Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc?
A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC.
Q5: Why was my image or external link removed?
A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL.
Q6: The map is wrong!
A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.
Q7: India is a superpower!
A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE.
Q8: Delhi is a state!
A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule.
Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport!
A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 September 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the commonly-used name (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see Turkey, where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.
The rationale behind the request is: "Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners".
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.
Change Short description: Country in Asia to Country in South Asia.
Reason: Current short description says 'Country in Asia'(changed to Country in South Asia), while other countries in Asia have more regional short description (example: China(Country in East Asia), Pakistan(Country in South Asia) Japan(Island country in East Asia), Bangladesh(Country in South Asia), Saudi Arabia(Country in the Middle East) and even countries in other smaller continents: Germany(Country in Central Europe), France(Country in Western Europe), United Kingdom(Country in Northwestern Europe) etc. ) Regards, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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
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.
text removed. not factually correct, rather seems like personal opinion of Germans. Wondering, why they believed the priests & warriors were not the indigenous people in India. Their stupidity made me laugh though. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Request to remove pic "US president Barack Obama addresses the members of the Parliament of India in New Delhi in November 2010."
It is a very bad quality picture and the Parliament building too has changed. My suggestion is to refrain from adding non-Indian people in the India article, specially under its politics para. 122.187.117.179 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Bharat" must be added as the endonym in the lead sentence and the infobox WITHOUT changing the common name. Why is the hesitation? Makks2010 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that all the exonyms like Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush) were included, But the most used endonym (Bharat) is not being included. All the information from western sources are considered reliable, but source from government of India is being labeled fake. That shows how neutral is wiki article is. Meanwhile, the Neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia cried alone in the corner. Makks2010 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, the name Bharat Ganarajya is clearly given in the lede as well as in the infobox. Two, the official name of India has NOT been changed to Bharat by any bill or any law or even as per any circular or a notice. No sources are labelledas fake, if they are reliable. Go though WP:RS/P and WP:RS to identify the sources we use in Wikipedia. Here, nobody cares if it is from a government or a king. If the source is not reliable, it is not. No differences from western or oriental or Indian. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which bill or law mentions about Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush)? Going by your logic these should also be removed. Makks2010 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and to be precise, I never asked to change the official name of the country. I have always said that endonym should be included. Makks2010 (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
& Also, Category & wiki page for Countries of Voice of Global South were deleted by editors two days back because it had references from Government of India which were considered not-reliable. What a shame. Makks2010 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I would like to urge you to read every messages posted here, and in your talk page in depth before making further statements. The lede do not mention the exonyms or endonyms anywhere. They are in etymology section which comes after the lede. The next paragraph of the section goes into detail about the Bharat terminology. The artcle Names for India goes into an in length discussion about many names of our country. Also, lede doesn't have to include any of these endonyms or exonyms or whatevernyms per WP:LEDE and WP:FACR. There is an entire seperate section for that.
Secondly, the category and the subsequent article for Voice of Global South was deleted due to copyright violation (see WP:G12), not due to sources that aren't reliable.
Finally, I'd like to say that this article has been a target of discussions for 20 years now and if you think you have something new to add or some changes to be made, there is a really good chance that it was already been discussed here. So, you may go through the huge talk page archive that we have and see if such a step was already done. If not, have a read of WP:OWN (especially WP:FAOWN) to see if you can implement such a change. If such a change need consensus, when it had to be obtained from the consensus and you have to convince over thousand page watchers of this page that that change is justified. If still it is not happening, you can start a WP:RFC and see where the consensus leans to. There is no point blaming the system or the policies and guidelines. This article is a Featured Article that has gone through community review multiple times before getting into the current shape. You can't change something just because you don't like it or it goes aganist your own personal agenda. (Kinda like the democracy of our country. You can't change a law cuz you don't like it, lol). Good luck. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ The Herald (Benison) Thanks for calling me 'agenda pusher'. Bulgaria is a FA. yet the Romanized name Bŭlgariya is used along with official name.
I am confused. The article already contains the romanized name for India, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya", in both the lead and the infobox exactly like the Bulgaria article does. CMD (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've just reverted a couple of those, I'm especially unconvinced by the removal of the sourced section but there may be a reason for it, however none was given. Black Kite (talk)11:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite & @Kautilya3 : How to establish if the source that was added is actually neutral and not a personal opinion of some German guys who living in India in 20th century. Would you agree if priests & warriors castes in India are not indigenous in India? Read yourself below and judge if this is a neutral article?
