique and very non-vedic character of Jaina cosmology, soul theory, karmic doctrine and atheism.
  • Zydenbos, Robert J. (2006). Jainism Today and Its Future. München: Manya Verlag:
    • In the view of so many basic differences between the two traditions, [Jain and Vedic] it is amazing that there are still people who speak of Jainism as a “heterodox sect of Hinduism” An impartial study of the literary evidence, both Jaina and Brahamanical, leads to a conclusion that the latter offshoots of the Vedic tradition have borrowed a lot from Jainism : the theory of karma and re-birth, the vegetarianism of the higher Hindu castes, perhaps also temple worship. Page 59
    • Jainism is one of the oldest living religions of the world. Perhaps it is the oldest living religion that has served as a major civilizing force, giving birth to roughly 2,000 years of written literature, to wonders of art and architecture, and to a system of philosophy and ethics that gave inspiration to political giant like Mahatma Gandhi. Several Religious ideas that are today considered “typically Indian”, either originated in or were spread by Jaina teachers. This ought to be common knowledge, but as with many other things in the world, this is not the case. Page 11
  • Varni, Jinendra; Ed. Prof. Sagarmal Jain, Translated Justice T.K. Tukol and Dr. K.K. Dixit (1993). Samaṇ Suttaṁ. New Delhi: Bhagwan Mahavir memorial Samiti.: The tradition of Jainism from the point of view of its principles both on conduct and thought, goes very deep beyond comprehension. The Historians have so far fully recognized the truth that Tirthankara Mahavira was not the founder of the religion. He was preceded by many tirthankaras. He merely reiterated and rejuvenated that religion. It is correct that history has not been able to trace the origin of the Jaina religion; but historical evidence now available and the result of dispassionate researches in literature have established that Jainism is undoubtly an ancient religion. Pp. xii – xiii of introduction
  • Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward Craig 1998 Taylor & Francis ISBN:0415073103: Despite similarities between Mahavira and Buddha, both in their biographies and in their rules for ascetics, Jainism is clearly an independent stream which has made its own valuable contributions to the development of Indian Philosophy. One significant difference between Mahavira and Buddha is that Mahavira was not a founder of a new movement, but rather a reformer of the teachings of his predecessor, Parsva. Page 33
  • Larson, Gerald James (1995) “India’s Agony over religion” SUNY Press ISBN 079142412X: There is some evidence that Jain traditions may be even older than the Buddhist traditions, possibly going back to the time of the Indus valley civilization, and that Vardhamana rather than being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition. Page 27
  • A history of the Jainas, Ashim Kumar Roy, New Delhi : Gitanjali Pub. House, 1984, ISBN : 11604851:
    • In the sixth century BC Buddhism had just been founded. The Vedic religion was almost getting extinct and Hinduism as we know it today was at a nebulous stage. Jainism at that time was not only a mature and living religion but also one claiming a hoary antiquity. All its tenets had fully developed by that time and these tenets have remained almost unchanged all these 2500 years. Jainism is thus the oldest living religion of India. Page 1
    • It would thus appear that Jainism, and many other religions existed from pre-Vedic times in northern India. Only Jainism remained practically unaffected by the impact of Vedism. The other religions which coalesced to form classical Hinduism, were affected by Vedism p 8-9
This is just a tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of references now that debunk the hypothesis that Jainism is a reform religion. This was a meme that was handed down by generation to generation and wrongly pertetuated by earlier scholars without understanding properly the history of Jainism and ancient India.Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I was randomly selected for RFC comment. The issue that you're batting back and forth is an issue of warring opinions, not only among scholars but among lay people who wish to advance their own prejudices and biases. From a cursory examination what it looks like you're seeing are some scholars who consider it a religion, others who do not, complete with differences of opinion who who founded what, what the origins are, and what constitutes a religion. All of these issues are insolvable so there's going to have to be compromise.
My opinion is that Jainism should be properly called a religion if the adherents of Jainism consider it a religion, otherwise if adherents do not call it a religion, Jainism should not be called a religion in the article. Find out what the real world followers/believers consider to be true and replicate it on Wikipedia. BiologistBabe (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
BiologistBabe...you didn't read the RfC properly. No one is debating whether or not Jainism should be called a religion. What we are debating is whether or not it is a "reform movement". And for that, we would never go by just what adherents say. Many many religions that are actually reform movements claim "No, we're the original religion, and it's those other people who are twisting the 'truth'". Or, in the case of Jainism, it appears that the scholarly consensus is that it was a reform movement, while adherents of Jainism often argue that it's not because there are semi-mythical antecedents to the religion in the area. What adherents believe about their own faith is not the deciding factor. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
@BiologistBabe The current wording (which the initiator of the RfC is disputing) is: "The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism,[10] both of which became independent religions.[11] Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.[10][12][13] Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira.[14] In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal,[15] and both established long-lasting monasteries.[16]"
It took a lot of work and discussion by a lot of people to craft these careful words. Please see the archives of this page (during the last FAR when the history chapter was rewritten). Some two dozen internationally recognized sources were used for that section. The disputed text does not say Jainism is not a religion; it does not say that it the same historical moment as Buddhism, only that it came into prominence then; and it doesn't say that Mahavira was the founder of the religion, only the exemplar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The current wordings clearly contradicts about a dozen sources that have been pointed out. Rahul Jain (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Article should reflect the dispute. It seems there are many sources which describe Jainism emerging from Hinduism in around what is now called the fifth or sixth century B.C. Jains clearly trace their origins further back, and are supported in this belief by, seemingly, more than a dozen reliable sources. The dispute is significant enough to be mentioned here. Strangely, the former view seems to predominate at Timeline of Jainism, and the latter view at History of Jainism. It might be a good idea to move this discussion to those articles, so that a sophisticated description of the dispute can be offered. When that's hammered out, it will be easier to provide a good summary. But for the India article, for now, it seems clear enough that the different perspectives should be mentioned. groupuscule (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no dispute. This is a sub-section here on ancient Indian history, in the section of history. The historical sources are near unanimous in characterizing Jainism both as a reform movement that later became religion and came into prominence in the time of Mahavira. We have used some of the best known books on the history of India used world wide such as: Burton Stein's History of India, Kulke and Rothermund's History of Indai, Romila Thapar's Ancient India, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Jainism, and so forth. If they want to use religion sources, they should add whatever they want to the Jainism page, not this one. This is strictly about history; we need internationally recognized sources on the history of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, when there are sources making arguments for each side, it would seem that you need better evidence to prove the claim that "there is no dispute". Not all of the sources for Jainism's earlier origins are simply "religious". IndianChronicles has presented an impressive list, which includes multiple recent history texts. These cannot simply be ignored. groupuscule (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Fowler says: "There is no dispute". He is in a state of total denial. The bais of people like him is clearly reflected in these articles and sources cherry picked by him. He has not even bothered to reply to the dozen or so reliable sources that I have quoted. The historical sources that I have quoted are from most reputed scholars and publishers like Routeledge, Motilal Banarsidass, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and undisputed scholars like Padmanabh S. Jaini, Vivian Worthington, Robert Zydenbos and Ashim Kumar Roy. Ignoring the sources like this is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia.
It is crystal clear that to push his POV, Fowler is creating an artificial exclusion. The reason given by fowler for this cherry picking is absurd: "This is strictly about history; we need internationally recognized sources on the history of India". In fact the sources quoted by me are most reliable and most apt to discuss the status of Jainism. Here we are discussing whether Jainism is a reform religion or not. Very clearly, internationally renowned sources and unbiased authors are giving a very legitimate view on the historical status of Jainism, that Jainism is not a reform religion. This needs to be taken into account. If we go by the absurd logic that only generalised sources on History of India are to be quoted here, then in literature section only sources on literature of India are to be used. For example we need to remove the sources of Zvelebil, K. V. and Hart, G. L that are specialised into tamil literature and poems and not on Indian literature per se. Going by this logic, a lot of legitimate sources will have to be removed.Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Pre-modernist urban legends like 'Jainism' and 'Buddhism' were heterodox systems which arose to reform the Vedic system are now debunked. To say that everything in India arose from the Vedas is to do a great disservice to other Indian traditions. There is plenty of evidence to indicate a culture that existed in the IVC that predates the Vedas. It is difficult to conclude that the IVC was a Jain or Shramana civilisation because we do not have any written evidence from the IVC.

But once we get rid of the notion that the Vedas predate everything else in India, we are able to clearly perceive the possibility of the existence of other faiths in ancient India.

Since we know so less of ancient India, one cannot be absolutely sure as to what transpired. But there is evidence in the Mandukya Upanishad that the theory of karma and the concept of liberation originated from non-Vedic sources. Scholars believe that they came from Jain sources. The MU states that pandits were taught these concepts, which are not in evidence in the Vedas, by kshatriya ascetics. We may or may not assume that these kshatriya ascetics were Jain ascetics. We do not have conclusive evidence in any direction. Those ascetics were certainly not brahmins and they were not informed by the Vedic tradition.

Beyond this, it is a matter of which source you accept. Jain sources are crystal clear that Jainism existed long before any other faith did. Non-Jain sources say different things. Some state that Jainism existed long before Mahavira. The best informed sources state that Jainism is far older than Mahavira and point out that the 'vratyas' and the 'vatarashana' monks referred to in the Vedas were nude kshatriya ascetics. It is likely that they were Jain ascetics. However, in the absence of incontrovertible evidence on either side, people will form opinions based on which side they would like to believe.

If we were to apply the same rigorous questioning attitude to the existence of Hindu deities, we will find that none of them existed as per history text books!

In fact, the oldest Indian calendar year is known as the Vira Samvat, named after Mahavira. It is 527 years earlier than the Gregorian calendar and 470 years earlier than the Vikrama Samvat. Manish Modi 06:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) ::@Manish Modi >>>"Jain sources are crystal clear that Jainism existed long before any other faith"

Jain sources are also crystal clear that all Thirthankaras were human. They are crystal clear that the last, Mahavira, was 7 cubits = 10 and 1/2 feet tall and lived for 72 years, ie. was born before 650 BCE, before the Buddha, that his predecessor Parshva was 9 cubits (13 and 1/2 feet) tall, lived 100 years, and was born before 750 BCE; that his predecessor Neminatha was 10 "dhanusha" (60 feet) tall, lived for 1,000 years, and was born before 1,750 BCE, before the Vedas were composed; his predecessor Nami Natha was 90 feet tall, lived for 10,000 years, and was born before 11,750 BCE, during the last ice age; his predecessor Munisuvrata was 120 feet tall, lived for 30,000 years, was born before 41,750 BCE, predating the earliest homo sapiens fossil evidence in South Asia; his predecessor Mallinath, born in Mathura, was 150 feet tall, lived for 55,000 years, was born before 96,750 BCE, before modern homo sapiens arrived in India from Africa; his predecessor Aranath was 180 feet tall, lived for 84,000 years, was born before 180,750 BCE, before anatomically modern homo sapiens arose in Africa, ... in this way we very soon find tirthankaras, all very human, who were born in Ayodhya before hominids split off from chimpanzees in Africa; born in Varanasi before chimpanzees split off from gorillas; born in Ayodhya before mammals arose on planet earth; born in Varanasi before life was created on planet earth; born in Ayodhya before the earth split off from the sun; born in Varanasi before the solar system was created, ... born in Ayodhya before the Big bang. But the Jain sources know the name of both their parents and time, day, and month of birth. (See here.) When in this Jain chronology do we say, "Ahem, ... but this is not adding up?"
As for the rest of your post, where are we saying in the ancient history section that the Vedas precede IVC? IVC descends from (the eastward movement of cultures that began in) neolithic Mehrgarh in western Pakistan, and that in turn was related to contemporaneous neolithic cultures westward in Iran and Iraq. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Manish Modi @Groupuscule I apologize for the above sarcasm, which I have now scratched. I've been reading some recent scholarship on Jainism (John Cort, Paul Dundas, ...) which takes a more sophisticated view of Jain universal history, iconography, etc.. Please give me another day. I will post here again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@User:The Rahul Jain, @User:Qwyrxian, @user:Indian Chronicles, @user:BiologistBabe, user:Groupuscule, user:Manish Modi (and other respondents).

Recall that we are discussing the factual accuracy and overall balance of the text:

"The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which became independent religions. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. Jainism came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira. In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long-lasting monasteries."

I have now gone through over two dozen sources from the last 25 years which I have compiled with expansive quotations on my user subpage: User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism (Please do not edit this page or leave posts on its talk page). I have not cherry picked for any one particular phrasing or point of view. The authors listed there include some of the best-known scholars of India and the Indian tradition, historians (Burton Stein, Romila Thapar, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Stanley Wolpert, Upinder Singh), archeologists (Raymond Allchin, Bridget Allchin), philologists (Colin Masica, Michael Witzel, K.R. Norman, Thomas Oberlies, and Dhinesh Jain) and scholars of religion (R.C.C. Fynes, Gavin Flood, Patrick Olivelle, Paul Dundas, John E. Cort, M. Whitney Kelting, Axel Michaels). Here is my assessment. (Please do not interrupt my post by posting comments in between.)

  1. First of all, let me say, Jainism is a beautiful religion and it should be better known on Wikipedia. Scholarly attention is being increasingly drawn to the Jaina traditions, especially in the last two decades. It is a religion that in many ways reflects the dilemmas of the modern era. The Jaina tradition has its own Universal History, which has given rise to some of the greatest works of art, architecture, and literature on the Indian subcontinent. However, there is also now a nearly 200 year old tradition of modern scholarship. The latter is what Wikipedia is beholden to.
  2. All early Indian sources between 1500 BCE and 263 BCE were orally transmitted. Although the Vedic age had perfected the art of oral transmission to a fidelity unheard of in any other culture, whether contemporary or later, assigning dates and positing antiquity is tricky exercise. The Jaina cannon (in which Mahavira was first mentioned and pronounced to be the last tīrthankar) did not appear until the 5th century ACE, some 900 years after the posited age in which Mahavira lived. Still, in the opinion of most philologists, the languages, Pālï and Ardhamāgadhi, that the Buddha and Mahavira, respectively preached in, go back no further than the period 500–400 BCE. The archeologists and historians—on the evidence of a style of lustrous pottery, Northern Black Polished ware, which appeared after 500 BCE and the political formations that appeared around the same time in the region of eastern North India—consider the Buddha and Mahavira to be near contemporaries.
  3. There may have been earlier Jaina or Jaina-like renouncer traditions, but they did not attract widespread attention from the laity. Similarly, Pārśva's historicity is uncertain, even among scholars of religion. He may have been Mahavira's guru, but that does not imply that there was a widespread tradition in existence earlier. To compound the confusion, the 24 gods or idols is a theme found in Buddhist and Brahminical traditions as well; there is in fact some evidence, that the Jaina borrowed the idea of the 24 tirthankaras from the Buddhists (see John Cort's quotes). In such a situation, it is impossible with any degree of certainty to say that Jainism preceded Buddhism in any appreciable sense.
  4. Now to the question of "reform movement." The expression does not mean that the Jaina were Hindus who were splitting off from the parent religion (like Protestants from Catholicism); but it does make the point that Brahminical Hinduism was the prevailing religious ethos of the North Indian plain in the Vedic age (1500–500 BCE) and that both Jainism and Buddhism arose as responses or reaction to its orthodoxies, demonstrated by the fact that both religions share many concepts with Hinduism, which is clearly older. However, "orthodoxies" is not explained. Perhaps one could change this to "ritualistic orthodoxies." The view that Jainism was an independent stream of religious thought contemporaneous in origin with early Vedic Hinduism is a minority view, and a very small minority view at that.
  5. Finally, one thing that somehow got overlooked by everyone: the text says, "both established long-lasting monasteries." This is clearly wrong. There is no monastery from the life time of the Buddha or Mahavira that is still extant. What is meant there is, "both established long-lasting monastic traditions." I don't believe anything else needs to be changed. It is now almost a month since the RfC began and I believe it has helped to clarify some things, but that it is also time to close it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that some of the earliest Jain sculptures have been found in Mathura, where several of the 24 Jinas are often specifically named in the inscription. Some of the Jinas are identified by specific attributes, such as long hair for Lord Rishabhadev, or snake hood for Parshvantha. Sonya Rhie Quintanilla in her "History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura: Ca. 150 BCE - 100 CE" comments that a panel showing Nilanjana contains the representations of the oldest identifiable Jina, Lord Rishabha. The Jain tradition of 24 Jinas was well known in early Mathura.

Buddhist tradition sometimes refers to 25 Buddhas, however more often it refers to only the 4 ("Manushi Buddhas"). There is some evidence that they may have actually existed, Asoka dedicated column to Konagamana; followers of Devadatta are said to have worshipped earlier Buddhas, but not Gautam (Shakyamuni).

I am not aware of a similar tradition in the Brahmanical tradition. Is the reference to the avataras of Vishnu? Malaiya (talk)

F&F, impressive reply. However, we cannot close this RFC. It seems to be still biased. I will need some time to go through your posts and provide a reply to that.Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@User:Fowler&fowler Thank you for taking the time to research this topic. However, I see that you haven't referenced a single source (out of 9 valid ones) presented by @User:Indian Chronicles or used a single source (out of 4 valid ones) presented by @User:The Rahul Jain above. In addition to the valid question presented by @User:Malaiya above, you stated-
"...by the fact that both religions share many concepts with Hinduism, which is clearly older." Let's analyze this statement logically-
  • Fact A- Both religions (Jainism/Shramana and Hinduism/Vedic) share many concepts
  • Assumption- Hinduism is the older of the two religions (this assumption has been made because of the Vedas)
  • Fact B- The Vedas do not mention the concepts of Karma, the concept of liberation etc. (these are the shared concepts that Fact A talks about)
If Fact A and Fact B are correct, then our assumption must be wrong. If the Vedic steam of thought is older, then where did these shared concepts come from? Mahavira or Buddha clearly couldn't have thought of these overnight, and even if they did, they must have exchanged notes, for both have uncanny similarities. Hinduism borrowed these concepts from the Shramana (please see the link) movement, which was a parallel school to the Vedic school, and according to some scholars, the Shramana school was the prevailing school of thought, before the advent of Aryans and the Vedic philosophy. I propose we change the text to (please feel free to suggest changes)-

"The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also led to the resurgence of Shramana traditions of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which were independent religions"

--Aayush18 (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Parsva's historicity is not uncertain. Hermann Jacobi, used the ancient Jain scriptures and buddhist scriptures to successfully demonstrate that Svetambara Jain texts, despite being written at a considerably later date, were reliable in tracing down the early history of the Jains. (See http://www.sacred-texts.com/jai/sbe22/sbe2202.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/jai/sbe45/sbe4502.htm) Herman Jacobi's work has, since then, been accepted by almost all the scholars of Jainism. An important conclusion (for this RFC) that he found was, nirgrantha (Jains) were not a newly formed group during those time, nor was nataputta (Mahavira) their founder. Though Mahavira made various reforms within it, Jainism was undoubtedly older religion. Even in the list compiled by Fowler&fowler, many sources points out this earlier origins of Jainism and/or the historicity of Parsva. This article does not reflect it and also leaves no room for enquiry by placing the origins of Jainism in "late vedic period, around 5th century BCE". Secondly, I am unable to understand on what basis is Jainism being called a reform movement. The word reform usually refers to making a small change or ammendement to a larger thing without seriously altering the fundamentals. When the article says that Jainism began as a reform movement and became an independent religion afterwards, it would, according to me, mean exactly that Jains were hindus (Followers of Vedic Brahmanism) who split off. The concept of samsara, karma etc. were not well-developed in Hinduism during those times which was sarcastically shown by Aayush. Also, Fowler&fowler points that, in this context the word reform "does not mean that the Jaina were Hindus who were splitting off from the parent religion". I don't see any good reason to use the word reform movement except to add confusion. For these reasons, I cannot accept the solution proposed by Fowler&fowler. The article, in my opinion, should not imply that Jainism originated in 5th century BCE and should not imply that it was founded as a reform of Hinduism (Vedic religion). Rahul Jain (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fowler&Fowler, I am impressed with your research. Unfortunately, it does not seem balanced. I will not accuse you of cherry picking, but there seems to be some confirmation bias here. You have already arrived at a conclusion and then selected research to support it. You have simply cursorily dismissed the references given by me with the trite and hackneyed response: “The view that Jainism was an independent stream of religious thought contemporaneous in origin with early Vedic Hinduism is a minority view, and a very small minority view at that.” Maybe you are right, if you were to take a poll of typical layman Indian who believes in Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma (eternal religion). The very idea that there may be traditions like, Sramana tradition that co-existed or even preceded Vedic tradition would seem to be galling or simply sacrilegious to such people. It is not difficult to see who will win the poll with Hindus at 80.5% of the population as against very small minority of Jains at 0.4% of the population. This skew has spawned a huge material on how Jainism and Buddhism are reform religions and they are offshoots of Hinduism (which incidentally did not even exist at that time). This Systemic bias is also clearly reflected on Wikipedia and on these pages.