Perhaps it would have been a good idea to actually give a reason for the removal, then? Though I don't see that the nationality of the author or the date of the source has any relevance anyway, the only question is "is it correct"? If it isn't, you'd need to explain why. Black Kite (talk)12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite : Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to actually click bit more and check before simply reverting someone's work.
Hermann Kulke (born 1938 in Berlin) is a German historian and Indologist, who was professor of South and Southeast Asian history at the Department of History, Kiel University (1988–2003). After receiving his PhD in Indology from Freiburg University in 1967, he taught for 21 years at the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University (SAI).
He was a founding member of the Orissa Research Project (ORP) of the Southasia Institute (1970–1975), and was coordinator of the second ORP.
Specialization: pre-colonial South and Southeast Asian History; early state formation and historiography; regional cultures of India with emphasis on Orissa; Indianization of Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean Studies.
He was a visiting professor at Utkal University, Bhubaneswar (1978–1979), Asiatic Society, Calcutta (1986), and Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (1992). He was also the Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, in Singapore (1987) and of the Asia Research Institute of the University of Singapore (2007).11. Makks2010 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood me. I know who they are (because I did check them, thank you very much) - the question is what do you believe makes their work ineligible to source this article? Black Kite (talk)12:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality of the author very much matter, especially in a sensitive cases like casteism, because often they do not understand roots / logic behind, rather they form their own opinion, which often is incorrect. Including such text in a neutral information page would be approving such opinions. Makks2010 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would explain what the problem was with those sources, as opposed to expressing your own random opinions on people from different nations. Black Kite (talk)14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned that considering priests & warriors people an non-indigenous in India is totally wrong and it proves my point. Which a western person with prejudice would never understand, hence whatever was mentioned in the source is not correct. Makks2010 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to claim that no westerner could ever understand the caste system isn't going to go too well for you, so I suggest you don't suggest that. Black Kite (talk)14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you will discuss them here first. You are experienced enough an editor to know what WP:BRD and WP:EPTALK mean, and you have been reverted by three different experienced editors today. This is especially true as this is a Featured Article. Black Kite (talk)14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very alarmed to see when an editor believes that "outsiders" (here: a German scholar) are incapable of adequately studying/discussing a topic that is tied to a specific region (here: the Indian caste system), and thus apparently believes that sources written by such "outsiders" should not be used. If this continues to be the rationale of their edits (let's see what happens after 24 hrs), this eventually will call for a TBAN. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as simple as that because we do know the problems of Orientalism. The statement they point out is indeed slightly problematic. I had it in my mind to look for better sources, which I will try again now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed along with that statement was a sentence on the "chiefdom stage of political organisation", which does not seem to be sourced to Kulke. CMD (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye ... probably because it tries to summarise an incredibly complex issue in one sentence. It certainly doesn't mean what Makks2010 thinks it means, though. Black Kite (talk)09:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: My comment was not about the source, but about the a priori rationale by @Makks2010 in these comments[1][2]. Being aware about existing systemic bias is different from undifferentiated rejection based on the nationality of the author (or add: "editor", and you have the root of chauvinist traveling circus discussions in WP). –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias is present throughout the western conception of "caste". But German Indology is special still, for having given rise to the infamous "Aryanism".
The present text conveys that the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", whereas the fourth unnamed class alone was "indigenous" and was regarded as "impure". That is a very strange reading that I don't think you will find outside German Indology. We could just say a caste system with ranked classes of priests, warriors, free peasants and labourers arose, without attaching additional value judgements. There is no need to go beyond that in a breif summary of the history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite, @Kautilya3 & @Austronesier : Question is not if any scholar is capable of discussing or studying a topic related to another region. Everyone is entitled to have one's own opinion, even if it is not neutral in nature. But the Wiki article must follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is not the case here. It is neither 'slightly problematic' nor 'phrasing an incredibly complex topic' issue, rather it is an unreasonable & unfair opinion. If one reads couple of paragraphs rather than just one of two sentences from the book (given in the reference of the sentence in the wiki), one will find that the Scholar's work is too shallow and full of unreasonable prejudice towards the Indian society lacking a complete societal view of India. I have already written a detailed email to the author of the book calling out his hypocrisy towards the Indian society with many examples which of course, he did not consider while writing his book.