I have collected my sources on this page: User:Indian_Chronicles/Jain_Sources These are internationally renowned and top notch scholars from India and abroad. The publishers are also renowned and reliable and quotable in Wikipedia. I am not naming them as they can be seen on my sub-user page.

After going through these sources, here is my assessment of the issue. Jainism cannot be called a reform movement because:

    1. It was never an offshoot of Historical Vedic religion (Hinduism did not even exist at that time). It never fell within vedic fold. Just because they have shared concepts, that does not mean that Jainism is a reform religion. This is very clear from sources provided by me. No one calls Christianity as a reform religion of Judaism or Islam as a reform religion of Christianity, even though these Abrahamic religions have many shared concepts.
    2. In never arose as a protest against Brahmanical religion. Show me one quotation from Mahavira protesting Brahminical orthodoxies. On the other hand you have many quotes from Buddha criticising and evaluating Mahavira’s philosophy proving that Mahavira was an elder contemporary of Buddha. Buddha rejected extreme penances of Jainism. Both Jainism and Budhhism share Sramana philosophy. Still we cannot say that Buddhism arose as a protest religion from Jainism. Then why do we say that Jainism is a protest religion?
    3. If Mahavira, Buddha, Makkhali Gosala and Purana Kassapa (both leaders of Ajivika, another Sramana religion) who were near contemporaries and who all preached Sramana philosophy, then how come 4 different people from different religion came up with similar Sramana philosophy simultaneously? This could have happened only if Sramanism was already a thriving and established tradition separate from Vedic tradition. Then where is the question of off-shoot and reform religion?
    4. It is difficult to believe that princes like Mahavira and Buddha would renounce their great wealth and kingdom and undergo severe penances to protest Brahmanical Orthodoxies. There are better ways to protest. It is clear that they renounced their kingdom in search of truth and Nirvana, liberation. When Mahavira discarded clothes and meditated, protest against Brahmanical Orthodoxies was last thing on his mind. He was following the path of his preceeding Sramana teacher. Yes certain Jain scriptures do contain criticism of vedic sacrifices and violent rituals. But that cannot be used to call Jainism as a protest or reform religion.
    5. Very clearly the philosophical concepts of Ahimsa, Karma, Samsara and Moksha were adopted by Hinduism from Sramana philosophy and not the other way round. Very clearly the Hindu philosophy and Indian philosophy was shaped by Sramana philosophy and not by Vedic philosophy. Axel Michales, the very source quoted by F&F says that Vedism was not the source of these concepts:
Hinduism: Past and Present By Axel Michaels, Barbara Harshav, Published 2004 Princeton University Press ISBN:0691089523
The legacy of vedic religion in Hinduism is generally overestimated. The influence of the mythology is indeed great, but the religious terminology changed considerably: all the key terms of Hinduism either do not exist in Vedas or have completely different meaning. The religion of Vedas do not know ethicized migration of soul with retribution of acts (karma), the cyclical destruction of the world, or the salvation during ones lifetime (Jeevanmukti, moksa, Nirvana); the idea of the world as illusion (maya) must have gone against the grain of ancient India, and an omnipotent creator God emerges only in the later hymns of Rgveda. Nor did the Vedic religion know a caste system, the burning of widows, the ban on remarriage, images of Gods and temples, the Puja Worship, Yoga, the pilgrimages, vegetarianism, the holiness of the cow, the doctrine of the stages of life (asrama) or knew them only at their inception. Page 38
As shown by the reliable sources quoted by me, Sramana philosophy was the source of Ahimsa, Karma, Samsara and Moksha.

To sum up, as per the arguments provided by me as well as the sources provided by me, Jainism (and Buddhism ) is clearly not a reform religion or an off-shoot of Hinduism, but it is an original and independent stream of tradition that co-existed with Vedic tradition and possibly was more ancient than Vedism and influenced the vedic philosophy (and not the other way round). If these reliable sources are not considered, then it would be in total contravention of Wikipedia rules.Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian Chronicles, none of what you just posted has any bearing at all (not even a tiny, tiny bit) on our discussion here. You're making an academic argument about whether or not Jainism was a reform movement, based on your analysis of what was actually happening at the time. The only thing that Wikipedia policies allow us to do is to look at the sources and see if those sources have come to the conclusion that it is a reform movement. Anything else is original research and strictly forbidden. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Your state of denial does not change anything. Please do not teach me what is OR. I have been Wikipedia editor for 7 years. What I have stated is 100% relevant and applicable. This only proves that you have not bothered to read what I have written. I did not find these comments of your when F&F put up his OR? I am sorry, but your dismissive and condescending attitude will not work here. Try cooperation and consensus instead. Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I could have easily turned the tables and said that F&F posting does not change or mean anything, and that F&F is simply indulging in academic arguments and Original research. And here we have a veteran editor behaving like a novice. I mean are you guys really interested in consensus and following wikipedia rules or simply you feel that you own this article and you will be dismissively condescending and patronising towards people who do not agree with you?Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems I have to borrow from the toolboxes of other editors who've worked on contentious articles and FA's and the like with POV pushers: bullshit. Fowler&Fowler posted highly reliable sources that explicitly state when/who Jainism started. That is exactly what we need. You, instead, posted a bunch of claims about what was or was not happening thousands of years ago, and then tried to argue that these answered the question of whether or not Jainism was a reform movement. So F&F did exactly what a Wikipedia editor is required to do, and you did the exact opposite. Your comments hold no merit here. If you want to come back with reliable secondary (or, really, tertiary, given the nature of this article and the claim being sought, since our goal here is to determine the consensus of historians), then do so. Otherwise, your comments have as much value to a closer of this RfC as someone saying "I like Jainism and all these people are meanies!" Qwyrxian (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
My comments hold merit here, very much. I have quoted from very reliable sources that say Jainism is not a reform religion. I have done exactly what Wikipedia requires us to do. Nothing else. You may borrow anything from anyone's toolbox and try to act real smart like sole owner of this page. Your denial or dismissive attitude does not mean anything. Absolutely. Forget about agreeing to me. You are not even ready to acknowledge even tiny bit that there may be some alternate view here or some scope of consensus here. That as much as you have said it yourself. And, then you try to teach me the rules of Wikipedia. Well, lets see if your bullying tactics work here.Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change

Proposed change:

In the late Vedic period, around the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies that were known as the mahajanapadas. Buddhism was founded during this period of intense religious speculation. Based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, it attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. Jainism, whose origins are obscure, came into prominence around the same time following its revival by Mahavira. These religions opposed the ritualistic brahmanic schools which were prevalent at that time. In an age of increasing urban wealth, they held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long-lasting monastic traditions. Politically, by the 3rd century BCE, the kingdom of Magadha had annexed or reduced other states to emerge as the Mauryan Empire. The empire was once thought to have controlled most of the subcontinent excepting the far south, but its core regions are now thought to have been separated by large autonomous areas. The Mauryan kings are known as much for their empire-building and determined management of public life as for Ashoka's renunciation of militarism and far-flung advocacy of the Buddhist dhamma.

If we modify the third paragraph of the Ancient India section as proposed above we can avoid pushing POV in either direction. Rahul Jain (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to be Ok.Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


After looking at some three dozen reliable sources in User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism and elsewhere, I believe the following is the most accurate description:

By the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies known as the mahajanapadas. The spreading urbanisation, the social changes it wrought, and the ritual and sacrificial orthodoxies of the previous age, led to heterodox religious movements. These were seen both within Vedic Hinduism, appearing in the Upanishads, and outside it in Jainism and Buddhism,[10] which became enduring independent religions. Jainism came into prominence in this time, during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class. Chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. In an age of increasing urban wealth, both new religions held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long lasting monastic traditions.

I now mention Jainism first. I leave open the possibility that Jainism (or Jaina-like renouncer groups) may have been around earlier as a smaller, scattered, cultic presence. I now say, heterodox instead of reform, but that means I have to mention the Upaniṣads, for that was the major heterodox reaction, and I add "new religions," instead of "religions."
I want to be very clear: the sources you all have produced are not reliable. In particular, there is little chance that the usual POV found on the Jainism and Karma in Jainism pages—Jainism invented karma and rebirth, that it appreciably predates Buddhism, that Parśva was a historical figure, that it is one of the oldest religions in the world (cited to a book written by a retired physician), that it goes back at least to 900 BCE, that it was the religion of the Indus Valley Civilization, etc.—will appear on the India page. This is my final offer. I will not be responding further. If you agree to it, I will change the text with appropriate sources. If you don't, you are welcome to pursue it in any Wikipedia forum of your choice, all the way up to ArbCom. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Very weak support The discussion was never was whether Jainism should be mention first or not, so it doesn't make any difference. By saying Jainism was a new religious movement, you are basically neglecting nearly every source compiled by User:Indian_Chronicles/Jain_Sources. Are you sure that Upanishads were heterodox? I highly doubt that. Still, I think I can weakly support your description for now. Rahul Jain (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I was uncomfortable about applying "heterodox" to the Upaniṣads and you rightly called me on it. Here is what I should have said. I have taken out "new."

By the 5th century BCE, the small chiefdoms of the Ganges Plain and the north-western regions had consolidated into 16 major oligarchies and monarchies known as the mahajanapadas. The spreading urbanisation, the social changes it wrought, and the ritual and sacrificial orthodoxies of the previous age, spurred new religious thinking in India. This occurred within Vedic Hinduism, in the speculation of the early Upanishads, and outside it in heterodox movements, two of which became enduring independent religions. Jainism came into prominence in this time, during the life of Mahavira, its exemplar. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class. Chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India. In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal, and both established long lasting monastic traditions.

I have also made a new section in User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism, where I will add the various sources supporting the statement. Everything else I've stated above, I still stand by. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The RfC began on 10 August 2013. It is a full month since. I have not heard anything from the initiators of the RfC for 3 days. If I don't hear anything in the next couple of days, I shall be closing the RfC and adding the last bit of proposed text to the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I hate to do this but none of the proposed texts are good. The current text is succinct and flows well. The text proposed by Rahul Jain and supported by others is too long. The text proposed by Fowler and introduces new elements, particularly the introduction of the idea that reform in Hinduism was also central to this age. It seems to me that the sticking point with the current text is mainly the implication that Jainism was created in the 5th Century BCE as a response to what was going on in Hinduism. Reading through the discussion above, and it is long so I may not be reading it correctly, it appears that the view that Jainism existed in India prior to this period is not an isolated or fringe view. It may be a minority view but, reviewing the sources, I'd say it was a minority view that is increasingly gaining acceptance. Wouldn't it make sense to directly acknowledge the possibility of the existence of Jainism prior to this period and leave the majority of the current text intact? For example, something along the lines of (not sure if 'early vedic times' is the correct way of putting this)

The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created an atmosphere of religious reform in which other religious ideas flourished.[37] Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.[36][38][39] Jainism, thought to have roots in early vedic times [source], came into prominence around the same time during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira.[40] In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal,[41] and both established long-lasting monastic traditions.[34]

--regentspark (comment) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That Jainism itself (not random unnamed cultic renouncer groups) predates 500 is very much a fringe view. It certainly is that among historians, philologists, and epigraphists. The latter group are brutally clear on that. (See User:Fowler&fowler/Sources_for_Jainism#Archeology.2C_Philology.2C_and_Epigraphy_Sources, especially Michael Witzel, K.R. Norman etc.) It might be less fringe among scholars of religion, but it is the history section we are adding to. That is why my version focuses on the political and sociological changes that produced these changes not on what is early and what later. That is the view Romila Thapar, Gavin Flood, Patrick Olivelle and others. The main thing is that our edits have to pass FAC, as it were. I don't believe claiming early vedic provenance for Jainism will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A.L. Basham is even more unambiguous (see same set of sources): "The former Buddhas and former Tirthaṇkaras (of Jainism) have no reliable historical basis, for no earlier ascetic movements of this type are attested anywhere either in the Vedic literature or by archaeology. We do not believe in the existence of earlier śramaṇic movements in the Ganges valliey. This was a new development in the religious life of India, which had its roots not in the śramaṇic movements but in the sages of the Upaniṣads." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You're right that the references that Indian Chronicles provides are largely from religion and philosophy. I was basing my reading on the text of some of the works listed there. The Mary Pat Fisher reference (I cannot find a university affiliation for her) explicitly says "well documented" about evidence for the pre-existence of Jainism. Regardless, my larger point is that the text, as is, is good and it would be better to tweak it than to change it. Perhaps Jainism came into prominence ...., bypassing its origin issue entirely?--regentspark (comment) 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, that is what I first wanted to do, but the initiators of the RfC (like the "slippery eels" of yore (other renouncer groups) the Buddha railed against) kept changing the terms of the RfC, first in how the words were to be interpreted, then the words themselves. And that was a month ago. Will suggest a wee-bitest-of-tweaks ASAP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How about:

The emerging urbanisation and the orthodoxies of this age also created heterodox religious movements, two of which became independent religions. Buddhism, based on the teachings of Gautama Buddha attracted followers from all social classes excepting the middle class; chronicling the life of the Buddha was central to the beginnings of recorded history in India.[10][12][13] Jainism came into prominence during the life of its exemplar, Mahavira.[14] In an age of increasing urban wealth, both religions held up renunciation as an ideal,[15] and both established long-lasting monastic traditions.

I will add the references later; it will likely be a reshuffle of earlier ones. I have, however, learned a lot searching the literature and compiling the sources, some of which I have ordered. So the RfC has not been all in vain. Thanks for the suggestion above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems ok. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Aayush18, and Rahul Jain, even if we agree that Vedas don't teach Karma concept, what about Puranas that date back to 9th Century BCE? Don't they? I mean much older than Jainism already.. So the argument is incorrect. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Judaism

In the introduction paragarph

Four world religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism—originated here, whereas Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam .....

I would like to add Judaism also, since it was perhaps the first religion to come to India.Pdheeru (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Judaism was not only the first religion from outside to come to India but the Cochin Jews and Paradesi Jews of Kerala are known communities in India and the world. Cochin Jews (Mizrahi origin) trace back to the time of King Solomon and Paradesi Jews (Sephardic origin) trace back to the time from 1492. A well known Indian Jew whose ancestry belongs to Iraqi Jews is Indian Army Lieutenant General J F R Jacob who was the former Chief of Staff of the Indian Army's Eastern Command and was solely responsible for the architecture of the division of Pakistan and the creation of country named Bangladesh. Jews were always respected in India and the religion is still favored and respected by the majority. If Islam can be stated, then why not Judaism?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.10.63 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment 116 but did you read the article? User:Pdheeru added Judaism to the lead a few hours after the original comment here and it has not been challenged so no need for further comment. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I had to mention it because I gave the rational understanding and explanation for the need for it to be stated. I have been reading the article for quite some years and I have noted that Judaism is mentioned and then after it is taken down again and again from the article. I hope it will not happen from now as every editor who edits know the factual truths now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.10.77 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2013

languages = Hindi Karan.sapkale (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Please see the FAQ. —SpacemanSpiff 09:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Image Change to Suitable Timeframe

The image of the 'Paintings in Aurangabad, Maharashtra" in the history section does not go well with the "Ancient India" heading as the image there in that section is from the 6th century; I fancy that there be a much older picture put there instead, perhaps this proto shiva/ early yogi image from 2600–1900 BCE? The image does a good job displaying what the hieroglyphic writing that could have been used long ago in that time looked like and also shows a four headed multidirectional Bhrama type of figure which is interesting and also tells a fair bit about the minds of an ancient Indian. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A possible representation of a "yogi" or "proto-Shiva", 2600–1900 BCE
There are a number of reasons why the picture you propose is not suitable.
1) Most pictures on the India page are high quality, preferably even brilliant (i.e. WP:Featured pictures). The Ajanta image is a Featured Picture, which, moreover has been stably in the article for some seven years, if not more; the Indus seal, is not, its source, copyright licensing or lack thereof, uncertain.
2) Although the history section is a conventional history of India, we are mindful of the fact that the page is really the Republic of India page, and we try not to draw too much attention to artifacts or monuments that are both no longer in present-day Republic of India and date from a period in which the term "India" was not used. There is no epigraphic, sculptural evidence in India for the Vedic period (1500–600 BCE), so we are essentially left with post-600 BCE artifacts, and even those, are few and far between until about 100 BCE or 100 ACE (there is the Sanchi stupa, and some Asokan edicts from two centuries earlier). In that time frame, Ajanta, whose first phase began in 100 BCE (though that particular painting is from the second phase, in the Gupta and post-Gupta period) is not a bad choice. For the same reason, we don't include pictures of the Great Bath in Mohenjo-daro, the stone reliefs of Taxila, the Buddhist ruins of Takht-i-Bahi, or the neolithic site of Mehrgarh on the India page. The IVC (or more correctly, Ghaggar-Hakra valley) artifacts found in sites in India are not of the same quality as those in Pakistan. By the luck of the draw, the best known early historical sites went to Pakistan after the partition.
3) That seal itself is controversial. Although John Marshall, and perhaps Mortimer Wheeler, saw connections with "Pashupati," modern scholars of ancient Indus do not see the religious ideologies of that urban civilization as necessarily connected to Hinduism, in any recognizable form that we know it today. (I don't mean Hindu nationalist fringe scholars.) The script has not been deciphered yet (there are scholars, Michael Witzel, for one, who don't think it is a script); consequently, the Brahmi script the progenitor of all Indic scripts, remains the earliest script of India and Asokan edits, which use it, the earliest epigraphic evidence in India. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
PS Don't get me wrong. I'm not wedded to the idea of the Ajanta painting being the only illustration for the Ancient India section; and the same applies to the other historical periods. What I mean is that if other good contemporaneous pictures are available we could even have rotating templates of images in the history sub-sections, as we do in the economy and culture sections. But all that will require discussion here and then nominations and some kind of consensus or voting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Comparatively it is much better than the 6th century image and till a better image is found It should be put in the place of the Ajanta image. Are you up for that? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
No it is not a better image. The Ajanta image is a featured picture (click on it and read the text below). Also, for the many reasons I gave, the so called proto-Shiva is not appropriate for the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Besides, it is not up to me. It requires consensus here. It takes more than two to reach that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Surely its better than a 6th century image under the 'ancient history' section and since we both agree that the 6th century image doesn't fit the section it should be appropriate to remove it first cause when you glance the section that image represents the portrayal of the whole section and makes a false picture I don't know how you are still able to argue its clearly not the best image.
Just because if the image is featured it does not mean it can go anywhere in an article, we only use images that best represent the related topic based. The indus valley image here is clearly from 2600–1900 BCE which is the fact. It literally says "A possible representation of a "yogi" or "proto-Shiva"" therefore it is not explicitly stating a non - factual topic as true. The image is clearly much better than the one up. Here are the only logical solutions:
  • Replace Image (Its a better image)
  • Keep both (Shift the old one down to its appropriate section, Medieval India.)
  • Remove Image (Since it does not fit section)

Jujhar.pannu (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

When did I say that I agree a 6th century image doesn't fit the section. I said a number of times, the Indian early medieval age begins in the 7th century (conventionally, either with the beginning of Harsha's rule 603 or the end of Harsha's rule 647 or thereabouts). So, the sixth century is very much ancient India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 September 2013

national language : HINDI "please change NONE to HINDI because india`s national language is hindi " Gaurav294 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read FAQ at the top of the page, question 8. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Indian Prime Minister's Office recently declared that the country has NO NATIONAL LANGUAGE. Here's proof that was cited in "National Language" page of Wikipedia: [17] [18] Hindi is recognized as an OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, but not as the NATIONAL LANGUAGE of India. 59.184.170.154 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Raghav Sharman

not up to the mark

The article described is incomplete without the historical personalities from West Bengal.You gave describtions about gandhiji and nehru ji with images, but didn't described anything about Netaji subhash chandra bose, Rabindranath tagore ,swamy vivekananda, and many great personalities in and around India from Bengal.Anurag Chakraborty (talk)12:04 PM, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tagore is already mentioned. And maybe Swamiji could be mentioned. But i don't think Bose or others are necessary. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenth or Eleventh?

Edit might be objectionable. If you see List of countries by GDP (nominal), you will find India being 10th and even 9th(United Nation estimate), but not 11th. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The eleventh corresponds to the Oct 2013 IMF estimates that were recently used to update the infobox. I have edited the main text to cite the same source. Frankly there is no "right" answer here since the GDP and rank will be sensitive to the estimation methodology and date (for both the GDP year and when the estimate was made). So all we can do is cite our sources, be reasonably up-to-date and try to be internally consistent. PS: From the India article, I excluded the exact URL where we can count India's eleventh rank, because of its sheer length. Here it is, if anyone wishes to verify. Abecedare (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Calculated, yes it's 11. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

3 changes

1st The 1st one was already suggest here, few months ago. It was about changing the current line "It has unresolved territorial disputes with China, which escalated into the Sino-Indian War of 1962;[109] and with Pakistan, which flared into wars fought in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999.[109]" into "It has unresolved territorial disputes with China[link to (China–India_relations#1960s)] and Pakistan[link to Indo-pakistan conflicts]", because there are a lot more than just 5 mentioned conflicts, holding high importance too.

2nd Other one:- Since we got a fact like "A vegetable retailer in Tamil Nadu. More than 95% of retail industry in India is unorganized" added, Can we add related to this story? :-

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-india-pay-income-tax-hardly-anyone-1294887 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22772391

Thing that, only 2% or 3% are paying income taxes.

3rd "Kerala is the most literate state;[251] Bihar the least", should be "Kerala is the most literate state; with 95.5%[251], while Bihar the least with 67.8%." Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 November 2013

122.168.239.109 (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Hi, I want to create account but i m unable to create account please help us

Not done: Click the link that says "Create account" (probably at the top right corner of the page) and fill in the boxes there. --Stfg (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Society section

So I added a statement from a new report that India has the largest number of slaves. It was politely reverted claiming that it was not appropriate for the society section. Since many other country articles have a human rights section, can that section be started along with my info and a 'main article|Human rights in India' link? I added that information in the society section because it was next to a sentence on Dalit persecution, so it seemed the article's most appropriate place to add it. The society section only has the disparate information of caste, marriage and festivals. Doesn't it seem better to break that section and send the information to other sections. JustBeCool (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

JustBeCool, I think you should not add such news anywhere in whole Wikipedia. Because there's no independent verfibility in these reports. The slavery in many countries remains legal. Thus it's impossible to assume from such report, that it will present anything to be legible. If you look at the Slavery#Present_day it's already given. Therefore if you presented any new stats, anywhere you can remove them, since they have to be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how this effects the rest of your arguments Bladesmulti, but that section you just pointed to shows a clear error in your claims--slavery is, in fact, illegal in all countries in the world. Of course there are millions of violations, but that does not mean that it's actually acceptable. Furthermore, you can't argue that there are "no independent verifiability"; the report itself is the independent verification. The BBC is practically the gold standard for news agencies, and they count as a reliable source for information, and can be presumed to have done basic fact checking on their publications. Now, it's still possible to argue this info doesn't belong in this article, but not based on your objections.
With reference to JustBeCool's question, I do think that we need a link to Human rights in India somewhere in this article, though I'm not sure where the best place to put that is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this slavery information fits in the India article. The news story is based on an index compiled by one organization (Walk Free) and the report itself probably has caveats and explanations. I would wait for reliable secondary sources (academic ones) to analyze and comment on the report before considering including any information here. We don't want our articles to be a mere compendium of news reports. --regentspark (comment) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

regentspark is actually right.. Only one organization which had no wiki page before this same editor JBC created one, about 3 days ago or more. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the organization, Walk Free, either. More importantly, I'm not sure if the word "slavery" can be used as a catchall for human trafficking, child labor, bonded labor, etc. However, I will note that Child labor in India is an important social issue. Perhaps that can be mentioned somewhere in the article. It could be done either in the economy section or the society section. There are plenty secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
More troubling for me is that topics related to violence against women to to their neglect, such as: Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Female infanticide in India, Sex selection, Maternal mortality, topics which make up a large proportion of stories on India in the press, and also are the subject of significant secondary literature, find no mention in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Finally, as for human rights, I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if human rights violations in India (as detailed for example in the article Human rights in India are a subject of sizable secondary literature. As I said, I'm not sure about this, but it might be worth checking. I mean academic literature, not NGO reports. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Many issues were brought up here. As I said, we could start the human rights section and that can be an appropriate place for the glaring gaps such as Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Female infanticide in India, Sex selection, Child labor in India as well as the issues associated with slavery, such as debt bondage, human trafficking, etc. However, maternal mortality is not appropriate in such a section. Should I get started on this? JustBeCool (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I certainly don't believe it ("Human Rights") should have a separate subsection. I'm thinking more along the lines of two or three sentences in the society section with links to the main articles. We need to hear from the others (Bladesmulti, Qwyrxian, RegentsPark) to gain consensus, and I'm not sure they'd go even as far as me. You did not respond after bringing up the issue, so the others might not respond right away. When we do have the consensus, the two or three sentences would be finalized on the talk page first. That is how we have traditionally done it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the society section is the title seems broad and vague. If other editors, in addition to Fowler&fowler, do not want a human rights subsection, then I suggest Child labor in India and issues of Debt bondage in India can go in the economy section. I do not know where maternal mortality would go from the currently available sections, however, some other country articles have a health section. Additionally, since the important issue of child malnutrition is in the economy section (which does not seem to be the most appropriate) and HIV/AIDS is never mentioned in the entire article, a health section would have additional benefits. As for Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning and Female infanticide in India, I do not think they fit in the society section since they are more about crime but I can understand if other editors would like them there. JustBeCool (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
We need to be careful that we don't turn this article into an unreadable sea of blue (links) or a prosified outline of India article. At first glance I think the only additional topic that need to be linked directly from this page among the ones mentioned above would be human rights in India, with a one or two sentence summary in the society section, or split between the society and economy section. The other sub-topics (Rape in India, Female infanticide in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Child labor in India, Debt bondage in India), would themselves be discussed in that linked article, just as we only link to Transport in India here rather than linking to Rail transport in India, Taxis in India, Suburban rail in India Air transport in India, Indian Road Network, National Highway (India) ad infinitum.
Of course the exact language and article(s) to link can be discussed and finalized here on the talk page. JustBeCool, do you want to draft a proposal to get the discussion started? Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

World Economic History : GDP India and World

According to economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, India was the richest country in the world and had the world's largest economy during 0 BCE and 1000 BCE.[19][20] Also for most of the period when China was the dominant economy in the world, India held the second position of the largest economy.[19] India's share of the world income (economic output) was 27% in 1700 (compared to Europe's share of 23%) to 3% in 1950.[21]

After going through the article and reading the paragraph above, I am amazed at the extent to which people are willing to go in order to manipulate historical facts. Kindly go through Angus Maddison's book. The book clearly states that India i.e., the Indian subcontinent had the largest economy in the world from the 1st to the 17th century. It is amazing how such pernicious nonsense ends up on a supposed "enyclopedia". Also, since this is the economic history of "India", I don't see why other countries need to be mentioned on this page, since India isn't mentioned in other pages regarding economic history. Kindly correct this mistake. Thank you. -frustrated wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.89.173 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

India is the tenth largest economy in the world, not eleventh. Change it, dear enyclopedia guardian. (laughs hysterically) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.89.173 (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Kalrock (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

In modern India I want to add some more Pictures which will be suitable for this section.

File:Infosys Headquarters in Bangalore.jpg
Beautiful Infosys Headquarters in Bangalore
This page has an agreed process to add or change images but the image you suggest and have uploaded to commons appears to have an unclear provenance and cant be used. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The article on India

Hi, The article shows India as the eleventh largest economy. But India is the 9th largest by UN calculations and 10th largest by IMF and World bank statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aju Antony90 (talkcontribs) 11:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

ShreevidyaCM (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)The national anthem has wrong lyrics!!!!! its draavida utkala vanga

Bharat Ganrajya

We need a source for this. The cite note links to Official names of India and that article contains no evidence that India is also known as Bharat Ganrajya. --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I (mis)remembered it as being from the Indian constitution, but rechecking shows that the actual language of the first sentence is:

1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States

Given that, I am even questioning the "officially the Republic of India" part. Anyone have a better idea of where this came from? Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

India - possibly the world's oldest civilization

personal attacks, harassment, claims, but no sources. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India is possibly the world's oldest civilization. There are several sources that confirm this. Kindly update the India article, particularly the introduction. Realfacts123 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is actually an article about the country not the civilisation, as an independent country it is not that old. Clearly these older civilisations are part of the history of the country and if you read the article it already provides information about ancient India and the introduction also has a link to Indus Valley Civilization so perhaps you can be clearer in what else you think should be added. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a statement of almost paralysing stupidity. If that is the case, how come several other "countries" have the "age" of their "civilizations" in their introduction page? I suggest making the following correction - "Home to the oldest civilization - the Indus Valley civilization and a region of ......" everything else remains the same. And your stupid paragraph above reminded me of something else - "India" wasn't administered directly by the "United Kingdom". A large chunk of "Ancient India" was "politically controlled" by the "British Empire". There were about 700 independent kingdoms in Ancient India, even at the peak of British intervention in India, some larger than large western European nations. Please brush up on your history, have some common sense, think twice and (preferably) consult with your mum before replying to my edit requests. Realfacts123 (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read WP:NPA and calm down a bit, we are here to help and understand what your issues are but insulting people will get you a one way ticket to the exit door. I am not sure that changing ancient to oldest is supported by references, the Indus Valley Civilization article makes not claims that it is the oldest just one of three ancient civilisations. When it says that India was administered directly from the United Kingdom it is in reference to the change of local control by the British East India Company so in this context it is correct. Some of the contributers here have a wide knowledge of Indian history and I am sure if the lead was wrong it would have been raised by now. But we are allways interested in anything you think is wrong, so if you have any points then please let us know what you have issues with and cut out the personal attacks, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. The whole of India was not administered by the United Kingdom/East India company. If you go through the history of British intervention in India in an unprejudiced way, you will be very surprised at the sheer size of the area within the Indian sub-continent that had absolutely nothing to do with the British Empire. I think this FACT needs to be reflected in the Intro. There are plenty of books out there that prove that India is the world's oldest civilization. Also, since you would like to "understand" what my issues are, I want you to know that I am offended that a user based in Crawley, West Sussex, United Kingdom is in charge of editing the article about India! This shows a total lack of sensitivity on the part of Wikipedia. That is akin to a German editing the "United Kingdom" article or a Russian editing the "Germany" article. I would like another user to handle my edit request - someone who comes from a country that has no reason to have an agenda against the world's oldest and most influential civilization. Realfacts123 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are offended by the location of editors then wikipedia is not a place for you, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit the geographical location of editors is not relevant, also I am not in charge of anything I just happened to be the first of the 2,800 people who watch this page to reply to your original post. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you an editor?? If you are not, don't respond to any of my posts on the talk page. That is not a request. Realfacts123 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Very poor introduction

The introduction to the India article is, at best, pathetic. There isn't even a single mention of India's antiquity and the intro grotesquely underestimates India's place in world affairs. India is much more than just a "regional power" - it is somehwere in between a great power and a superpower! Also, India is the 9th largest economy in the world, by nominal GDP, not eleventh. The introduction is simply woeful! Can someone please change it to reflect the above mentioned facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.89.173 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Focusing on your last (and, the only non-subjective) point: see here for discussion of India's ranking by nominal GDP. If you have better/more recent stats, we can look into that. Abecedare (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
India is more than a regional power I agree, no one uses the terms great power in common right now, they are rare, and superpower is only USA! Right now... Many of these editors wants China to be named as superpower too, but we can't agree with all. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The article does mention the history of the area back a long way but the article is actually about the Republic and 1947 is not really antiquity only a few decades ago. The lead summarises this history already so doesnt really need a change. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyways, majority of sources are right now agreeing that India has 10th largest, so I have just changed it, it's also contradictory to the main page, if we kept it "11th" .. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

|languages = None,should be replaced |languages = Hindi, National Language of India is Hindi so it should be Hindi . By setting National language none this page is providing wrong information to the users who are here to know about India. Soodghimachalwale (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't. Please refer to Question 9 in the FAQ above. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013

Harisulake (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC) The Bhavasar Kshyatriya are an ethnic group in India, traditionally associated with woodblock printing on textiles and tailoring. They are mostly located in the regions of Jammalamadugu(Andhra Pradesh),Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan while some are also located in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka. Gujarati and Rajasthani Bhavsars refer to themselves as just Bhavsars, while in Maharashtra the community has bifurcated further and they refer to themselves variously as, Bhavsar Kshathriya, Bhavsar Shimpi, Namdev Shimpi. Namdev Shimpis are considered a distinct group, although they bifurcated from the Maharashtrian Bhavsars, as they are followers of Namdev - however they use the same surnames as Maharashtrian Bhavsars.

The founder of the Maratha kingdom, Shivaji Maharaj always visited the Ambhabhavani temple place: Jammalamadugu(Andhra Pradesh) to seek her blessings. It is believed that the Goddess gifted him a sword - 'the Ambhabhavani sword' - for success in his expeditions.

  • Not done for now: please provide a reliable source to back up your claim before requesting an edit be made. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Puducherry

Puducherry is a state but listed as a union territory in the article 223.239.242.245 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Puducherry has it as a union territory. --NeilN talk to me 09:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Society section

So I added a statement from a new report that India has the largest number of slaves. It was politely reverted claiming that it was not appropriate for the society section. Since many other country articles have a human rights section, can that section be started along with my info and a 'main article|Human rights in India' link? I added that information in the society section because it was next to a sentence on Dalit persecution, so it seemed the article's most appropriate place to add it. The society section only has the disparate information of caste, marriage and festivals. Doesn't it seem better to break that section and send the information to other sections. JustBeCool (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

JustBeCool, I think you should not add such news anywhere in whole Wikipedia. Because there's no independent verfibility in these reports. The slavery in many countries remains legal. Thus it's impossible to assume from such report, that it will present anything to be legible. If you look at the Slavery#Present_day it's already given. Therefore if you presented any new stats, anywhere you can remove them, since they have to be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how this effects the rest of your arguments Bladesmulti, but that section you just pointed to shows a clear error in your claims--slavery is, in fact, illegal in all countries in the world. Of course there are millions of violations, but that does not mean that it's actually acceptable. Furthermore, you can't argue that there are "no independent verifiability"; the report itself is the independent verification. The BBC is practically the gold standard for news agencies, and they count as a reliable source for information, and can be presumed to have done basic fact checking on their publications. Now, it's still possible to argue this info doesn't belong in this article, but not based on your objections.
With reference to JustBeCool's question, I do think that we need a link to Human rights in India somewhere in this article, though I'm not sure where the best place to put that is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this slavery information fits in the India article. The news story is based on an index compiled by one organization (Walk Free) and the report itself probably has caveats and explanations. I would wait for reliable secondary sources (academic ones) to analyze and comment on the report before considering including any information here. We don't want our articles to be a mere compendium of news reports. --regentspark (comment) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

regentspark is actually right.. Only one organization which had no wiki page before this same editor JBC created one, about 3 days ago or more. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the organization, Walk Free, either. More importantly, I'm not sure if the word "slavery" can be used as a catchall for human trafficking, child labor, bonded labor, etc. However, I will note that Child labor in India is an important social issue. Perhaps that can be mentioned somewhere in the article. It could be done either in the economy section or the society section. There are plenty secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
More troubling for me is that topics related to violence against women to to their neglect, such as: Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Female infanticide in India, Sex selection, Maternal mortality, topics which make up a large proportion of stories on India in the press, and also are the subject of significant secondary literature, find no mention in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Finally, as for human rights, I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if human rights violations in India (as detailed for example in the article Human rights in India are a subject of sizable secondary literature. As I said, I'm not sure about this, but it might be worth checking. I mean academic literature, not NGO reports. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Many issues were brought up here. As I said, we could start the human rights section and that can be an appropriate place for the glaring gaps such as Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Female infanticide in India, Sex selection, Child labor in India as well as the issues associated with slavery, such as debt bondage, human trafficking, etc. However, maternal mortality is not appropriate in such a section. Should I get started on this? JustBeCool (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I certainly don't believe it ("Human Rights") should have a separate subsection. I'm thinking more along the lines of two or three sentences in the society section with links to the main articles. We need to hear from the others (Bladesmulti, Qwyrxian, RegentsPark) to gain consensus, and I'm not sure they'd go even as far as me. You did not respond after bringing up the issue, so the others might not respond right away. When we do have the consensus, the two or three sentences would be finalized on the talk page first. That is how we have traditionally done it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the society section is the title seems broad and vague. If other editors, in addition to Fowler&fowler, do not want a human rights subsection, then I suggest Child labor in India and issues of Debt bondage in India can go in the economy section. I do not know where maternal mortality would go from the currently available sections, however, some other country articles have a health section. Additionally, since the important issue of child malnutrition is in the economy section (which does not seem to be the most appropriate) and HIV/AIDS is never mentioned in the entire article, a health section would have additional benefits. As for Rape in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning and Female infanticide in India, I do not think they fit in the society section since they are more about crime but I can understand if other editors would like them there. JustBeCool (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
We need to be careful that we don't turn this article into an unreadable sea of blue (links) or a prosified outline of India article. At first glance I think the only additional topic that need to be linked directly from this page among the ones mentioned above would be human rights in India, with a one or two sentence summary in the society section, or split between the society and economy section. The other sub-topics (Rape in India, Female infanticide in India, Acid throwing, Bride burning, Child labor in India, Debt bondage in India), would themselves be discussed in that linked article, just as we only link to Transport in India here rather than linking to Rail transport in India, Taxis in India, Suburban rail in India Air transport in India, Indian Road Network, National Highway (India) ad infinitum.
Of course the exact language and article(s) to link can be discussed and finalized here on the talk page. JustBeCool, do you want to draft a proposal to get the discussion started? Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am back.For Abecedare, I understand that you would want a balance between vagueness and specificity in deciding how many hyperlinks to have. For now, concerning the economics section, I suggest in its third last paragraph the passage, "India has the world's largest slave population, 14 million, most of whom are in bonded labor.[22] India has the largest number of child labourers under the age of 14 in the world with an estimated 12.6 million children engaged in hazardous occupations.[23]" JustBeCool (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a good idea, since one slavery survey heavily contradicts other. This research is certainly neither the best nor the most acclaimed survey. Now I have got the list by US Department of State, which regarded worst offenders as Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Others like Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe were at lowest level as well.. No India in whole list.[2] So you are going to attribute? But how you will? There's clearly no need. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I am trying hard to understand. Which statement by your source contradicts what was mentioned? The US state department source was never about number of slaves and was about ranking governments by how seriously the department thought they were acting on slavery. Maybe if you could specify where the contradiction is I may understand your argument. JustBeCool (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, the US department alleged about 27 million slaves(i think), but this one, that you are referring recognizes 30 million. Contradiction right there. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
No-one is going to have perfect numbers for the slavery count. Frankly 3 million is quite close, considering the vagueness of the subject at hand. That said, I think a more detailed description than just "slave population" would be better. I also feel that "largest of" type statistics are rather unhelpful for India, as due to its massive population it stands a good chance of having the largest of in the world for many demographic traits. Numbers would be preferable. CMD (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Still, it will be contradiction to print one report, and then print the US department report that basically suggests that India is becoming anti-slavery everyday. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you are claiming another contradiction by pointing out that the US state department says India is becoming more anti-slavery. You are free to add the state department source as well, since being the country with the largest number of slaves and having a government that takes more action against slavery relative to other governments is not a contradicting each other. The passage I added has numbers on it, which was what CMD wanted. Again, can you specify your objections, like showing how that contradicts? There will never be “agreement” if you oppose any passage simply because it mentions “slavery” in it. JustBeCool (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In short words, it's not needed, and you are bringing up the same changes for this page. These changes have been already made in the related pages. They are not required here. As long as the Slavery index is developed by some free unknown organization(who knew before this list?), it's not a government sponsored list.
Other than that, you should also stop bringing the GDP issues, because comparing India's GDP per capita with other countries is simply a child's talk. Indian population is 1.2 billion, it's obvious that the GDP per capita would be lower compared to some other countries. List has been provided List of countries by GDP (PPP)... Which is enough for a viewer to decide which has more or less. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not bring up the GDP issue. However, I do not understand your reasoning why the GDP issue should not be there. I am trying to assume good faith but it is bad for this article if you revert any edit that does not make India look great, whether about slavery or GDP per capita. If I understand you correctly, this time you did spell out an objection; that this is not a government sponsored list. Wikipedia does not require a source to be government sponsored. JustBeCool (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Government sponsored stats are usually more credible, depending upon the government, not the unknown organisation. Now since you won't add anything like "Although India has 40 times larger GDP PPP than thailand, Philippines, etc" why you have to certainly about the GDP per head? Slavery is once again, not relevant here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
A new section requires talk page consensus as the FAQ of this discussion page says. This thread was originally about starting a human rights section for which we are not doing. The passage I added is not a new section. For the second time, I did not add anything about GDP, even though I agree with what it says. Slavery is pretty relevant. But this is pointless, I think I'd wait for other editors to weigh in to settle this. JustBeCool (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Other users already ignored this issue, and now you are simply edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: As on date, there are 29 sta...

164.100.149.245 posted this comment on 7 August 2013 (view all feedback).

As on date, there are 29 states of India instead of 28. This information is yet to be modified/revised.

Any thoughts?

Wiki GSD 13:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC) And which is the 29th State according to you ?