Anyhow, the sentence in question must be taken down with immediate effect as it mis-represent the most populous nation of the world and is not following the policy of neutrality. Hope, you all would agree. Makks2010 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier : Thanks for getting me blocked, even when I informed you individually that I was in process to improve the article and category, it was not cool though. I will write the article again with all the references and get it reviewed before publishing it. @UsedtobecoolMakks2010 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makks2010: Again, you are confused regarding your rationales of blocks and deletions.
You were blocked for editwarring and the article (and subsequently the category) was deleted due to copyright violation per WP:G12. It doesn't matter if you were in the process of adding the sources then or 2 days later, all the information must be cited when you are entering it in Wikipedia. Please read the disclaimers that comes up before you click publish changes button. You could use sandbox or draftspace when you are testing edits or creating a new article. Also, sarcasm and snide remarks are not going to help your cause. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through almost every archive discussing about "indigenous people" in the caste system. Everytime, the discussion was either left inconclusively or declined by editors as no alternative text was proposed.
Controversial statement - 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.
Proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in menial & disgraceful occupations, arose during this period.
first of all, the Shudra or Dalit were actually involved in menial and disgraceful tasks. They can't change their occupations based on Wikipedia's requirements. hence it was proposed. If this can't be accepted then the whole sentence must be moved.
secondly, present text that implies the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", sound more biased. And factually incorrect. Makks2010 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders, and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in unhygienic occupations arose during this period. Makks2010 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makks2010: The current version of the statement in the article (which you label "controversial") summarizes what is said on p.19 of the 6th edition of A history of India by Kulke & Rothermund, a standard textbook on the subject. Which comparable high-quality source(s) did you use to formulate your proposed revision? Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Prof Kulke book A history of India is unreasonably prejudice and factually incorrect. I have already wrote him an email with contradicting the text from his book with a number of examples. See the above "feedback on the reference book" screenshot of the email. Makks2010 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also what decides which source is a high-quality or low-quality? Is it the nationality of the writer?
What is factually incorrect, will always remain incorrect. I am not the only one that highlighted this issue with the word "indigenous", there are a lot of people have highlighted the same (check archive) including some of the editors too. Yet. the source from a outsider is being considered more reliable. Just because the author of the book is from certain region. This is actually called "slave" mentality, when people can't think rationally rather agreeing to what their master says. Again, Not acceptable!!!. Makks2010 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makks2010, see WP:HISTRS for how quality of history-related sources is judged. Your claims/email are not of much value in evaluating the reliability of a textbook written by two recognized scholars, published by an academic press, and whose quality is lauded by otherscholars in peer-reviewed publications. If you wish to argue otherwise, you can get other opinions at WP:RSN although IMO that would be a waste of your and other editors' time. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
User:Makks2010 has created the Category:Countries of Voice of Global South in relation to the Modi-initiated virtual summit[3] and added it to every country that participated in the summit (according to a Indian governmental source), without 1) an article related to it, and 2) without mention of the summit of these articles. When I first reverted some of these additions, @Makks2010 has added some text to Sri Lanka to comply with WP:CATVER, but only using a non-neutral source by the Indian government[4], and now, they have created the main article (which makes my first objection temporarily moot; the article hasn't been vetted for WP:N and WP:V yet). But still, we obviously need independent sources which tells us that the participation in the summit is relevant for each country article.
I don't care whether the template and the category exist but they don't belong in the country articles. First, you should not be adding categories that can not be verified from the text of the article. Second, the first can not be rectified by adding it to article text because it is extremely WP:UNDUE for any country article, it's not even close. — Usedtobecool☎️18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Here is my feedback on India wiki page. It is a badly a formatted article highlighting "not so positive" side of the country (most probably it is by intention of the editors) and hiding "almost every positive aspect". Hence it requires a major overhauling efforts.
examples -
1) Mention of "incorporation of untouchability" in the introduction itself is mis-representation of India. though the fact is that the untouchability is matter of past now (abolished 74 years ago), it must be included in the article but certainly not in the introduction as it does not represent the country any more.
2) Pre-history section is totally missing, where as it is available in many courtiers’ wiki pages.
3) History of 'North-eastern' part is purposefully not included in any section of the history.
4) Geography section did not even mention about any of India's islands.
5) Topography is a major topic that missing.
6) Wrong information given about number of state-level political parties mentioned. Number of listed political parties in the EC is around 2500.
7) List of top metropolis cities / largest urban areas is not written, whereas almost every other country's wiki page has it. (e.g. U.K.)
8) A separate section should be provided to the languages under demographics for one of the most linguistically diverse country of the world.
9) Architecture section more look like an advertisement of Taj Mahal, Though India has many more architectural wonders other than Taj. The section should be re-visited.