Wiki GSD 13:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki GSD (talkcontribs)

Name me the 29th then. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No, 28 states, not 29. the 29th will be created soon, it is under consideration by the center, the name apaarent is Telengana. But until it is confirmed, it should not be added. There has been some ambiguity over the status of Punducherry, well, just to clear it, it is a U.T. and not a state. rishab1996 (talk) 17:40, 25th January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

122.169.91.168 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

122.169.91.168 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Science and Technology

The science and Technology section is missing from the article. Not a single mention of India's progress in this field. Invite contributors to share their ideas and valuable suggestion and help in creation of a science and technological section.Indiascienceandtechnology (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A few good links should be given, i believe that there is a lot to show in this section. --Rishab1996 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Bias

Anyone finds the language bias? If India's own page is based on what the Europeans/Americans believe, how far is it from becomeing a truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.183.157 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please point out examples where you think the language is biased. --NeilN talk to me 05:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

States

India has 29 States, today (18th Feb, 2014) created 29th States Telangana.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sksoftmind (talkcontribs) 16:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It has only been passed so far in the Lok Sabha, yet to be official. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
On February 18, 2014, Lok Sabha passed Telangana Bill. On February 20, 2014, Rajya Sabha passed Telangana Bill. Hence, this is now law of the country and official as per law and constitution of India. India does not now have a state named Andhra Pradesh as the former state named Andhra Pradesh has been now divided into two parts and is now named Seemandhra and Telangana.
[3] The President has to give assent and the division has to occur on the ground. 10 days apparently, which is impressive. CMD (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancient India Scientific research

I have noticed that here is no mention of indian contribution to maths and the sciences. the link below is an excellent article by the japanese stock excange, Nikkei 225, could you please go through it and advice me on how to act. http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Science/How-ancient-India-laid-modern-society-s-foundation --Rishab1996 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Way too much can be added. I agree. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


Most of it is not really relavant to what is an overview of the modern state and is already covered in the History of India and is summarised in the "history" section. Perhaps you should raise it at the History of India talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Pakistan has one. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Has one what? MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Pakistan page got Science and technology section. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
So it has but none of the material in the link that Rishab1996 pointed to would be relevant to a Science and Technology section even if this article had one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
That may be true, but then we can add things related to the BARC and DRDO and ISRO which is of current relevance.... --Rishab1996 (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)rishab1996
As it is not directly related to the original question perhaps you should raise adding a Science and Technology section under a new heading and see if the idea has any support. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
yeah, good idea--Rishab1996 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)rishab1996

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Also, the content should be mostly related to India(After 1947) Bladesmulti (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for that reason, none of C. V. Raman, Jagadish Chandra Bose, Satyendra Nath Bose, (whose work would properly belong to the British Raj page) Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Hargobind Khorana (to the British Raj/United States pages) or Abdus Salam (Pakistan page) or the recent Nobel laureate in chemistry, Venkat***** (who is a US Citizen working in Britan) can really be mentioned. I personally believe, independent India has little significant to show by way of Science or Technology that would merit the Wikipedia India page to have a separate section. This is a long standing FA, the oldest surviving country FA on Wikipedia. It has higher standards than other country pages.
In any case, whatever is being proposed, including the wording, needs to be discussed here, and consensus gained thereafter, before it can go into the India page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2014

Please change the number of states to 29 from 28, as a new state named 'Telangana' has been formed recently. Amitsch (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2014

Ashishyadavrock0 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Largest cities of India}}

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Are you asking for that navbox to be added to the bottom of the page? If so, since it includes a reference, which would be lower than {{Reflist}} on the page, it would cause a reference error. I'm not sure that is such a good idea. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

Ashishyadavrock0 (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Largest cities of India}}

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

106.78.123.246 (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) {{Largest cities of India}}

Largest in India please add this

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This template you are asking to be added includes a citation, and as such is required to go above any <references /> or {{Reflist}} section. This template is also what is considered a navigational box which is required to sit at the very bottom of articles below any <references /> or {{Reflist}} section. As such, this is a contradiction in of itself and any placement of this template will require consensus. Due to these facts, I'm placing that template on the list at TfD so that discussion can occur on what to do and as a result this template may be deleted. You can find that discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 27#Template:Largest cities of India. Thank you for your interest in contributing to the English Wikipedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 15:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

Summary

Template:Mumbai, Financial hub of India Zodiactown2014 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No request made. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

NEW STATE HAS BEEN FORMED THAT IS TELANGANA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.226.95.145 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

the bill has not been signed by the president, moreover, the creation of Telengana will take time, sometime on September to October--Rishab1996 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks:Cricket name-Muhildev(captain),Born-India, Real name-Mugilvendhan.D...

182.65.165.79 (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No actionable request made. --NeilN talk to me 05:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

They are black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.181.19 (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014

The number of states as of 2014 is 29. The earlier state Andhra Pradesh is split into Telangana and Andhra, having Hyderabad as a common capital. SAILAJA S (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014

change number of state in to 29 instead of 28 124.40.244.210 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Telengana is yet to be formed. Once formed, this edit can proceed.  Abhishek  Talk 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

Ashishyadavrock0 (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

==Population== The population of India on 1 March 2011 was 1,210,193,422. India added 181.5 million to its population since 2001, slightly lower than the population of Brazil. India with 2.4% of the world's surface area accounts for 17.5% of its population. Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state with roughly 200 million people. A little over 5 out of 10 Indians live in the six states of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.[19] India is the homeland of major belief systems such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and Jainism, while also being home to several indigenous faiths and tribal religions which have survived the influence of major religions for centuries. Ever since its inception, the Census of India has been collecting and publishing information about the religious affiliations as expressed by the people of India. In fact, population census has the rare distinction of being the only instrument that collects this diverse and important characteristic of the Indian population.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014

A new state is brought up india. I.e. Telengana 198.175.68.36 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 11:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

49.206.21.25 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilisation

I am surprised to see that how Indus valley Civilization belongs to Modern India. It should be deleted from here because all IVC site are found in neighboring Pakistan and they are no more part of us. The region controlled by india mainly follow darvedian civilization. please remove IVC from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthrevealer13285 (talkcontribs) 13:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You should not be surprised because of your ignorance. The above statements seems like Islamic Jihadi Pakistani propaganda. Let me teach you history and biology. Before 1947, there was one India which is now Republic of India, now Pakistan and now Bangladesh. British divided India to two and thus Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Pakistan was again divided into two and thus Islamic Republic of Bangladesh. My advice to you is if you think muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are different from Hindus in India, then you should prove it through DNA blood test. The DNA study at Cambridge (UK) and others and Indian Universities shows otherwise. There is nothing called Aryan and Dravidian race. It was made up by the British to rule and divide people.

Read More:

(Sincerely, Varghese Jacob) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.10.129 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

I humbly suggest to just make a mention of the revolutionary movement in India, as a part of the Indian Freedom movement, in the introductory part, along with the 'non-violent struggle by Mahatma Gandhi. I think it is downright injustice to make the non-violent movement, as the only face of the indian freedom struggle. Sakar Hemant Barwe (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 13:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

why not non-latin scipts?

Can anyone provide me with the discussion link on this topic...i was not able to reach it. i would like to add that in official language. Khushank94 (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by, "I would like to add that in official language?" Thanks and best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to say that hindi is an official language of The Republic so "I would like to have it here"-Khushank94 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
PS Would like to introduce the Devanagari script into the text? Please read the first FAQ above. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I was asking about that discussion only. in my view there is nothing VERY strong in that so as to remove an official language. see, United Nations infobox all the official languages are included and it gives the impact. What's the harm we can have it with IPA side by side . and the UN article sets a 'good' precedence -Khushank94 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that was determined to be the consensus view in that discussion on Talk:India. I believe that has remained the consensus view since. You are welcome to attempt to change the consensus. United Nations is a separate page it may have had a different consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
that is it ..i would like to do it here....-Khushank94 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on caste system is not consensus

" The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period.[33] " That there are "indigenous people" who are excluded is highly presumptuous. A lot of recent genetic archeology has revealed that there is no clear genetic marking distinguishing "lower" and "upper castes" and this comment in any case is out of place in this context. Puck42 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That sentence is sourced to reliable scholarly sources and passed an FAR review. Most genetic markers in South Asia, are the result of earlier migrations, not social seclusion and endogamy of the last 2,500 years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
user:Puck42: India is a featured article. Please read WP:OWN#Featured_article and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please attempt to gain consensus here, not edit war. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information in Etymology Section

The Etymology section mentions that "The name India is derived from Indus, which originates from the Old Persian word Hinduš. The latter term stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was the historical local appellation for the Indus River." It is incorrect historically and chronologically to say that Indus is derived from the Old Persian word Hinduš because the word Indus is documented in the works of Greek Historians specifically Herodotus and Hekataios circa 5th century B.C., which predate any old Persian records of the name Indus. Also, 'Indos' (Ἰνδός) was used by the Greeks in the works of Herodotus and Megasthenes, circa 5th century B.C., to refer to inhabitants in Indus regios and later 'Hindus' used first by the Persians and later on by Arabs to refer to the Indian people and their customs. One reference for this edit is India and the Greek world: a study in the transmission of culture Jean W. Sedlar Rowman & Littlefield, 1980 Page 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueFactSeeker (talkcontribs) 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. Your book says on page 10,

"The name of India, so far as is known, first appears in Greek literature in the 5th century B.C. in the works of Hekataios and Herodotos. The word is derived from the Indus river (Sanskrit sindhu means "river"), and in the Greek as well as the Persian language, "India" originally meant only the Indus region, which then belonged to the Persian empire. Herodotos, however, already used the term in a wider sense to denote the whole country; and classical Greek usage followed his example.1 Prior to the time of Alexander, Greek knowledge of India was acquired on the whole by way of Persia."

That is to be interpreted as, "In Greek literature, the name India is first attested in the works of H&H of the 5th century BCE (i.e. 499BCE to 400 BCE)," not as "The first attested usage anywhere is in Greek literature, in the works of H&H, ..." Old Persian is the old pre-Islamic, Indo-Iranian language of the Achaemenid Empire circa 600 BCE to 300 BCE, ie. 6th century BCE through 4th century BCE. All knowledge of India in Classical Greece (5th century through 4th century BCE) was mediated through the Achaemenids, as your book suggests as well. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Representative democracy

User:Aleksa Lukic recently changed the sentence, "(India is) the most populous democracy in the world." to "(India is) the most populous representative democracy in the world." Since the editor was trying to add potentially useful information, and in good faith, I will explain why I will soon be reverting it. It is true that India is a representative democracy (also "indirect democracy"), not a direct democracy (to mention the two basic forms of democracy). However, the only country more populous than India is China, which is neither a direct democracy nor a representative one. So, the statement "(India is) the most populous democracy in the world." captures a more general and simple truth about India's politics, governance, and achievement. Simplicity and generality are preferable in a lead, as readers attempt to wrap their heads around a new topic. Besides, there is precedent in the reliable sources for the use of the expressions, "the world's largest democracy" or "the world's most populous democracy" in the context of India. This can be gleaned from previous discussions on this topic, now archived, when editors have attempted to change "democracy" to "liberal democracy." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding North East India and History

We have had earlier discussions on the complete absence of the mention of the history of North East India in the history section. Since that time, I see that South India has been represented very well, and the linkages/disconnects between the histories of North and South India have been covered. But the section lacks any note on the history of North East India. I feel that we should include the following key points about that region, a) The emergence of the Kamarupa kingdom in the 4th Century AD. b) The migration of populations from SW China and SE Asia in the medieval ages. c) The incorporation of the region into political India during the British Raj. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Assassination of Gandhi

I propose that the line " All were capped by the advent of independence in 1947, but tempered by the partition of India into two states: India and Pakistan." be expanded to "All were capped by the advent of independence in 1947, and the emergence of two independent states: India and Pakistan. These events were tempered by large scale massacres as populations moved across the borders and the assassination of Gandhi." I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fundamental metric tensor: The history in the India section is a highly condensed history. The more than 30 year between the beginning of World War I and India's independence are covered in the following paragraph:

After World War I, in which some one million Indians served,[24] a new period began. It was marked by British reforms but also repressive legislation, by more strident Indian calls for self-rule, and by the beginnings of a non-violent movement of non-cooperation, of which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would become the leader and enduring symbol.[25] During the 1930s, slow legislative reform was enacted by the British; the Indian National Congress won victories in the resulting elections.[26] The next decade was beset with crises: Indian participation in World War II, the Congress's final push for non-cooperation, and an upsurge of Muslim nationalism. All were capped by the advent of independence in 1947, but tempered by the partition of India into two states: India and Pakistan.[27]

As you will see, we provide the link for the "Partition of India." Gandhi has already been mentioned. There is no need to mention him again. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

The National Game of India is now Kabadi. Please check article under heading Government under National Symbols. India Rupee symbol is not given. National Language Of India Is Hindi. Boudhayan2289 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a reliable source regarding your statement about Kabaddi. I see the Rupee symbol just fine - it's possible that you don't have the correct character pack or font installed on your computer to render the symbol. According to the article (and the sources), while Hindi is the official language of the Indian government, there is no official language of India itself. Please provide a reliable source to refute that if something has changed. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for North East history in History section

In the Medieval India section: "In North East India, migration of Tai people and other Mongoloid peoples from South East Asia led to the establishment of the Ahom and Koch dynasties which later patronized Vaishnavism in the region." To trim this section, I suggest that we remove the names of individual South East Asian country names, and replace them with South East Asian lands. Sound good ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Although geographical even-handedness is a desirable goal, neutrality requires that we represent each historical viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in the reliable sources. Ahom and Koch dynasties do not get the same coverage in the scholarly sources—especially one's vetted for due weight, such as the scholarly history textbooks—as the topics already featured in the medieval or modern history sections. At the time of the FAR, this was given a lot of thought, but the coverage in the significant sources was minimal or non-existent. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough F&F, of course the absence of these viewpoints in historical sources is mostly due to the limitations of those sources themselves. Lets hope that over time, more work is done on these matters and the role of these regions in Indian history is made clearer. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That may well be the case. I did try at the time of the FAR. In the sources below, the Ahom are mentioned just once in one source (Robb):

lead sentence

User:Jonathansammy, what's the problem in defining India's republican and federal structure in the lead sentence? Many country articles do so, like Germany and United States. India is the largest and most diverse federal democracy in the world, this deserves to be reflected in the very first line.--Uck22 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Uck22: The India page is the oldest country WP:Featured article on Wikipedia (it will complete ten years as an FA on 16 September 2014) and stably the most popular featured article on Wikipedia. As such its standards are set both by Wikipedia guidelines and the standing consensus on its talk page, not by what other country pages state in their leads. Wikipedia guidelines, in Wikipedia:Countries#Lead_section, suggest that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like." That has been the long-standing consensus on this page as well. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Caste system

Arjunjmenon1 is probably right in that the caste system is not illegal but caste discrimination is. --NeilN talk to me 14:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Should still be raised here and discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

For eg I belong to the menon caste (nair community) which is a forward caste .I have access only to only approx 50% of any gov jobs(for eg railways ,hospitals, even isro) ,admission in gov colleges etc . the rest are exclusively reserved for other backward castes(mainly Muslims,thiyyas,Latin Catholics in my state) , scheduled castes and tribes .Whereas non reserved quota is accessible to any community. This is not hard to prove just Google for any psc or gov job ad or college admission intimation .it will be clearly mentioned in the ad about reservations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunjmenon1 (talkcontribs) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable reference that says it was caste discrimination and not caste system that was declared illegal in 1947 ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about 1947 but this has: 'Article 15 (1) maintains that "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them." (4) Discrimination on the basis of "religion" and "caste" is then declared to be illegal in Article 15.' I'm seeing some indications untouchability was declared illegal. --NeilN talk to me 21:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I dont have any knowledge of the Indian caste sytem, all I can see is a user changing words in referenced text in a featured article. If Arjunjemon1 is right and others agree then please add it to the article but please use a reliable reference and please not just change already referenced text about 1947, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems the caste system itself is not illegal but untouchability is [4]. So any modifications should take both cases into account. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

None of you are getting the actual point . caste system in a negative way is illegal . those castes( which are deemed to be low on status) which were discriminated earlier are getting reservations . Every one who joins a school ,college or gov employment will have an option to state his caste .if he is from the lower cast he will get the reservations.

The best informative source is the wiki link itself

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Senior-Congress-leader-Janardan-Dwivedi-wants-end-to-reservation-on-caste-lines/articleshow/29852346.cms

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rajasthan-caste-groups-fight-over-higher-job-quotas/article1-1152587.aspx

I hope you guys get the point . the old way of caste discrimination is illegal .

The reservation is an important political topic because gov is one of the largest employer and it comes as railways ,thousands of banks , etc (I personally don't support the caste reservation because as I am from the upper caste, all the reservations are against me :) ) Arjunjmenon1 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to read better. What is being said is that if the text is being changed, then proper sources need to be added to the article. Something you have not done despite changing the text three times. --NeilN talk to me 00:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The editor is right when he edited the word "system" with "discrimination" as the article 15 of Constitution doesn't says that Caste system is illegal it says "Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth." which means Discrimination is illegal and the article 17 of Constitution says " Abolition of Untouchability." by which Untouchability is illegal but Caste system isn't illegal as per the constitution and it is still accepted and we can use the link of Law Ministry as reference http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm.Janmejai (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
From what I can see, there have been multiple versions of the Constitution over the years. What year are we talking about here? Not 1947. --NeilN talk to me 06:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Now I am confused a bit as the article says that India declared "Caste and whatever" and untouchability to be illegal in 1947(and the reference used is a book and I haven't read the book),but how is that possible and how it was done? as there wasn't any constitution in 1947,The constitution was enacted on 26th Nov 1949 and formally it's 26th Jan 1950,and about the version of Constitution, as here the issue is Caste and it is related to the Article 15,we should talk about it only(I don't think we should be bothered about the whole constitution here) and the article 15 has been amended twice since we accepted the constitution,the first time it was amended in the 1st Amendment of Constitution and the details are here http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend1.htm and the second amendment was done in 93rd amendment of Constitution.... the details are here http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend93.htm but after going through them I haven't found that they are directly related to legality or illegality of caste or Discrimination,they were to change the basic explanations of the Articles and to explain them in a better manner(however I am not a legal expert). So,it's obvious that Caste discrimination is illegal since we accepted constitution and it should be 26th Nov 1949. Janmejai (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been numerous amendments to the constitution . In 1950 's reservation was only intended for 15 years but it still continues because the gov issues orders to extend the time line every 5 years I think . I ll soon give a link to the original order and the latest extension one .

This is really frustrating .

Arjun j menon (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to work on this article (or basically any article) then you should get used to these types of challenges. Verifiability by adding reliable sources is cornerstone policy. --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The wiki link & two news reports are not verifiable sources?

If a proof for something like ' caste system is banned...,' I don't think is available. But there is nothing that indicates 'caste system is not banned ' as well !

I hope u get the point . The court orders that i mentioned are not available in original anywhere on internet ,just references .I am trying to get a copy

There is nothing in article 15 as well .

There is enough proof that caste discrimination is illegal ,whereas there is no proof that caste system itself is illegal ,evidenced from caste based reservations?

ForMilborneOne can you give a single proof where it is mentioned that caste system is illegal or caste system is not illegal ?

Arjun j menon (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • User:Arjunjmenon1 I dont have to find proof for anything I am just making sure that changes you make to a featured article are referenced properly and gain a consensus to be added, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You need a consensus even if a fact is proved wrong without doubt.? I think such rigid behaviour is driving people out of wiki ( I don't have verifiable source & consensus that people are flocking from wiki ,just read it in some news )

I am quoting article 15 of the constitution .find the word 'discrimination' in it . I think it solves it

MilborneOne

Article 15 in The Constitution Of India 1949 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children (4) Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

Arjun j menon (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As a featured article it is best to get consensus, as I have said I dont have a view on you adding information just an objection to you changing the referenced fact about 1947. If for some reason the reference is wrong about 1947 then you can change it or explain it in the article but you do need a reliable reference not just change a word in an already referenced statement. You have to remember a lot of editors have worked hard over the years to get this to featured article status so we have to be a bit more vigilant about changes that are made that could remove that status, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No . I have never changed any year. The only thing I wanted to / I changed is ' caste system ' to 'caste discrimination ' What do you mean by a getting a consensus ? Apart from me only 3 ? Editors have cared to discuss this ? MilborneOne

I see that it is caste discrimination already! . you forgot to undo my edit ?:)

Arjun j menon (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Why am I arguing?? My last edit changing to ' discrimination' is not deleted so far !

Arjun j menon (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats because you should not have changed it again once it had been challenged, but as we dont want to edit war it is not polite to edit while the subject is under discussion (you may need to note that for the future), it will get reverted if you dont gain consensus. You have still changed cited text, if you dont know what "Spiritual Terrorism: Spiritual Abuse from the Womb to the Tomb", p. 391, by Boyd C. Purcell actually says then you should not have changed it, or provided a new reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by a getting a consensus ? Apart from me only 3 ? Editors have cared to discuss this ? So are you indicating that if a editor has pointed out an error with references ,it should not be changed until a consensus is reached even if not much people are interested on discuss to reach a consensus?

I think it should be flexible

MilborneOne

Arjun j menon (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Only 3 editors" is a significant number on Wikipedia where many discussions are never responded to. As far as I'm concerned, your edit made the article still incorrect having 1947 as the year. --NeilN talk to me 14:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never edited any year . the only edit I have made is I changed from 'caste system' into 'caste discrimination'

If have edited any year ( you say 1947) inadvertently I would be more than happy if you change it back or please point it out to me

MilborneOne

Arjun j menon (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Both "caste system" and "caste discrimination" were added without consensus, in fact without previous discussion on the talk page. The stable consensus version had only the sentence, "India declared untouchability illegal in 1947 ..." I have restored that version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
And, yes, untouchability was first declared illegal by the provisional assembly in June 1947, not by the Constituent Assembly in 1949 or 51. This has been discussed on this page a number of times before. It is a persistent problem with Wikipedia: impatient editors turn up and make hasty edits, don't bother to read the talk page archives, and then reinvent the wheel on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fowler. Arjun j menon, you fail to get our point. This edit of yours changed "system" to "discrimination". You cannot view words in isolation. If you change a word, you must make sure the entire sentence is still correct (i.e., the year is still applicable). However in this case Fowler has rendered the point moot. --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that Fowler looks like I missed an earlier edit. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

People whom act like a lazy middle aged government officials ,with lot of red tapi-sm are driving new people off wiki (aka impatient editors ) .you will kill it soon

Fowler&fowler I try to talk to you on peacock on this page and you don't care to discuss but readily pounces on when a change is made .

I am not a person who is not going to brag about total edits made, some sort of medals one . i will continue to edit if i have the proper reference. I don't care if you ban me for something I gave a ref &tried to talk . You are not my boss 'to clearly explain' something


NeilN

Yes I accept it . I thought he was saying I changed the year .I get the point.

I think only way for any sort of discussion is creating few more a/c s myself ( something that I am not going to do )

Arjun j menon (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Arjunjmenon1 please understand that you are welcome to comment here if you think something is wrong with the article, it can then be discussed, all we ask is that if you have a point is that is is supported by a reliable source. Understand we are just making sure that editors dont make random changes to the article, which are not supported or can degrade the featured article status. The article does change over time only by users making suggestions to improve it and pointing out errors, these sort of inputs are always welcome on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


I get your point . I would like to get your personal opinions on these MilborneOne ,Indian official government website say Peacock is the national bird . Scientific name :pavo cristatus

Fowler says national bird of India for wiki is peafowl ,the reason being pavo cristatus is peafowl.

Peacock is the male of a peafowl

I tried to talk to him on him in this same talk page("Indian peafowl "above) .he is not discussing but he wants a consensus!

So are you saying all references & ref to article 15 ,I provided to prove that caste system is not banned are worthless ?

Arjun j menon (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

All you need is to present your evidence in the Indian Peafowl section further up the page and it can be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be best to start a new section and explain what you would like to add to the article and in which section, the problem we had with you references were they didnt relate to the 1947 statement. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


MilborneOne

now Fowler&fowler responds after I mentioned him here .

Arjun j menon (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fowler&fowler for reverting those last edits. To everyone else, it is pointless to add estimates about slaves or debt bondage on this page. We had agreed that such information can be added, but we had transferred them to appropriate pages, read Talk:India/Archive_38#Society_section_2. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Languages

There is never a mention of 'recognised regional languages' anywhere in the constitution . the only terms are recognised languages or scheduled languages .

Please download a PDF of constitution with all amendmennts and just search in the file .thats it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunjmenon1 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Arjunjmenon1 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Before you make long statements, you should tell us what section and what sentence you are talking about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
PS The Constitution of India is a WP:Primary source. We can't use it support our edits. Only reliable WP:Secondary sources are acceptable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Before you make long and a stupid reply you should understand that there are no other references that speaks about scheduled / recognised languages other than the constitution

The list of ' regional' languages then should be removed as neither the term regional languages exists in the constitution nor THERE IS ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT SAYS ABOUT IT ,other than few court judgements approving scheduled /recognised languages list when the list was challenged.

If you can't identify which part of the article that I am talking about ,I don't think I am planning to help you ,you may look the other way

http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/parta.htm

Arjun j menon (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Arjunjmenon1 you need to slow down a bit, User:Fowler&fowler asked what it was about the article you didnt like, all you mentioned is that something was not in the constitution not where in the article you had an issue. Now I am only guessing but it is probably the recognised regional languages entry in the infobox that you dont like. That links to a list of regional languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, which doesnt actually have a title. We dont have to use the exact terminolgy in the infobox as most readers would not understand it and as the 8th Schedule doesnt have a name somebody has described it as best they can. It seems pretty clear that a list of languages in the constitution is a list of recognised (by the constitution) regional (not used in the whole of India). If you have a better term that could be understood by the readers and used by seondary-source (that is sources outside the constitution) then your suggestions are welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian peafowl

user:arjunmenon1: The Government of India, on its website, says this about the National Bird, "The Indian peacock, Pavo cristatus, the National Bird of India, is a colourful, swan-sized bird, with a fan-shaped crest of feathers, a white patch under the eye and a long, slender neck. The male of the species is more colourful than the female, with a glistening blue breast and neck and a spectacular bronze-green tail of around 200 elongated feathers. The female is brownish, slightly smaller than the male and lacks the tail. The elaborate courtship dance of the male, fanning out the tail and preening its feathers is a gorgeous sight."

Pavo cristatus on Wikipedia redirects to Indian peafowl. Wikipedia does not regard "Peacock" as an animal species, rather Peacock redirects to Peafowl, a term that includes both the male ("Peacock") and the female ("Peahen") of the species. Similarly, the Indian sub-species is Indian peafowl, not "Indian peacock." You are welcome to have a discussion on the Indian peafowl page and attempt to change its name to "Indian peacock," but our hands are tied until such change is made. The Wikipedia common name of the national bird of India is "Indian peafowl."

The Government of India also says this about its national animal: "The magnificent tiger, Panthera tigris is a striped animal. It has a thick yellow coat of fur with dark stripes. The combination of grace, strength, agility and enormous power has earned the tiger its pride of place as the national animal of India. Out of eight races of the species known, the Indian race, the Royal Bengal Tiger, is found throughout the country except in the north-western region and also in the neighbouring countries, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. To check the dwindling population of tigers in India, 'Project Tiger' was launched in April 1973. So far, 27 tiger reserves have been established in the country under this project, covering an area of 37,761 sq km."

Panthera tigris on Wikipedia redirects to Tiger, not "Royal Bengal Tiger," which is an anachronism anyway for the Indian subspecies Bengal tiger. The Government of India's web scribes are copying old British-era terms such as "race" and "Royal Bengal Tiger." (The privy purses were abolished in 1971, and India is a republic. What "Royal" are we talking about?) I am consequently changing the national animal to "Tiger." Please also read, WP:COMMONALITY. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Male of a Indian peafowl is Indian peacock? So why can't Indian peacock(male peafowl) be the national bird?
And by the way if all this fuss is due to pava cristatus in the website, see the original order 1963 ,there is no ref to scientific name. Arjun j menon (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What they said in 1963 is not relevant. What they say now is. We are not here to investigate original intent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler So you are saying a know India website with no legal status supercedes a legal order Even valid now ( not amended)? Who said about then and now .you are acting ....... . the order that was made in 1963 is the only and the latest version .

Male of an indian peafowl is a peacock and according to you it cannot be the national bird for wiki even though declared officialy by the government.

If some country declares 'lioness' is their national animal ,will you argue for wiki alone national animal should be lion .


Arjun j menon (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Indian government in 1963 was using the older name, Peacock, for the species. It was the species that was declared the national bird of India, not the male of the species. See the report in The Hindu of the 1963 declaration: "The Government of India have decided to have the peacock (Pavo Cristatus) as the national bird of India. 1 February 1963."
It has been interpreted so by the reliable secondary and tertiary sources, which are the bread and butter of attribution on Wikipedia. Not only official interpretation, such as Know Your India site, but also:
The Library of Congress Country Study of India (which says, "The peafowl, or peacock (P. cristatus), the national bird of India, is protected under the Indian Wild Life Protection Act of 1972."
The San Diego Zoo Children's Website, which says, "Most people call them peacocks, but that's only the correct name for male of this type of bird. Females are called peahens, and the whole group are peafowl. There are three types of peafowl in the world: Indian, green, and Congo. Most people are familiar with the Indian peafowl, since that is the kind found in many zoos and parks. Indian peafowl live in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, green peafowl are found in Southeast Asia, and Congo peafowl are from central Africa. A group of peafowl is called a "party" or a "pride"! The Indian peafowl is the national bird of India and is protected in that country."
Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC, whose website says, "The male Indian Peafowl, commonly known as the peacock, is one of the most recognizable birds in the world. ... The great beauty and popularity of the Indian Peafowl has guaranteed its protection throughout most of its native and introduced ranges. It is the national bird of India."
Toronto Zoo, which says, "Indian peafowl, Region: Indomalaya, Class: Aves, Order: Galliformes, Family: Phasianidae, Genus: Pavo, Scientific Name: Pavo cristatus. Description: This species Pavo cristatus is the national bird of India. It is sometimes simply called the peacock; a peacock is the male, females are known as peahens and the young are peachicks." and a host of books, and the world's avian databases (see Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) Linnaeus (1758)) .
If you are attempting to argue original intent in the 1963 order, then you will need to find reliable secondary sources which state clearly that it is the male, and not the female, that is the national bird of India. The onus is on you. Until such time as you do, your edit cannot go in. All the best in finding that source. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian National Anthem

The Indian National Anthem in this Page IS WRONG! The Indian Anthem must be sung in 52 seconds. It's taking more time than hat. --202.53.79.244 (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The source says playing time of the full version of the national anthem is approximately 52 seconds. approximately is not exactly or must be. I suspect it may also be different if sung rather than just the music. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

27.124.11.17 (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) there are 29 states instead of 28 Telangana is the 29th state

X mark.svg Not done: Telangana is not an official state yet. Wait for June 2014. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tourism

There must be a separate section for tourism which has a link to the main article tourism in india. Also, i get a very unreal look of India here. I mean, it looks like its a 15 year old article. Shows lesser or nothing about the modern India n its feats. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "there must be," but there isn't, and that has been the consensus on the page thus far. You are welcome to start a discussion and attempt to garner new consensus, which, this being an WP:Featured article, is required. Please also consider getting a Wikipedia account and helping out by making constructive contributions to thousands of other (start class, even stub class) India-related articles that are languishing in plain sight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
COnsensus? where? on this talk page? 14.139.229.35 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, on this talk page. Please be warned, however, that should the consensus discussion involve voting, you as an unregistered user will not be able to participate, though you can certainly comment, propose changes, present arguments for those changes. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
So how exactly do I ask for the votes? How are people going to know bout it and how much time would it take? Thanks 14.139.229.34 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no specific 'time' involved here. Depending on the proposal and number of interested editors, it could get over in a single day or take months. I think these two links will be helpful, besides the other numerous help pages: Wikipedia:OWN#Featured articles and Wikipedia:CON#Reaching consensus through discussion. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I have hopefully begun a discussion here . I welcome suggestions to present it in a better way. Thanks 14.139.229.34 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus- Tourism in India

Tourism in India is a huge separate article which still struggles to include as many as possible tourist sites. However, there is not a single section in the article India about it. I want to draw a consensus that this page must contain a brief section about "Tourism in India". As of now, the article about India seems dull and gives an underdeveloped and un-appealing look of India. Many other nations (most of them) have well presented articles written on them and I think the layout of the article "India" too needs a change. Thank you. 14.139.229.34 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in India is a major WP:Content fork, i.e. a page which duplicates content. It is not specifically about tourism, but rather, going by the pictures and lists, about tourist sites. But those are already a part of various Wikipedia architecture and history pages. Their detailed mention will all need to be removed from Tourism in India article. As for the India page, whether or not it appears dull and unappealing to editors, it meets the WP:Featured article criteria as well as the recommendations in WP:WikiProject Countries, none of which say anything specific about tourism. Tourism is still on 6% of India's GDP; in other words, there are other sectors of the economy that are considered more important. For all these reasons, I would be against including any mention of tourism on this page. The tourist sites, at least the major ones, are mentioned in architecture- or culture-related sections, to the extent they can be mentioned in a WP:Summary style FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The tourism article has a very disjointed feel to it, caused in part by the state-oriented focus. Parts of the article feel like a tourist brochure with a "gee-whiz wudya look at that" approach. I'm sure tourists don't arrive in Delhi for example, and then avoid going to anywhere outside the NCT. One of the best known "tours" of India, certainly for Westerners, is the Delhi-Agra-Jaipur triangle, but the WP article steadfastly avoids any mention. I think there is room for mentioning tourism somewhere in the India article but not a separate section, yet. The tourism article needs to be rewritten with a more general focus rather than the state-by-state review. Probably a major portion of the article is really more appropriate for wikivoyage:India. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As of now, thank you for supporting "toursim" being mentioned in the article. However, as I pointed out the article India gives a very dull image about India. It tells more about its paintings and caves and has dull pictures like poor people doing nothing interesting, i am not disrepecting that, but merely asking for the artcile to be at-par the situation. I welcome changes in the article Tourism in India as well, however, all the pictures in it are correct, according to me. Thank you. 14.139.229.35 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

Game Not declared Please change the national game from "Not declared" to "Hockey" National Game Hockey kris034 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please read the reference after the statement which includes "Hockey lovers in the country are in for a rude shock as a reply to a RTI query has disclosed that India has no national game, contrary to popular perception." - Arjayay (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014

Educare123 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what the request is, with a "Change X to Y because Z backed up by sources 123". CMD (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014

Most populous city is Delhi, not Mumbai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_cities HaywardWikiEdit (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Overpopulation

Overpopulation: "Overpopulation occurs when a population of a species exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. Overpopulation is a function of the number of individuals compared to the relevant resources, such as the water and essential nutrients they need to survive. It can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources."
So, how many people in India are starving from hunger? But seriously, the sources seem fine to me, so please stop undoing NBAkid's edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

NB: warning for disruptive editing, next accusation of edit-warring, that's really a brilliant way of arguing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
NB2: it's a nice coincidence to have Blades and Rahul for one time at the same side. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Overpopulation is not even a issue, it is meaningless to even mention it. I can pull out a number of isolated WP:RS for claiming that United States is a overpopulated country,[5], [6], but we are not allowed to brag about it anywhere in the world, because none of these falsified issues make any sense. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ahem. "We are not allowed to brag" makes no sense at all--who is "we"? "Brag" about what? If you are saying what I think you are saying you are disqualifying yourself since you seem to have some sort of conspiracy agenda. In addition, if you think that this is a reliable source you are also disqualifying yourself, since Federation for American Immigration Reform is, well, it is what it is. And this is an opinion piece in a right-wing newspaper (the paper itself is usually not considered reliable) by Michael E. Arth, who is hardly to be considered objective, and who pulls out the Nazi comparison. So Bladesmulti, you want to be very careful before you pull out your first Google hits. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
We? It includes all of us. I haven't used any of these sources, so it is not going to be any bigger issue, yes you are right about these sources, and those are not reliable either that have been presented by NBAkid, like we have discussed already. 02:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Which of my sources are unreliable and why?? are they on some kind of "avoid due to bias" list? or is it that you just don't like it? NBAkid (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The word "Overpopulation" is clearly charged and based on opinion and may be inappropriate to use in "Wikipedia's voice". See WP:YESPOV, first bullet item. Perhaps it should say population growth is an issue. All that said the current handling of discussing with edit summaries is undesirable. See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle recommends leaving the article as it was (i.e. without mention of overpopulation) and discussing it on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I provided references to scientific studies concerning the issue. If you disagree with my contribution, please provide sources for your counter arguments, otherwise the whole 'counter argument' in this issue it's just WP:JDL. I realized this issue might be a sensitive point to some editors with nationalistic tendencies, but that doesn't make the edit less valid. Let's be rational and back up our arguments with adequate studies, not be a POV consensus mob. NBAkid (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but none of the references you provided are scientific studies,as per the explanation of overpopulation shared above,a country can be termed as overpopulated when it does not have the sufficient resources to feed the citizens and provide other necessary things needed to survive,but FYI the first one http://www.overpopulation.org/India.html is an outdated article with no mention of any stats about resources and scientific studies,dailymail article is just based on assumptions "crowd" doesn't means a country is over populated,the same is with two other references they have nothing which can be termed as "scientific",there isn't any mention of resources in the references,they don't have any stats which proves that India does not have the necessary resources. yes hundreds of People in India die every year due to various reasons including hunger but that doesn't means it is because India does not have the necessary resources,there are various other issues like misgovernance,mismanagement and corruption which are responsible for this. Note: This has nothing to do with my Nationality,Population is an issue in India but India isn't overpopulated as per the explanation. Janmejai (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
2013 isn't outdated. You don't want the dailymail article? Fine. But there's a further 3 you have to counter before we're at even playing field and so far you've shown nothing as per counter argument. You clearly have a WP:JDL issue. NBAkid (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • NBAkid, please assume good faith. Accusing editors of biased editing per "nationalistic tendencies" doesn't really help in making any good image of yours; especially since this is your first edit from this account on India-related page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I assume assume good faith, when there's a legitimate counter argument provided. I can agree to disagree to avoid an edit war. But a sweeping statement like overpopulation does not exist with no references to back it up is not a legitimate counter argument. NBAkid (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Google scholar gives (in Holland) ca. 23.400 hits. A superficial overview of the summaries shows that the perception of overpopulation is a determinant in government policies. So, yes, I'd think this is a issue which could be mentioned, although maybe in a modified way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Where's the discussion??? If you don't present your counter arguments, I will have to revert to my edits, since no one is denying its legitimacy. Asking for talk so we can reach a consensus, then not adding any input just to keep my edit off the page does not qualify as an ongoing discussion. You're just wasting time. NBAkid (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just cool down, NBAkid, and try to convince other editors with arguments, not with this heated tone. You're an intelligent person, and you've got a point here, so try better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I presented mine. I waited days, I didn't get any legitimate counter argument. I have to assume there is none. NBAkid (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a childish and senseless term, that's why we are not using it. In fact, your argument has been failed big time, because all your excuse is "one country can handle and one cannot", which makes no sense. There is no specific definition of Overpopulation either. You may use it, if you want to describe the survival of 10 people in some 500 sq feet space, but here you can't. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Still no source or study, only your opinion piece. NBAkid (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree here with you, Blades. "Overpopulation" is a serious issue, not "a childish and senseless term". What NBAkid's saying here, is that overpopulation is a problem in India, according to his sources.The sources [7]

[8] [9] may not be the best, they are not unreliable, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

'Overpopulation' is a subjective term (does 33rd on the list of states by population density count as overpopulated?) and is not adequately supported by the three references provided. The first is an opinion piece, the second a student paper and the third from an organization that doesn't meet the objectivity test. If we are to state that "overpopulation is a challenge faced by India", we're going to need far better sources. --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds meaningful, the term itself is pretty wide and unbalanced. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
A better term would be "population growth", paired to economic development: how to feed & emply all those youngsters? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Then it is unrelated to this page. It is more better to add to Human overpopulation. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Check again. Where do you think it's directed to? Do you even check what you're reverting? NBAkid (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Staling, staling and even more staling in the name of consensus. but of course, i'll be the one blocked if i revert and break the deadlock. NBAkid (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent addition of "overpopulation" to the India article, since though the term is often used casually in opinion pieceswith reference to India , I have yet to see it used in its technical sense by any authoritative body (say GoI, UN, WHO, ...). As an encyclopedia we should avoid (mis)using such loaded jargon, especially without attribution and solid sourcing. IMO the article is better off providing raw facts (population, population density etc), rather than glossing them with charged and disputed descriptors. Abecedare (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

122.160.4.108 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 06:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Devnagiri name

Am i correct or incorrect in deducing that a consensus had been reached on writing "Bharat ganarajya" in devnagiri but has yet not been put to action?? 14.139.229.34 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read FAQ 1 above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that reading or FAQ is right, the discussion reached a separate consensus on geographic articles (keep Indic scripts), and someone did say that such niceties would be ignored. Imc (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it makes sense that this article should be an exception to the rule. --RaviC (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. India has no official language but has many languages and scripts so we shouldn't be the ones making a choice. --regentspark (comment) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

India, Buddhism, Nepal

Again and again and again this issue: "Buddhism originated in Nepal". Narrow-minded nationalism. Nepal did not exist in 500 BCE, nor did the state of India. Buddhism originated in the Ganges-area, northern India, where Vedic and non-Vedic culture interacted. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say "Buddhism originated in Nepal"? I agree we need to word this differently. Even though the Buddha was born in what is modern Nepal, Buddhism itself originated in what is modern day India. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Gautama Buddha, History of Buddhism, etc. I've seen this addition so many times now. Lumbini may be situated in present-day nepal, but in the time of the Buddha, it was inhabited by the Sakyas, and annexated by Kosala. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where Lumbini is today. Buddhism originated in Eastern India because that's where the Buddha figured things out and that's where he hung out and got followers. Any statement that Buddhism originated in Nepal needs to be fixed.--regentspark (comment) 21:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Should Afghanistan be added as neighboring country, as they border the disputed Kashmir area? Would like to hear opinions about this, as it had been previously added on the Afghanistan page (that it borders India etc.)