10) No mention of India's Transport infrastructure work done in last 10 year. A separate Transport section would be appreciated.
11) No mention of India’s scientific achievements, if they do not represent a country than I wonder what would. Science and technology section should be included.
12) No mention of world's largest media.
13) India's wide diversity should be included in the clothing section, rather than just highlighting saris and Shalwar.
14) World's second-largest education system cannot be summarized just in five sentences.
15) India's contribution in the WW-I & WW-II should also be mentioned under some appropriate section.
16) Healthcare should have been a separate section, considering that India has one of the largest Healthcare infra.
17) India is known for it's Philosophy & Culture. However Wiki page doesn't even consider it.
Thank you for taking the time to make this evaluation..... I would agree the article hasn't kept up to the FA level we expect especially for country articles.... It follows the format of a decade ago. That being said I think we can work on all these points above. First would be proposal of text and changes with sources. Keeping in mind that changes here is very hard.... thus short and precise changes need to be demonstrated here in the talk.Moxy🍁 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look over WP:Summary style, many of your points simply ask for additions to an already not short article. No single page can have everything, but it is perhaps worth looking into whether your mentioned points are in the immediate subarticles. CMD (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@cmd of course, No single page can have everything. but basic page size analysis tells a different story that how much info has been included about world's the most populous and the most diverse country. Let alone the accuracy or neutrality of the text included in it.
that's exactly my point, Along with the article, it's text and formatting is also decades older, which may not be relevant in 2024 anymore. Makks2010 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it still follows an outdated guideline, but recent changes are updated and incorporated into the article after gaining consensus here in talk page regularly. So, it's not that bad or it's not like we use the outdated style. You may check the article milestones in the talk page header to see the reviews that are done time to time. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would like to question the review process itself.
e.g. How come '''untouchability''' be the introduction of any country? - Wondering what review was done about it? Is it fair and unbiased? Makks2010 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would concentrate on one part of your list at a time. The two that do stand out as being understated in the article are science and philosophy. Note that a number of the topics have their own article (otherwise this one would be far too large), for example Architecture of India or Clothing in India. Black Kite (talk)10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) May I ask India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India? In my point of view, it is important because they have unique clothing as well as architecture.
2) Why only Taj Mahal to be included? Let's have short text about Taj and Also include other wonderful Architecture from ancient India?
There is no problem with suggesting other important items that would fit into this article, rather than the sub-articles.; no-one is saying we can't add anything at all to what exists already. Black Kite (talk)10:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assam is mentioned multiple times in Performing arts and media, where Manipur is mentioned too, and the north-east region is mentioned as a group in Sports and recreation. This may or may not be appropriate weight, but it is more than just a line or two. CMD (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmd how abut the history of north-east? Not even a single dynasty from north east is mentioned, However Mughals got plenty of text. Though the fact is Mughals were actually defeated multiple times by the Kings of north-east at multiple occasion. I understand the article would become too lengthy to read if we include everything. However, The point i am making is that the Article should be more inclusive than just praising Mughals. which more sound like western point of view of India.
You can go back to article and check yourself, not even a single word mentioned about - 1) Shivaji Maharaj 2) Sikh empire 3) Rajputs kings. Hence I am saying the article should be more inclusive without being lengthy.
Also, do you believe any other part of India is more biodiverse than North-East? Yet, north-east itself is not included in Biodiversity section. I have bee saying that article is not really balanced in nature. Makks2010 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not directly related to your specific question of whether "India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India", which I answered. CMD (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1.
Nikhil Kashyap 1, this article is not suitable for student editors. Even an experienced editor needs months to get anything done here, unless you're already one of the major contributors to it. I suggest you pick another topic, or you might fail. My advice is, pick an article that should be detailed but is currently short, or pick an article that needs a lot of copyediting. Is your assignment really due day after tommorrow? And you're starting today? Usedtobecool☎️08:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declining status of women during Maurya and Gupta Empires
Controversial statement - Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin. Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also marked by the declining status of women.
I really would like to get this statement reviewed, which makes no sense. General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. The reference given with the sentence is actually not open to read for all. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide references from reliable sources supporting your claim General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. Also, the reference is an open access from Google books. Anyone can open it and see. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Text to be included - The Muslim influence on India caused considerable deterioration in the status of women. They were deprived of their rights of equality with men.