- Regards LouisAragon (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As the area is in dispute but actually under the control of Pakistan it would be wrong and not neutral to add it as a Indian border. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Since that area of Kashmir is administratively in Pakistan, we can't say that India shares a border with Afghanistan. The explanation already in the footnote is adequate. --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

"Jana-Gana-Mana-Adhinayaka, Jaya He Bharata-Bhagya-Vidhat Punjab-Sindhu-Gujarata-Maratha Dravida-Utkala-Banga" these are actual lyrics but in the side when the national anthem is being played lyrics are showed as "Punjaba Sindhu Gujarata Mchiuda ke" do not ignore this consider this as soon as possible Skrishna383 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  LeoFrank  Talk 12:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Telangana

On 2 June 2014, Telangana became the 29th state of India, consisting of the parts carved out of the ten north-western districts of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh. [[10]] The map of Subdivisions shows 28 states, whereas 29 states are listed on the left. The map must be updated. Xakepxakep (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No rush this is an encyclopedia not a news service, I am sure somebody will look at it when a reliable source is available. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Subdivisions

The subdivisions list on the left of the map is horribly incorrect when compared to the map. States are not lined up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.173.121.34 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014

in subdivisions --> states the state Telangana must be the 25th state by alphabetical order and other states should be moved forward as the states after 24th that is from 25th to 29th are addressing wrong states in the picture on the right S199201shubham (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done[11] The map was updated just today[12]. Thanks···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 08:36, 4 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Changes to lede

Unfortunately Sudhir7777 has chosen this article to engage in his latest POV-pushing. As SpacemanSpiff has said, completely undue. --NeilN talk to me 03:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

India is a member of g20,brics ,UN,saarc,wto and G4 which is very useful info...can i add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhir7777 (talkcontribs)
You have no consensus to do so. I doubt other editors will agree that text belongs in the intro but they can chime in. --NeilN talk to me 12:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
More relevant stuff is there, you can still suggest more. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti: Who are you replying to? I'm unclear as to what you're suggesting. --NeilN talk to me 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You were right and I was responding to other 2-3 people. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The article already has NAM, SAARC, EAS, and G8+5 participation and memberships and addition of lists just because they exist causes a weight problem. Besides, BRICS and G20 are also covered in the navigational templates at the bottom. The topic of international memberships doesn't deserve any more real estate than what it currently has. —SpacemanSpiff 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with removal. We have pocket full of membership cards. But only mention the ones we encash upon. Face-wink.svg §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

add link to "Āryāvarta" page in its "SeeAlso" section of "India" page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80ry%C4%81varta

Deeprootdeeproot (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. The links are meant for critical articles not covered in the main article, not a catch-all for everything India. —SpacemanSpiff 06:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Society

Advertisement or Endorsement???see under Society section the File and the image content //A Christian wedding in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Christianity is believed to have been introduced to India by the late 2nd century//.What non sense it is? .thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 15:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Advertising what? And endorsing what? --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you going on about? Spamming multiple pages with this. This behavior of yours across multiple articles is getting quite tedious. —SpacemanSpiff 15:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry RegentsPark.they switch from time to time.i could not see the file now..anyway thanks.Eshwar.omTalk tome 18:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

mr SpacemanSpiff dont blame me like this.Would you please list out where i did like this.As per wikipolicy i used the talk page of the article to discuss.Dont ill-humiliate me like this.Which is not fair for editor like you. Please stop this.Dont hurt others.thank you.Eshwar.omTalk tome 18:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with a revert

Can someone follow through with this revert: [13]? For some strange reason I'm unable to edit any country page, they all time out! It's spam masquerading as a reference and portal (the portal is front for an IT consultancy). —SpacemanSpiff 20:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation?

How can Indus Valley Civilisation be connected to the India the nation? Most of the major places mentioned connected to that social system are in current day Pakistan. And to the majority areas of modern India, this society has no geographical connection, other than the map of British India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.250.52 (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope the Unsigned user May be drunk alcohol while typing this question or else innocent person who dont know the history of Pak.Any way i have to clarify that. current day Pakistan is past day Bharath(India).Indus Valley Civilisations were worshiped Lingam(shiva).pasupathi seal found in Indus Valley .have you seen the recent satellite image of Diwali night?part of pakisan also has celebrated. if you dont know all those please read the History of Pakistan before type a message.Eshwar.omTalk tome 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
117~ does have a point. The article is about India, not the Indian subcontinent. some clarification would be good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad nauseum, just check the archives. Invariably, the first comment always appear to be the same! But, here are some of the discussions: Talk:India/Archive 10#Indus Valley Civilization, Talk:India/Archive 31#Lead, Talk:India/Archive 5#Why is Indus Valley even in this article?, etc, etc. Besides, the text clearly mentions that IVC was part of the Indian subcontinent. This is no different from how most historians treat the history of India and is quite similar to how Stein, Kulke, Wolpert etc among others address it. —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Subsection on the situation of women?

As this is a major topic, there should be a subsection on the situation of women. What should be done? Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A subsection is unnecessary, perhaps a sentence might be appropriate within the right context. —SpacemanSpiff 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a link in the Society section, although the only context currently present is child marriage. CMD (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I missed that! But it's a bit difficult to connect all those disparate issues under the society section. I think the major aspects are covered, though the more recent issue of rapes isn't there. —SpacemanSpiff 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

India is a potential superpower and will lead humanity along with China and Russia while replacing american hegemony. Pradeep Mathiannal (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  LeoFrank  Talk 12:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

World Economic History : India and the World

Why is there no mention in the Wikipedia article that India once had the world's largest and most advanced economy? The lead to Indian Century says:

According to scholars,[28][29] media sources[30][31][32] and economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, the polities of India constituted the largest economy in the world from ca. 1 CE to 1000 CE.[19][33] Also, during the period when China was the dominant economy in the world, India held the second position of the largest economy.[19] India's share of the world income (economic output) went from 27% in 1700 (compared to Europe's share of 23%) to 3% in 1950.[21]

Lets compare the article to China. In the China article, everything however is clearly being mentioned but on India Wikipedia editors and administrators are encouragingly showing their bias and subtle racism. The Wikipedia article of China states (and I quote)

"The economic history of China stretches over thousands of years and has undergone alternating cycles of prosperity and decline. China was for a large part of the last two millennia the world's largest and most advanced economy."[34][35]

The overall both history (economic output) of India and China is from Angus Maddison himself (his researched works - books, writings and articles).

References
  1. ^ Kiple & Ornelas 2000, pp. 1140–1151.
  2. ^ Yadav, McNeil & Stevenson 2007.
  3. ^ Raghavan 2006, p. 3.
  4. ^ Sen 2006, p. 132.
  5. ^ a b Puskar-Pasewicz 2010, p. 39.
  6. ^ Schoenhals 2003, p. 119.
  7. ^ Seymour 1999, p. 81.
  8. ^ Wengell & Gabriel 2008, p. 158.
  9. ^ Henderson 2002, p. 102.
  10. ^ a b c d Kulke & Rothermund 2004, pp. 54–56.
  11. ^ Thapar 2003, p. 166.
  12. ^ a b Stein 1998, p. 21.
  13. ^ a b Stein 1998, pp. 67–68.
  14. ^ a b Singh 2009, pp. 312–313.
  15. ^ a b Singh 2009, p. 300.
  16. ^ Singh 2009, p. 319.
  17. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/stories-they-tell-about-languages/article4747023.ece
  18. ^ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-25/india/28148512_1_national-language-official-language-hindi
  19. ^ a b c d "The World Economy (GDP) : Historical Statistics by Professor Angus Maddison" (PDF). World Economy. Retrieved 21 May, 2013.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  20. ^ Maddison, Angus (2006). The World Economy - Volume 1: A Millennial Perspective and Volume 2: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. p. 656. ISBN 9789264022621. 
  21. ^ a b Madison, Angus (2006). The world economy, Volumes 1–2. OECD Publishing. p. 638. doi:10.1787/456125276116. ISBN 92-64-02261-9. Retrieved 23 May 2013. 
  22. ^ "India tops 'modern slavery' index worldwide". bbcnews.com. 17 October 2013. Retrieved 18 October 2013. 
  23. ^ "India- The big picture". UNICEF. Retrieved 28 December 2013. 
  24. ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 163.
  25. ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 167.
  26. ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 195–197.
  27. ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 203.
  28. ^ "Cover Story: India, the Silicon Jewel of the East". Digital Journal. Retrieved 23 June 2014. 
  29. ^ "All the riches of the east restored". Le Monde diplomatique. Retrieved 23 June 2014. 
  30. ^ "Ruin of India by British Rule". Marxist Writers’ Archive. Retrieved 19 June 2014. 
  31. ^ "The Gems of Pre-British India". Infinity Foundation. Retrieved 19 June 2014. 
  32. ^ "When – not if – China overtakes the US, normality will have returned". The Independent. Retrieved 19 June 2014. 
  33. ^ Maddison, Angus (2006). The World Economy - Volume 1: A Millennial Perspective and Volume 2: Historical Statistics. OECD Publishing by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. p. 656. ISBN 9789264022621. 
  34. ^ Dahlman, Carl J; Aubert, Jean-Eric. China and the Knowledge Economy: Seizing the 21st Century. WBI Development Studies. World Bank Publications. Accessed January 30, 2008.
  35. ^ http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/product/4107091e.pdf Angus Maddison. Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run. Development Centre Studies. Accessed 2007. p.29
Books
  • India: The Rise of an Asian Giant ISBN 9780300113099
  • Durant, Will (1930) The Case for India. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  • Parthasarathi, Prasannan (2011) Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not : Global Economic Divergence, 1600–1850. Cambridge University Press ISBN 9780521168243.
  • Meredith, Robyn (2008) The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means for All of Us. W. W. Norton & Company ISBN 9780393331936.
  • Smith, Jeff (2013) Cold Peace: China-India Rivalry in the Twenty-First Century. Lexington Books ISBN 9780739182789.

User:116.74.12.84 15:37, 29 June 2014‎ (JACOB)

_________________

"Subtle racism": that's not the kind of attitude that's going to gain you sympathy around here. It's interesting information, though; so why don't you add it? By the way, Angus Maddison is not a scholar? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Also most of it relates to pre-1947 India so may be better suited to History of India. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

_________________
I want to clear up few things. However before I start (lets view reality)
First:
a) David Malone: India & Britain (recorded by Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs)
b) India's De-Industrialization Under British Rule: New Ideas, New Evidence (published by National Bureau of Economic Research)

Second:
a) Looking from all the economic history, statistical data and story of civilization, I can come to the fact that India and China (both together combined) were producing almost 60 percent of the then world's industrial output. India and China were both great manufacturing countries.
b) India and China (Asia with Africa) were destroyed with European colonialism in the world. The British takeover of the Indian subcontinent, parts of China (like Hong Kong, Macau) and many parts of Africa destroyed the countries and continents to the core.
c) It is a fact that India and China together were producing until 1750 almost 60 percent of the then world's industrial output. However after European colonialism, data and history shows that India and China each were put down to less than 1 percent each. So my question is - where did all these looted wealth go to? The uneducated Europeans and so claimed scholars with PhD's in Europe and West fail to understand that it is this stolen wealth which brought them their industrialization.
d) Looking at India article at Wikipedia, the first section is History. The data, statistics and everything can be put in History section as it deals with history. I am unable to do this part for myself because I am not an registered user of Wikipedia (which I personally choose to be) and thus cant edit into locked articles.

(JACOB)

You know the difference between production and property? If the production drops, does this mean that the property vanishes (oc.q., is stolen)? And did the production of India and China drop, or did the production of Europe rise? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

_________________
Joshua,
a) First, I exactly understand what you are asking me, but unfortunately you have NOT read books and scholarly works that I have. There is a great American historian named William James Durant in his work named "The Case for India" (published 1930) talks here about how India's wealth was transferred from India to Britain and the atrocities committed by British rule on Indian economy, politics and culture. By the way, you wont get this book online through Amazon or even libraries at Harvard or Cambridge because when this book was released in Britain, the book was banned by orders from the British Monarchy. However hard-copies do exist in certain retail stores in India.
b) Did you know the fact "Diamonds have been found in India for at least 3000 years. India was the only known source of diamonds before the sixth century and the predominant source for over 2,000 years, until the mid-eighteenth century. (Source: Gemological Institute of America)"

c) Have you read the book Capitalism and Colonial Production by Hamza Alavi. The book estimates that the resource flow from India to Britain between 1793 and 1803 was in the order of £2m a year, the equivalent of many billions today. The economic drain from India, he notes, "has not only been a major factor in India's impoverishment … it has also been a very significant factor in the industrial revolution in Britain.
d) Read the following sources

(JACOB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.242.28 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jacob, your point is valid; it's just that you mingle the effects of Europe's industrialisation with the effects of "loothing": if industrial production in India couldn't concur with England's industrialisation, then it means that profit from textile production simply disappeared, instead og being "loothed". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

_________________
Joshua,
a) The fact of the matter is Europe's industrialization has much to do with the collective looting that occurred in Asia and Africa by Europeans. Your comments to my factual representation of reality, seem both ignorant of historical and economical evidence (Read Karl Marx writing's).
b) Read these research papers and articles as well to understand:


Books:

(This book reveals that the conquests and exploitations of the East India Company were critical to England’s development in the eighteenth century and beyond.)

(JACOB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.205.184.228 (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Gerard M. Koot:

The conclusion of the Asian revisionist historians that the most developed parts of China and India had a similar standard of living than northwestern Europe has been challenged by recent research that argues that a divergence of living standards can be observed as early as the 16th century, which was well before European colonization and an extensive European trade with Asia [...] Broadberry and Gupta conclude: “the silver wage data suggests unambiguously, then, that the Great Divergence was already well established in the sixteenth century.”

Looks like you've got to read your sources again. By the way, marx is outdated. I've studied his "mehrwert-theorie"; it's not exactly convincing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I think your basic point is valid. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

{{Largest cities of India}}

49.14.146.41 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC) X mark.svg Not doneNothing in request Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 02:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

{{Largest cities of India}}

49.14.146.41 (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC) X mark.svg Not doneRequest incomprehensable Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 02:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Has also been discussed before and deliberately removed from the article. —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2014

National language hindi Chandraprakash.muj (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

National language none ,change it to national language hindi Chandraprakash.muj (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. See FAQ above. —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

National language of India is Hindi 124.40.246.77 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. See FAQ above.

Subtitles or Captions for National anthem Seriously incorrect!

Hi,

This new section is regarding, the subtitles which appears for the orchestral version of the "Indian National Anthem - Jana Gana Mana", at Runtime: 0 minutes 10 seconds, For the Anthem lyric "Punjaba Sindhu Gujarata Maratha" it is Mistranslated as "Punjaba sindhu Gujarata Mc hiuda ke".

Shall be Corrected as soon as possible.

Reference shall be collected from various GoI websites.

Thanks and regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutthu99 (talkcontribs) 08:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Maratha Empire

Put Maratha Empire between Mughal and EIC in the History section. No mention of it is pathetic. Use whatever language you want without copyright violation. For sources, see 1)Maratha Empire 2) History of India. Ghatus (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the contested addition:
"However, the most dominating power that rose after the Mughals in the subcontinent was the Maratha Empire. [1][2]
  1. ^ The Rediscovery of India: A New Subcontinent Cite: "Swarming up from the Himalayas, the Marathas now ruled from the Indus and Himalayas in the north to the south tip of the peninsula. They were either masters directly or they took tribute."
  2. ^ Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bhāratīya Itihāsa Samiti, Ramesh Chandra Majumdar. The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Maratha supremacy. G. Allen & Unwin, 1951
My comments:
"The Maratha Empire is also referred to as the Maratha Confederacy. The historian Barbara Ramusack says that the former is a designation preferred by Indian nationalists, while the latter was that used by British historians."
So, the addition is suspect.
  • Regarding your sources:
  • Formatting:
  • Hussain Khan, The Rediscovery of India: A New Subcontinent:
  • Hussain Khan is not a scholarly book, but a personal opinion; not WP:RS
  • The quote does not support the line you want to add;
  • Page 116: "[The Maharathas] in fact represent the greatest disappointment in Indian history: mimitary and administrative capacity which went to waste, political sagacity found and lost for good in their debacle." See WP:CHERRYPICKING;
Conclusion: unacceptable. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: the Marathas are being mentioned in the article:
"Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience."
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Maratha Empire I am astounded to see no mention of Maratha Empire in the History section of India. I, as a student of History, consider it to be a distortion of history.It was mainly the Marathas who destroyed the Mughals and the the most influential power in the subcontinent before the Britishers properly established themselves in the early 19th century was the the Marathas.There should be at least 2-3 lines on the Maratha Empire in the history section between the Mughasls and the EIC. I am adding just one common line there. Please see it and if needed make some additions. Even, History of India page makes it clear but I do not know what happened to India page. I waited in the talk page there for 60 hours but there was no reply. Thank You.Ghatus (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The history-page contains more info on the history of India; the India-page gives overviews. Anyway, I've copied a sentence from the India-page, with the EB as reference; much better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2014

[languages_type = National language |languages = Hindi]

202.59.2.2 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:India/FAQ Question 9. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose edit

from Anatomically modern humans are thought to have arrived in South Asia 73–55,000 years back,

to

Anatomically modern humans are thought to have arrived in South Asia 73–55,000 years before present

Just a stylistic change.

Mrweber (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

India's world ranking by GDP

The IMF reference given does not contain any actual information about it. Is a good source avaiable? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Please edit National Game as Hockey.Or file an RTI again now. Rogupta (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Name

I have made some observations while reading the history of India. The names India or Bharat varsha for the whole of India is wrong on several counts. Calling the entire subcontinent Bharat varsha would be wrong, since Bharat varsha did not extend beyond the Gangetic plains. The other reasons are the land of Bharat and the Sindhu river are now in modern day Pakistan. Yet they don't call themselves India or Bharat varsha. India should be named just like PAKISTAN. An acronym derived from the different regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.200.93 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what you want changed in the article. --NeilN talk to me 16:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If the Talk page is for change suggestions, then I don't have any. I just had a comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.200.93 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article. --NeilN talk to me 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014

1.22.85.13 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hockey added to FAQ

I've added Hockey not being the national sport to our Talk:India/FAQ for quick reference. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014

The national language of india is "Hindi", Currently it is showing none, can we please modify this? Shahamitr (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Q9 in Talk:India/FAQ. --NeilN talk to me 04:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

please update the National Language of India as "Hindi" 123.242.248.130 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. See Q9 --Pratyya (Hello!) 14:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note: Wikivoyage India Expedition for tourism-related articles

Hi! Just redirecting you to this note, in case you're interested in tourism in India: Wikivoyage India Expedition. Please help out! Thanks and all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Overpopulation in India- new discussion

I am starting a new discussion of overpopulation in India which I feel needs to be added to the article. It can be more or less a previous discussion of the archived one but I was not aware of it, so I am wanting to continue the discussion here. I contend that amongst the problems that need to be mentioned is overpopulation.

I want people to give their arguments and provide reliable sources for their opinions. As a start I will cite the CIA world factbook as mine as a start. I won't have time to contribute all the time but I can participate from time to time. So feel free to post your arguments and sources here, but remember they must be reliable.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum, if you have a suggestion then you need to explain what and why you want to add content so it can gain consensus to either add or ignore from other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL as if I didn't know this is not a discussion forum. Where did you get this impression from? I am continuing a discussion of why overpopulation needs to be added to the list of problems india faces.Taeyebaar (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
So you still need to suggest what you actually want to be added and why. MilborneOne (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The editor has shown serious effort for starting this discussion again on my talk page. I'm notifying the previous main participants in case they want to join this. @Joshua Jonathan, Bladesmulti, and NBAkid: -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this was fairly comprehensively discussed before. In particular, I think Abecedare's summary that "overpopulation" is an opinion label and that the "article is better off providing raw facts (population, population density etc), rather than glossing them with charged and disputed descriptors" is on target. We would need to see scholarly sources that specifically refer to over-population as a problem for India before adding it to the article. (Asking for sources that state that overpopulation is not a problem for India doesn't make sense - not easy to source a negative.) --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Taeyebaar, South Korea has more 'overpopulation' then. These forum like discussions are really childish and they make no sense. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

overpopulation should be added to the article because there are reasonable sources to verify this claim. I named the CIA world factbook to begin with.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Some more sources, some themselves from Indian sources [14][15][16][17] Many of these are not just statements but analysis and conclude the thesis that overpopulation is a problem. Since it is, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Corruption and poverty can also be argued as opinionated then. Even more so than overpopulation.Thanks Taeyebaar (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Color me naive. I thought this was going to be a serious discussion after the "must be reliable" injunction. Source 1 is a presentation. Source 2 is a student paper (presumable school students). Source 3 is also a student project report. Source 4 is another presentation (and is about general overpopulation anyway). None of these remotely satisfy the reliable sources requirement. --regentspark (comment) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Poverty was included, per poverty line stats. 25% live in poverty. Number of political parties and activists claim that there are trillions(or still 1.6 trillion by 2011) in the bank account of politicians, through corruption. These are issues. Not some childish non existing issue like 'overpopulation', much of the land still require many people. It is not even hard to find same or better level of sources for any other country. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If those are not satisfactory, it's not the end. There are plenty of scholarly sources that can attribute to this. I am working on finding them. I again wish to emphasize it's a bit ridiculous that the wikipedia community will use the CIA factbook as sources for other things but deny it as a source for overpopulation. I am browsing through google scholar for more acceptable sources. Will share some hopefully later today.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Number of political parties and activists claim that there are trillions(or still 1.6 trillion by 2011) in the bank account of politicians, through corruption. These are issues."

Are the above even reliable sources or just endorsed per community consensus? These don't seem to be reliable at all. Not that it's not true, but just questioning the sources. Anyways back to overpopulation.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What is exactly overpopulated? The cities may be overpopulated, but the vast countryside is largely empty.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Human overpopulation occurs if the number of people in a group exceeds the carrying capacity of a region occupied by that group. Overpopulation can further be viewed, in a long term perspective, as existing when a population can't be maintained without the rapid depletion of non-renewable resources or without the degradation of the capacity of the environment to give support to the population.[1]" I agree with this and the source. Taeyebaar (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for starting this discussion when I had little time. I'll get back to it when I'm available, so please don't close it. Others are welcomed to share their perspectives and more importantly, their sources.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ehrlich, Paul R. Ehrlich & Anne H. (1990). The population explosion. London: Hutchinson. pp. 39–40. ISBN 0091745519. Retrieved 20 July 2014. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources [39] (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated. 

Sorry for the late discussion. I will post more sources in the days to come. Didn't have much time but soon will.--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reentered Proposal to create a subsection on the situation of women

Hello,

I would like to reenter the proposal to create a subsection on the situation of women (archived at Talk:India/Archive_38#Subsection_on_the_situation_of_women.3F). Kind regards,Sarcelles (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have Women's health in India(acclaimed to be good article), Women in India and more for that. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the website of the Guardian (UK), India is the fourth-worst country for women. Hence the situation of women in India is quite special.Sarcelles (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a subsection is necessary in this article. It is a summary article and the situation of women in India is complicated. About the the guardian article, perhaps we should wait for interpretations of the survey before considering including it. We need scholarly sources that have examined and commented on the quality of the survey before we can go around stating that India is the fourth worst - or even a generally horrible - country for women to live in.--regentspark (comment) 00:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sarceless, I had expected that you were going to come up with such sort of cranky stuff, but again, it won't belong here. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-H-L-Dattu-sworn-in-as-Chief-Justice-of-India/articleshow/43703266.cms

Justice H L Dattu is the new Chief Justice of India

Akashjain0204 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --regentspark (comment) 20:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014

The map showing the states and union territories are wrong. Puducherry is marked in Kerala as well. Please correct it Cpraveenkumar25 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Not sure why but Pondicherry is marked in multiple areas. Can someone please fix this?--regentspark (comment) 21:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Are we talking of this map? It seems ok to me, since the "union territory of Puducherry consists of four small unconnected districts: Pondicherry, Karaikal and Yanam on the Bay of Bengal and Mahé on the Arabian Sea. Pondicherry and Karaikal have the largest areas and population, both as part of Tamil Nadu. Yanam and Mahé are enclaves of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala respectively." Have there been any recent changes that changed this? Abecedare (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
No. Only people like me who've visited Pondicherry and thought that that's it. Obviously Indian geography is not my strong suit. --regentspark (comment) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The map, it appears, is correct. Puducherry is disjoint (see Puducherry). --regentspark (comment) 23:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we learn something everyday. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Largest City

As in the article List of most populous cities in India, the mention of Mumbai being India's largest city ("largest city" refers to population by geographical terminology) is outdated, but at least in the former a mention is made to the inaccuracy, the information from the 2011 census of India. As of a 2013-2014 count, Delhi is India's largest city. The same is mentioned in the four Wikipedia articles that refer to urban areas, metropolitan areas and cities proper by population, where Delhi outranks Mumbai by 2013-2014 calculations. In the table "India", Mumbai is mentioned as largest city. I recommend this be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.242.244 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014

National Language Hindi 116.203.72.15 (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - It already states:-
"Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union. English is an additional co-official language for Government work."
It then gives 2 references for that statement - Arjayay (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

National language: Hindi Satyam.verma202 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Please see the /FAQ. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanation for recent revert

Bladesmulti, I reverted some of your recent edits to the page. A quick explanation: this edit muddled the sentences so that they did not make grammatical sense, and also changed the emphasis away from what the sources say. But the 5th centuary-Vedic period discrepancy was a good catch. And I don't think astrology belongs in the list of sciences here, especially since we are already mention astronomy and it is not sensible to talk of the remaining aspects of astrology making "significant advances". Finally, Routledge is the correct publisher of Kulke & Rothermund, and the google books listing is simply wrong for some reason. Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I had just missed the book of Stein.[18] If astrology can fall(here) under astronomy, there's no problem. About the caste system theory, it is contradictory to mainstream view, as per The World Year Book of Education. Columbia University. Teachers College, University of London Institute of Education. p. 226, Origin and Growth of Caste in India by Nripendra Kumar Dutt, p. 39. and few others,[19] that have represented mainstream view. It is just that the priests were Brahmins, the warriors are Kshatriya, the merchants are Vaishya, and the artisans are Shudras. And those 4 were indigenous, current sentence seems to be considering only Shudras to be indigenous, and claiming particular period as an origin of caste system. Though it has been disputed. Shudra caste was developed at the end of Vedic period.[20] -[[21]] Bladesmulti (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we remove "The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure" then? The author himself is not professed in this subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The sentence seems a fine summary of the cited reference Kulke and Rothermund (41-43). If we wanted to devote another two-three sentences to this subject, we could get into some details on how the system in the early Vedic period developed into the one of late Vedic period. But given the summary style, I think it is fair and accurate to simply say that the system arose in the 2000-500BCE period that is the subject of the paragraph.
I have edited the "excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure" part of the sentence a bit though since K&R don't explicitly say that the indigenous peoples were excluded from the caste system; only that they were regarded as impure and excluded from certain religious rites. Review and copy-editing welcome. (Will edit the etymology section discussed below sometime later today) Abecedare (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2014

Remove the word Corruption from the line "However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, malnutrition, inadequate public healthcare, and terrorism."(Third paragraph Third line).According to the ranking of Corruption Perception Index India ranks 94 out of 177 lesser than some developing nations for example Russia ranks greater than India,but in its wiki page there is no mention about corruption, I do not understand why sometimes wiki(not actually wiki but its editors)shows this bias against some countries. If you do not mention about corruption in Russia's wiki page then why mention about in india's page?.And there are many countries ranked greater than India but there is no mention about it in any of their pages. so Please remove the mention of corruption from the above line and make wikipedia more accurate and error-free. Yammanur sharath (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yammanur, perhaps you are concerned about image; more than the actual issue of corruption. Wiki needs to be accurate and error-free indeed. So, stats and actual facts matter. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Not done. The article Corruption in India shows that India does indeed continue to face the challenge of corruption. The article Corruption in Russia looks partly whitewashed; but it nevertheless suggests that yes, the situation in Russia is bad. As for the article Russia, am I simply hallucinating the appearance within it of
Russia ranks as the second-most corrupt country in Europe (after Ukraine), according to the Corruption Perceptions Index. The Norwegian-Russian Chamber of Commerce also states that "[c]orruption is one of the biggest problems both Russian and international companies have to deal with".[source] The high rate of corruption acts as a hidden tax as businesses and individuals often have to pay money that is not part of the official tax rate. It is estimated that corruption is costing the Russian economy an estimated $2 billion (80 billion rubles) per year.[source] In 2014, a book-length study by Professor Karen Dawisha was published concerning corruption in Russian under Putin's government.[source]
? -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Hoary. On a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean), India scores 34 on the Corruption Perception Index. Stickee (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Remember the last Olympic Games? Three indians (or were it four), paying for their own participation, because of a corrupt Olympic Committee. It was a shame! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Stickee! Bladesmulti (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation / Verify tags

Mayasutra, I have removed some uncited content, it was recently added. Why you think that Bharatha is not related with the emperor Bharat? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of attribution, as to who / which document mentions that the official name of India "bharata" is based on the emperor 'bharat'? There are other characters named 'Bharat' (for example, Bharat in Ramayan (the brother of Ram, Lakshman and Shatrughan)). So why is it assumed that India's official name 'bhAratA' is based on emperor 'bharat' (the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant). Thanks, --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the recent series of edits to the etymology section? Was the problem (1) dubious/wrong claims, (2) irrelevant content, or just (3) inadequate sourcing? I have reverted the edits for now since they resulted in loss of seemingly useful information (such as the etymology of "India" sourced to OED, which should be an authoritative reference), but if User:Mayasutra or someone else can pinpoint the issues, we should be able to address them here. Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I checked and the etymology and usage of the words "India" and "Hindustan" can be easily sourced to OED entries (the current content may require minor tweaking but is not incorrect). But can someone find one solid reference for the Emperor Bharata -> Bharat claim (OED does not have an entry)? There are many hits on Google Books etc that make such a claim, but we should try to ensure that we are not just propagating a common false etymology, ie can we find one proper academic history/language reference, rather than 100 so-so references. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question Abecedare. If true, I assume the source would lead to a mythological text but a quick search on jstor does not bring anything obvious up. The only source (from 1922) we have in Names of India links Bharat to the name of a geographical entity in the Puranas. This does need a good source and if we can't find one then the conclusion is obvious. --regentspark (comment) 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Turns out to be OK. V. S. Apte's The practical Sanskrit-English dictionary defines Bharata (भरतः) as "N. of the son of Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā, who became a universal monarch (चक्रवर्तिन्), India being called Bharatavarṣa after him". And Buitenen's translation of Mahabharata's Adi Parva (which contains ) has an aside, "... sovereign Republic of India, or rather, Bharat, named after our Bharata." Will wait to find out what the specific objections to the current section content are, before I take to tweaking it to match (say) OED and Apte. Abecedare (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Kindly make sure to mention the boundaries of Bharatvarsha which was ruled by the emperor Bharat (son of Shakuntala and Dushyant). Kindly also clarify Buiten's translation, as to, who is "our Bharata" after whom India is named? Thanks --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra


Abecedare It will require better citation to claim that Indus comes from Persian word Hindus. It doesn't seem to be as accurate as it should be, I also thought that it was new edition, that's why found it easier to remove. Significance of word Sindhu is what correct and it is the pioneer, but this article is about India, and it is more important. A Greek author of 2nd century BCE regarded the country as Indica, which is most appropriate, but I don't find its edition anywhere here, it has been mentioned on other pages though. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Blades, I am not sure I understand your objection. Are you saying that OED is wrong in tracing the source of the word India as from Sanskrit->Persian->Greek->Latin->English, or that OED is not an good-enough source for etymology of the word ? Do you have an equally good or superior reference that contradicts OED on this? Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't said that it is incorrect. Although it is very less descriptive, I could find good sources, but they are hardly accessible for others. See [22] It is pretty obvious that Hindus was derived from Sindhus and it was used as a name for Indus. Those 2 sentences can be merged together, and may be rephrased too. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Lipner book is also a fine reference, and consistent with the OED entry. Perhaps we don't even disagree and were possibly just talking past each other. Unless there are any other objection, I will edit the article section in a few hours to cite the above mentioned sources, and bring its content in line with what they say. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Blade, you reverted my tags without mentioning citations in the article. Why? The source you mention above (this one [23]) says

(1) "Indus seems to have been derived from references to a river or rivers of such waters called Sindhu in the Rigveda" -- The author, Lipner, does not mention on what basis he reached this conclusion. He starts with a presumption that the Indo-Aryans were outsiders impressed by fast-flowing waters of the Indus including the Sarasvati region. He then goes on to mentions Persians, under Darius I conquered the Southern Indus region, a territory which was annexed as a satrapy known as 'Hindus'. However, he is not clear on what basis he connected Sindhu->Indus-Hindus.
(2) The author notes the term 'sindhu' was a non-religious one which began with geographical and cultural connotations as in the term Sindh in the sub-Punjab area of Indus today. However, he does not explain what were the cultural connotations. Although this source is good, I suggest a better or additional source which can offer clarity on the above. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Until the statements in the etymology section are resolved, there is no reason to remove the citation required tag. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Have put the tags back on. Coming to theology versus Mythology -- Emperor Bharata, the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant is a character that appears in some Puranas and in the Mahabharat. In historical known time period, such a character did not exist. Therefore, why is the term "theological figure" used? Please clarify if the word "mythological" is warranted? Also, how is the Bharata tribe of Rigveda connected with Emperor Bharata (son of Shakuntala and Dushyant). This point requires clarification in the article on Bharata_(emperor) also. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Don't invade those sections with maintenance tags, you know what is a featured article? Almost every information may have been researched, before it was added. I just provided one source, it says that hindu stemmed from sindhu. There is no deadline, just wait. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Am not sure what to make out of the claim that "every information MAY have been researched". Am not sure how a "featured article" works if a select group of editors determined an article so. Especially when the statements have no supporting citations. Yes, there is no deadline. I do not think asking for citations and attribution (of emperor Bharat to official name 'bhAratA') is an 'invasion' :) (that is an outright silly claim). Anyways, went thru your source. Have mentioned something above on it (please see and reply). Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Those maintenance tags were removed once, don't insert again. There are many people who check every edition on this article, just because it is a featured article, how you think that we would be adding those type of information that require citation? They can be wrong, but not uncited. Mythology also means pre-historic, so if you are going to regard these bases, that have been historically addressed for thousands of years,(without making a single doubt) I find it easier to say that you are just wasting your time and no one will impose your opinion. Got any citation for your information? If not, just drop it. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
If I wanted, I could have put the tags back on when I wrote the last message to you. It is obvious am not reverting them. That does not mean the statements go unchanged without citations. That said, want to point out your argument is lame. If many check this article just bcoz it is a "featured article", it is all the more imperative to have verified info. A myth need not be pre-historic. It can be conjured up in historical time as in Kalidasa's fables. It is also not necessary a myth was historically addressed for thousands of years. That is a mere assumption. So it seems you are pushing POVs based on myths or just wasting your time trying to impose your opinion. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra:: Please see Etymology section that has been updated with some tweaks in wording and citations. I have tried to keep the content simple, because the details of etymology and changes in use of the various names really belong to more specialized sub-articles. If after checking the referenced works you still have any questions, feel free to raise them here. Abecedare (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


The update is nearly perfect. However, I suggest clarity with the following statements:

(1) The eponym of Bharat is Bharata, a legendary ruler in the epic Mahabharata, and other religious and literary texts -- Is there evidence of attribution available, as to a writer or document mentioning the official name of India "bharata" is based on the emperor 'bharat' (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant)? There are other characters named 'Bharat' in itihasas / puranas. So why is it assumed that India's official name 'bhAratA' is specifically based this particular character named 'bharat'. Unless an attribution is obtained, does this point warrant a mention in the article? I suggest removing the point unless an attribution is found. Also, emperor Bharat is mentioned in Puranas and Mahabharat, not Mahabharat alone. The word "legendary ruler" maybe confounding. The Guptas in historical time for example conquered more territory than the mythical Bharat. So who gets to decide who exactly is "legendary"? Finally, in any article mentioning Bharata the emperor son of Dushyant, it is imperative to mention the boundaries of Bharatvarsha; to avoid confusion and implied meanings using peacock terms.

(2) Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn] ( listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted Northern India to its inhabitants but was more widely used to refer to the Indian subcontinent by Europeans and Muslims. -- Is ambiguous. "To its inhabitants" does not seem correct, because the Persians used it to refer to inhabitants of a particular geographical boundary. Also, please separate old Persian usage from the more recent European usage. I suggest using --
(a) Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn] (listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted Northern India. Or,
(b) Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn] (listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted the region of the Indus river basin. Or,
(c) Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn] (listen); lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted the region of and beyond the Indus river basin.
For either of the statements, a proper citation is required.

(3) It is occasionally used to denote India in its entirety. The existing citation from Encyclopedia Britannica mentions the term hindustan meant "historically, northern India, in contrast to the Deccan, or southern India. This area can be defined more particularly as the basin of the five Punjab rivers and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain. As a mostly fertile and well-populated corridor situated between walls of mountain, desert, and sea, Hindustan has been regarded as the principal seat of Indian power, containing the bulk of Indian wealth and physical energy. The name Hindustan is sometimes used to indicate the lands “north of the Vindhya Range.”
-So it is important to mention the older usage as well as the more recent popular usage for the entire country (as is used presently).

Thanks, ----Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Have you got any citation? What type of paragraph you want it to be added here? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Those making the claims need to provide citations. Not others. Since there is no evidence of attribution connecting India's official name 'bhAratA' to emperor Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant), I suggest removing the statement. For points (2) and (3) have elaborated above for Abecedare to make the relevant changes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Quick response:
  1. Bharata: The citations provided are specific that Bharat (ie India) is named after Bharata the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant and not after Bharata the brother of Rama (or any other figure with that name). Secondly, the word legendary is intended as an antononym of historically attested, not as a synonym for greatest. I agree that the emperor appears in the Puranas (and Kalidasa's Shakuntala etc); hence the concluding phrase "...other religious and literary texts".
  2. Hindustan Compare with OED: To its inhabitants, Hindustān is ‘India north of the Narmada, exclusive of Bengal and Bihar’, or, virtually, the region covered by Hindi and its dialects. But from early times, foreigners, Muslim and European, have extended it to include the whole of the peninsula ‘from the Himālaya to the Bridge (i.e. Adam's Bridge)’, and this is the general geographical use. The current sentence in the wikipedia article is an attempt to summarize the origins and the insider-outsider usage while trying to avoid outright plagiarism.
  3. The last sentence in the Etymology is a (too!) close-paraphrase of EB's It is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India., and thus needs rewording (although its contents are fine).
Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki resolution required

Thanks.
  1. Please clarify which citation says Bharat (India) is named after Bharata the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant.
  2. Please quote the OED verbatim in the sources where it is allowed to do so. However, kindly do not club the old Persian usage denoting a region of specific boundaries together with the more recent European / popular usage for the entire country. Better to mention the old Persian usage in a separate sentence, and the recent usage in a separate sentence. If the word legendary is intended as an antonym of historically attested, is the usage correct? Bharata the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant is not historically attested. The character appears in puranas and mahabharat; not in attested history. Is not the word "mythical" warranted in such case?
  3. Agree. Please reword.

Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra


Addressed (3). For use of the word legendary, see King Arthur (just a top of the head example). For (1), see the references that are cited in the article already! Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.
  1. Point 3 - Please see my reply to blade on Lipner. Lipner is not clear on what basis he connected Sindhu->Indus-Hindus. You have not quoted OED verbatim in the sources either. Can you find a source which establishes Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. You will also need a source which establishes the term applied to whole of South Asia as you stated.
  2. Point 2- Any reason why the term "mythical" cannot be used? We are not talking of a historically disputed figure. We are talking of a character that appears in myths or tales composed in historical time.
  3. Point 1- Please provide the full citation for Apte and Buitenen. Also please quote the sources verbatim in the citation so we can be clear what they say about the eponym Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). Would like to know what are Apte's and Buitenen's sources. Does any Indian Government document say India is officially named Bharat after Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant)? Please note this source which gives the Jaina version as follows:
    As regards the question of the derivation of the name Bharata-varsha, it is pertinent to note that as many as three Bharatas had been prominent in ancient India. In Ramayana, there is one prince Bharata, the younger brother of famous king Ramachandra, but considering his limited role, it is nowhere mentioned that after him this country is known as Bharata-varsa. Similarly, another prince Bharata, the son of king Dushyanta from Shakuntala, is known mainly from the most popular drama Shakuntala written by the celebrated poet Kalidasa. But as there have been very few references in ancient Indian literature relating to outstanding military and other achievements of this Bharata, it cannot be maintained that this country's name Bharata-varsha is derived from him. On the contrary the well-known prince Bharata, the eldest son of the first Jain Tirthankara Lord Rishabha-natha, is most famous as Chakravarti, i.e. Emperor Bharata, due to his great military exploits of bringing all kingdoms in India under his rule, and that is why India is named Bharata-varsha after him. This fact is amply borne out by Bhagavata, Markandeya, Vayu, Braliamanda, Skanda, Vishnu and other Hindu puranas. For example, in the Skanda-purana (chapter 37), it is specifically stated:
    Nabheh putrashcha Rshabhah Rshabhad’Bharato bhavat
    tasya namna tvidvam varsham Bharatam cheti kirtyate.
    That is, Rishabha was the son of Nabhi, and Rishabha gave birth to son Bharat, and after the name of this Bharata, this country is known Bharata-varsha.

    Since this a disputed topic, and there is no official document by the Indian government which says the country is specifically named after Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant), I suggest removal of the statement. If still used, all versions should be mentioned. Additionally, it must be noted that it is only a mythical claim that a particular Jain named Bharata existed who conquered the whole of sub-continent.
    --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Have quoted OED and EB in the sources verbatim for clarity on the term Hindustan. Please address Points (3), (2) and (1) above. Although Lipner has not been used in the article, the points raised in my reply to blade on Lipner's book are valid. You will need to quote OED verbatim and also find a source which establishes Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: I have partially reverted/modified your recent edits to the section. A quick explanation:

  • I have removed the quote from OED because it was inconsistent with the citation style used on the page (minor issue), and more importantly added 1kb to an already bloated page (which limits its accessibility). That is also the reason, I don't support adding quotes from the 300+ references cited in the article unless a positive case can be made for a particular instance.
  • Instead of breaking "The geographical term Bharat..." into two stubby sentences, I have moved the citation to the part of the sentence it is directly relevant to. Hope this addresses any concerns you had on the issue.
  • I have restored the sentence about Hindustan being occasionally used as a name for India, since that is the only Hindustan is even mentioned in the article!
  • Sangave's Jainism:The Oldest religion you quote from above is certainly not a good source on the topic. But instead of getting into an extended debate on why his is a fringe claim, I have modified the sentence in the section to make clear that the Bharata etymology is a generally accepted fact (as opposed to being indisputable). I have also updated the source to the recent, and very well reviewed work, by Diana L. Eck on the topic of mythology+geography in India that has an extended discussion of the significance of the name Bharata, which an interested reader can look up.

Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations

@Abecedare:

  1. No reason to remove OED and EB quote in sources. It is important for clarity. Am putting it back on. You need to cleanup entire article to reduce size.
  2. You cannot add parts to a sentence which is not supported by the source. So, keep the sentence supported by the citation separate. Am changing this. In case any source mentions the point, please produce the sentences verbatim from the source here on the talk page.
  3. I had not changed this. So, agree.
  4. Every religion claims to be the oldest having derived its heritage prior to its founders; with concepts and practices (modified or otherwise) coming from an ancient period. Oldest religion is not the point. It is about Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). There is no Indian official document which says Bharat (India) is named after Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). Such a claim is made only by the Sangh Parivar. A hundred book can rehash the claim. Does not matter Apte or Diana Eck or anyone else. Their sources are important. This is undoubtedly disputable. More people are required to resolve this. Am marking the portion for which wiki resolution is required. Also note, boundaries of Bharat-Varsha conquered by the mythical Bharat (including the Jain Bharat) must be mentioned; not the general description of Bharat-varsha from later day composition such as Vishnu Purana.
  5. Again, please address Points (3), (2) and (1) above. Although Lipner has not been used in the article, the points raised in my reply to blade on Lipner's book are valid. You will need to quote OED verbatim and also find a source which establishes Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia.
  6. I request admin to take a look into these issues.

Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Mayasutra, I am afraid our discussion is getting repetitive and circular. At this point other editors can weigh in, or you can seek a third opinion, or use any of the suggested dispute resolution processes. I would recomend though that you not make changes to the section of a stable/FA article, until consensus for them is established. Abecedare (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks. Except putting back Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) sources, I have not made any change to the article. Since OED and EB are acceptable sources, I see no issue with that (notwithstanding your claim of 1kb). Noticed you kept my format of restricting sentence to what is stated in the source despite your edit summary claim of "move citation to part of sentence it is directly relevant to (unnecessary IMO, but no big deal either)" :)
Original (by you and Blade)
:
The geographical term Bharat (pronounced [ˈbʱaːrət̪]), which is recognised by the Constitution of India as an official name for the country, is used by many Indian languages in its variations.(source: Ministry of Law and Justice 2008)
Went thru the constitution (source) and found the regional variations are not mentioned there. So changed to this. Yep, its no big deal. However, its about not attributing stuff to that which is not mentioned / supported by the source. Now time to move on two points requiring dispute resolution; that is

  1. Establishing Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia.
  2. Mentioning that Bharat (India) is named after Bharata emperor (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant).

Have requested guidance from User:Joshua_Jonathan, and will proceed accordingly. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

These massive changes requires consensus, this is a featured article, and we had far better citations than Britannica. We have already clarified these definitions at least 3 times. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Lame argument, yet again, which am sorry, but it borders on stupidity. If this is a featured article, it is all the more imperative to have citations and verified info. Hope I do not have to repeat that again. Truly, am tired of having to repeat that. Its a shame the way you use the featured article claim yet again. These are not "massive changes". I did not add new sources. OED and EB already existed. I merely mentioned verbatim what both mention within sources. Why did you revert it? Where is the agreement required for this? If you had better citations, where are they now? Who clarified these definitions? Nope, sorry, Abecedare has been talking on this page without citations (except replacing Buitenen with Diana Eck). In order to resolve Sindhu->Indus-Hindus, please provide sources and reply to the message on Lipner to you. If you and Abecedare provide references, for claims made by both of you in the etymology section, this may not go to dispute resolution. Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

OED is ok but Britannica wouldn't provide source for there information. They are often derived from unreliable sources. It will be more helpful if you can provide the direct citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You are deliberately confusing the issue? Since when was this about OED or EB's sources? This is about stating what OED and EB mention WITHIN sources. What is wrong in doing so? Anyways, it appears you want to create an edit war (typical!). So, well, am not reverting unless an admin is involved. Will wait for 24 hours, then will take this to dispute resolution because it is clear you and Abecedare are not inclined to provide citations. Your last sentence is lame (sorry but really vapid yet again) -- I do not have to provide citations. You and Abecedare need to; because you are making claims without citations / references / sources. It is also clear your are not inclined to reply to my post to you on Lipner above dated 03:08, 23 October 2014. Obviously, you have neither citations nor anything discuss. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reply by JJ: What an endless discussion... A few remarks:

  • Provide diffs when refering to changes;
  • Separate the discussions on Persian Hindus, Baharat and Hindustan;
  • Removing maintenance-tags because this article is a featured article is a nonsense argument;
  • If info is uncited, and someone asks for sources, then find those sources!
  • Find more sources on both, and don't get stuck on OED and EB.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Obviously agree with the points you make, although I am not sure of immediate relevance of some of the points, since the Etymology section in the version before the most recent revert war was IMO already completed and well sourced. If you think anything in there is not sourced, or that any of the sources are not adequate please let me know.
As for your recent revert: Did you see my note above? Specifically points 1 and 3 about the quotes and deletion of the statements regarding current use of the term Hindustan (which unfortunately your revert again deleted; I assume unintentionally). Would appreciate if you took another look at the section content and compare the versions before and after your edit.
Finally about the relevant policy about inclusion of quotes. See here. If there is a disagreement about providing quotes in this article, we sould start a separate discussion since it is not really restricted to the Etymology section (which has been discussed beyond what is reasonable!). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I see the Etymology section in the India article as more of a summary of Names of India. I don't believe going into more detail, such as adding the quotes, should be in the Etymology section. This belongs in the Names of India article and would be very helpful there. The info that was added in the Etymology section can stay if referenced and agreed upon. OED and EB are perfectly fine sources to use. However, every reliable source can have problems and biases. If questions arise, more sources should be found.
For the time being, keep the info in the Etymology section, minus the quotes. Follow Joshua's advice to finally decide what info should be there. Add all the additional info you find, plus the quotes to expand upon the Names of India article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Abe, MayaSutra provided citations from the OED and the EB; your note refers to other points. my revert was not "unintentionally"; don't speculate or attribute, please. Blades stated that additions to featured articles should be discussed before; I was asking for the policy which says so. Please stick to the points, instead of diverting the discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan, The version before Mayasutra's most recent edit already contained all the existing references (including OED and EB). Please again review this version, which I have sourced and updated recently. Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Joshua Jonathan: Thanks for the clarifications. Abecedare is not right.

  1. No source has been provided for the claim of deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia.
    Please see my reply to blade on Lipner (to which blade did not reply); and to Abe saying "Lipner is not clear on what basis he connected Sindhu->Indus-Hindus. You have not quoted OED verbatim in the sources either. Can you find a source which establishes Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. You will also need a source which establishes the term applied to whole of South Asia as you stated".
  2. I asked Abe to quote OED where it says "The name ultimately stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu...appellation for the Indus River." However, he has not yet done so.
    This is part of Point 1 above actually. Despite again asking him quote OED verbatim (here on talk page or within sources) and asking him to find a source which establishes Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, he has not done so.
  3. Abe continues to claim that India is named Bharat after Bharata emperor (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant); despite explaining there is no official government document attributing or attesting the same. Such a claim is made by the Sangh Parivar only. Which is why Apte's (or anyone's) source(s) are important. In addition, there is a Jain version explained above. Yet, there is no resolution on this. Additionally, I request the actual boundaries of Bharat-Varsha ruled by the mythical Bharat (including the Jain version) be included in one short line (if at all any eponymous Bharat must be mentioned in the article).
  4. Thanks for clarifying there is no rule disallowing quoting OED and EB within ref tags of sources. I cannot revert bcoz it can be deemed edit war. I request you to reinstate the quotes from OED and ED within the ref tags.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Etymology part 2

Sindhu->Indus-Hindus

Copied, and split per topic
No source has been provided for the claim of deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India, applied to whole of South Asia. Can you find a source which establishes Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

I've inserted a source-tag. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Indos or Indoi is the right greek word. [24] [25] Also previous/current citation is as good.[26] Bladesmulti (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The source for both the India etymology sentences is the OED entry for India, as cited. Abecedare (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti:

No dispute on Indos or Indoi being right Greek word. The issue is deriving Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India. Please address the issues raised on Lipner's book in the post addressed to you above. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Went thru your source by Ganga Ram Garg which gives a fairly good explanation. I have no issues with it. He notes the term Hindu and Hinduism is a geographical one; which needs to included in the article. Please reword the article and include the source. Thanks. Addition - The author keeps the narrative geographical until the sentence "but in actual practice the term Hindu stands for one who professes a certain faith called Hinduism" -- He does not explain how he reached that conclusion and since when the word began to be referred to a religion. Regarding the name Bharat, he says "the first tradition is generally accepted and taught in school textbooks as such" -- He does not explain 'accepted by whom', and who decided the attribution; notwithstanding that it is taught in school textbooks.
Joshua, please review the source. Ganga Ram Garg explains well but provides no reference whatsoever for some vital claims.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra @Abecedare:

Please quote verbatim here (on the talk page) from the OED what it says about the derivation / etymology.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Oxford Dictionaries (online), "India":
"via Latin from Greek India, from Indos, the name of the River Indus, from Persian Hind, from Sanskrit sindhu 'river', specifically 'the Indus', also 'the region around the Indus' (compare with Sindhi). Both the Greeks and the Persians extended the name to include all the country east of the Indus. Compare with Hindi and Hindu."
I've corrected the url. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And I've also corrected the text in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

OED and Sindhu

Copied, and split per topic
I asked Abe to quote OED where it says "The name ultimately stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu...appellation for the Indus River." However, he has not yet done so. Despite again asking him quote OED verbatim (here on talk page or within sources).(talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

In the same citation, you can find it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Am asking both of you to quote the OED verbatim here (on talk page) since a very long time now. Please do so. Then we can resolve. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
See above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bharat

No further problem here?

Abe continues to claim that India is named Bharat after Bharata emperor (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant); despite explaining there is no official government document attributing or attesting the same. Such a claim is made by the Sangh Parivar only. Which is why Apte's (or anyone's) source(s) are important. In addition, there is a Jain version explained above. Yet, there is no resolution on this. Additionally, I request the actual boundaries of Bharat-Varsha ruled by the mythical Bharat (including the Jain version) be included in one short line (if at all any eponymous Bharat must be mentioned in the article). Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Let's start with the correct Bharat. Two sources have been given, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
[27] Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for addressing these issues. Please see the Jaina version in green above contradicting Abe's version. There are several characters named Bharat in Indian scriptures including minor kings and sages. There is no confirmation / attribution / attestation from official Indian government sources / documents / gazettes that India is named Bharat after Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). I suggest removing this point (not sure what purpose it serves). If mentioned, the Jaina claim also must be mentioned in a brief sentence; along with boundaries ruled by both the Bharats (the Jain Bharat as well as Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant)). Indian myths often use the phrase "conquering the whole world" (it means "their world' with boundaries as they envisaged which need not always be geographically accurate or resolvable / identifiable. For example: Bharata-varsha is considered part of Jambudvipa with Mount Meru at its centre; which in today's time is not easy to resolve). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
(reply to JJ after ec) That encyclopedia actually is not a good source, and seems to get the the etymology of Bharata (emperor)-> Bharat (India) reversed. Apte, Eck, Buitenen on the other hand are solid scholarly sources on the topic. Abecedare (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Abe, you need to quote Apte, Eck and Buitenen; along with their sources. I agree that encyclopedia is not a good source. There is no historical source (such as an epigraph; which is not possible in this case). Vitally, there is no official document by Indian government attributing the name Bharat (India) to Bharata (son of Dushyant-Shakuntala). So, the claim remains disputable. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Mayasutra, start checking those sources yourself, please. if you find that those sources do not state what's in the article, then we can continue. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Apte citation is not clear. Not sure which book by Apte the source refers to. So also with Buitenen. I could not access Eck via google books (no free view available). Been looking at other sources. Nobody mentions their source. They rehash just as Ganga Ram Garg did without any explanation or references whatsoever. Again, there is no official government source attributing Bharat (India) to Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant). Is this point important to mention in the article? If yes, suggest mentioning boundaries of Bharat-varsha as conquered and ruled by this particular Bharat. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
  • Apte: "of the son of Duṣyanta and Śakuntalā, who became a universal monarch (चक्रवर्तिन्), India being called Bharatavarṣa after him."
  • Eck: great source. Read it.
What's the relevance of the boundaries? The use of the term is relevant: "The land north of the seas and south of the Himalayas" (Mahabharata, quoted by Eck, p.64).
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thankyou. The Apte source gives 9 meanings for the sanskrit word Bharat; but says India is named Bharat after the son of Shakuntala-Dushyant. Then again, there is no evidence of attribution. No official source / government gazette / document. Not different from Ganga Ram Garg who also says it is "generally accepted". Accepted by whom?
  • Finally, managed to get a view (looks like this works only when logging in to google). Read page 45 to 47. Good one indeed.
  • Hmmm, yes. But that is for the usage of Hindustan. Not for Bharat-varsha. Right now am able to find these sources for boundaries of Bharat (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant) (this and this) though I can't say if either of them are good. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
  • Please take a look at this official record of proceedings in the parliament. Even they were not clear after which particular personality or tribe, Bharat is named. They conflate with other puranic sources for boundaries of Bharat-varsha but do not mention boundaries ruled by Bharat the son of Shakuntala-Dushyant. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Surprise, surprise... Then just let it go; this is India, after all. Colourfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh! yep that's India. But well, wouldn't that warrant removing the claim from this article?
  • I suggest retaining the statement "The geographical term Bharat (pronounced [ˈbʱaːrət̪] ( listen)), which is recognized by the Constitution of India as an official name for the country,[16] is used by many Indian languages in its variations" --- Besides existing source [16], can mention this GOI one too.
  • I suggest removing the sentence "Bharata, son of king Dushyanta,[17] the legendary ruler in the epic Mahabharata and other religious and literary texts, is generally regarded as the eponym for that name.[18][19]" - Or putting in a short phrase to convey that the eponym was not resolved by the parliament. What do you suggest? --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hindustan

Copied, and split per topic
Jonathan, The version before Mayasutra's most recent edit already contained all the existing references (including OED and EB). Please again review this version, which I have sourced and updated recently. Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

21:57, 24 October 2014:

"Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn]; lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, is occasionally used as a reference to India, the country. Traditionally though, it connoted Northern India to its inhabitants, and was more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent.(sources: OED, EB)"

10:39, 25 October 2014 (minus quotes):

"Hindustan ([ɦɪnd̪ʊˈst̪aːn]; lit. "Land of the Hindus"), also derived from Persian, traditionally connoted Northern India to its inhabitants,(source:OED) or the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain;(source: EB) but was more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent.(sources: OED, EB)"
so, what's wrong with the second version? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Two issues:
  • It excludes the statement that the term occassionally refers to India, without which Hindustan would not be worth mentioning in the etymology section of the India page.
  • The "or the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain" is redundant and overly specific for this page. "Hindustan" has never had well-defined boundaries, and its exact referent has differed with speakers and period (see OED entry, or [28] for even more details). This all can be detailed in the Hindustan page, but is undue here.Abecedare (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare:

  • Precisely Abe. The boundaries of Hindustan was never well-defined. Which is what must be made clear. The JSTOR source you provided all the more confirms this.
  • I do not see an issue with "occasionally refereed to India" or "more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent"; which more or less mean the same.
  • I also do not see an issue with being specific as the source mentions "the region to the north of the Vindhya range in particular the Indo-gangetic plain".
  • Please note, in Puranas, Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant) ruled the Indo-gangetic plain. His father Dushyant was the king of Hastinapur. Bharat conquered the whole of 'Aryavarta'; and became the first king to rule over 'Aryavarta'; where prayer rules were formulated. Which is why in prayer (sankalpam) folks mention "Visnhnor ajnaya pravartamane adyasmin brahmande bhuloke jambudvipe, bharatha varshe, bharatha khande meroyah dakshina digbhage (note location - bharatvarsha is a portion of land to south of meru in jambudvipa) brahmanosya dvitiya parardhe shri shvetavaraha kalpe (current kalpa), vaivasvata manvantare (current era of vaivasvata manu), ashtavimsatitame yuga-chatustaya atra kaliyuge (current yuga which is 28th kaliyuga), prathama charane bhuddhavatare (during the time of Buddha avatara), shalivahana shake (Shalivahana era), vartamana samvatsare...etc..." -- This gives an idea of the time period when it was composed (note the Saka era was started by Kushana emperor Kanishka).
  • According to the Mahabharat, Bharata had 3 wives and 9 sons but was not satisfied with his sons. So he slew them. Thereafter his wife obtained a son with the 'grace of' Bharadwaja and thus came about the rise of Bharadwajas. Whether this is a 'myth' or a 'legend' is upto you / others. However, the boundaries ruled by Bharat need to be mentioned. Contrary to Hindutva claims, the British created a country called India; not Bharata (son of Shakuntala-Dushyant).
    Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Abecedare. What's the point with the remarks on Bharata? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd put "occasionally used as a reference to India, the country" at the end, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing reg remarks on Bharata (the above stuff was for Abe's info only). Its about boundaries of Bharata's kingdom alone. Please see post above to you on boundaries of Bharata's kingdom. As mentioned earlier, I do not see an issue with "occasionally refereed to India" or "more widely used by foreigners to refer to the Indian subcontinent"; which more or less mean the same. So it is upto you. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

Quotes

Copied, and split per topic
Thanks for clarifying there is no rule disallowing quoting OED and EB within ref tags of sources. I cannot revert bcoz it can be deemed edit war. I request you to reinstate the quotes from OED and ED within the ref tags. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

@Mayasutra: can you help me understand the dispute? What exact content change (please provide diff) are you trying to support or want to remove? --AmritasyaPutraT 10:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: Hi, its about rewording the etymology section and providing citations. The points are on (1) derivation of the geographical term Hindu, from
Sindhu->Indus-Hindus and Hindus->India via Greek Ἰνδός and Latin India; (2) official name Bharat (is it after Bharat the son of Nabhi; or Bharat the son of Shakuntala-Dushyant); (3) boundaries ruled by either Bharat; (4) the term Hindustan. Please read the section created Joshua Jonathan; that will suffice to understand the issue. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
@Mayasutra: I have read it and that is why I explicitly request you to please provide diff link for exact content change you want to discuss. And the reference you are using for your argument if applicable. --AmritasyaPutraT 11:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You have not understood. I cannot make content change (or it will be edit war); nor do I want to. Am not making any argument. Am asking blade and abe to provide citations for their claims. Those who make the claim must provide the reference and/or reword as per sources. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
@Mayasutra: 1. You do not want to make any content change, am I right? 2. Can you please provide "exact content" (If possible please provide diff link of addition) you want referenced? --AmritasyaPutraT 11:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Just compare your point 1 and 2. Does your repeating point 2 make any sense? So my suggestion is, leave this to Joshua Jonathan. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
@Mayasutra:If you do not want to add any change and cannot tell what content you want references for... what do you want because I can clearly see you edit war. Why does your edit summary [29] says "No change in content." when you have changed content? --AmritasyaPutraT 12:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd say: I'm getting the feeling that your comments are WP:DISRUPTIVE...Mayasutra, you keep requesting citations and references, and the threads grow longer and longer, without resolutions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's right. FYI, AmritasyaPutra, I changed only one sentence so far -- according to what existing sources say and to include quote from sources within ref tags. That point has been resolved. It is clear you do not "wish to" understand; and are being disruptive. BTW, have made it very amply clear for which statements am asking Blade and Abe to provide references. For the umpteenth time, I do not have to provide citations and references (you repeat this just like Blade). Those making claims (Blade and Abe) need to provide citations / references. Admin BgWhite has assigned Joshua Jonathan to handle this. So I suggest you leave this to one person to handle and do not fish in waters where you are not needed. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra
Bgwhite wrote: follow JJ's advice. That's something different. Discussion is welcome, everyone can participate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
JJ, your suggestion is well taken. Have replied on sources above. Please take a look. Have done JSTOR and scoured google books (with free previews). So far, find nothing useful there. So it is left to Blade and Abe to provide citations for their claims. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I like the quotes in the notes. I'd like to keep them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)