Funny how you see 2000 year old Mauryan and Gupta Empire statement (that was researched and there is a consensus among historians) about women's stature declining controversial and POV, but The Muslim influence (as suggested by you) as perfectly NPOV and non controversial. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide any Indian reference where it is mentioned that women status was declining during Mauryan and Gupta Empire? Makks2010 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here comes the prejudice towards the Indian intellect yet again. Whatever western scholars say is a line on the stone, but who actually went through the situation are the liars. Makks2010 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is second reference which mentions that ''' With the advent of Muslims in India, the social movement of Indian women was restricted. When Hindu culture came in the clash with a culture far different from its own, the Hindu leaders of the society began to frame rules and laws to safeguard their interest especially the position of women''' also "With the threats of the invading soldiers roaming countryside, women were prohibited to attend public functions and were placed behind the veil."
These were exactly my point of views in my previous statements.
Here comes third reference which exactly says what i mentioned - "The Medieval period starts with the entry of Muslim invaders in India. The span of this period was about 500 years from the Era of Delhi Sultnate to Mughal era. In the Indian history, the medieval age is considered to be “Dark Age” for the women when many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women’s status."
fourth reference proving my statement - "Medieval India was not women's age it is supposed to be the 'dark age' for them. Medieval India saw many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women's status. When foreign conquerors like Muslims invaded India they brought with them their own culture. For them women was the sole property of her father, brother or husband and she does not have any will of her own. This type of thinking also crept into the minds of Indian people and they also began to treat their own women like this. One more reason for the decline in women's status and freedom was that original Indians wanted to shield their women folk from the barbarous Muslim invaders. "
Fifth reference for the same statement - "Unlike in the ancient Indian period, the position and status of woman in the Mughal period was not quite high. Purdah and child marriage had become common. Except those of the lower classes, woman in Mughal period did not move out of their houses. The Muslims woman observed purdah much more strictly than the Hindus. The birth of a daughter was considered inauspicious, while that of a son was an occasion for celebration."
(edit conflict)I am an Indian and I do not have any prejudice aganist my fellow Indian historians. If the fact you suggest has reliable references, and you can show it is true (WP:VERIFIABILITY) from independent sources (WP:INDY) nothing can stop you from adding it. But if you are trying to achieve something else by removing a well cited statement about Gupta and Maurya empire, and add a POV statement, we can see right through it. Good luck obtaining consensus for the change. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already provided links for a paper published at Boston University as well as at Magadha Mahila college, Patna. located at a area which where actually Gupta and Maurya empires were flourished. both writers are independent and verifiable. Makks2010 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makks2010: Please do not flood this page with quotes from low-quality sources and random websites and please avoid unnecessary bolding, which in online discussions is akin to yelling. See WP:HISTRS for the type of sources that are needed to add/edit history-related content at this FA. Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How come Indian sources become "low quality" about a topic related to India and western sources are credible. It is like telling a man, who lived whole of his life as man, that he is never been a man. That's how editors are being acted. Makks2010 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop bringing up author nationality, no-one else has mentioned it. The sources above read as obviously low quality, they have not even been edited for grammar, and that is with no idea who the authors are. CMD (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial statement - Despite economic growth during recent decades, India continues to face socio-economic challenges. In 2006, India contained the largest number of people living below the World Bank's international poverty line of US$1.25 per day
1) Even the world bank has raised the poverty line from US$1.25 per day to US2.15 per day back in 2017. Hence data mentioned in the article is way too old. Refer to this https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND
Also, as per government of India - India has registered a significant decline in multidimensional poverty in India from 29.17% in 2013-14 to 11.28% in 2022-23 i.e. a reduction of 17.89 percentage points.
There's a big problem with using those dates - Page 1 of the report states "headcount poverty ratios for 2013-14 and 2022-23 have been estimated based on compound growth rate of the reduction in the incidence of poverty levels between 2005-06 and 2015-16 and 2015-16 and 2019-21 respective" So I think you could only use the 2005-6, 2015-16 and 2019-21 figures (and they are the ones used throughout the report anyway). Interesting that the Govt press release doesn't mention the data from the same report, that says that the figure fell from 55.34% to 29.17% between 2005-06 and 2013-14, when presumably it was a different Government. You'd have to mention both time-frames. Also, using the MPI measure can be slightly misleading (I think this discussion has happened previously). If you look at the graph on page 9 of the report, 31% of the population are still deprived in nutrition, 43% in cooking fuel, 31% in sanitation and 41% in housing. So I think this can be mentioned, but you'd have to explain in a little detail what it's actually saying (and push the data points back to 2005-2006, as that's where the greatest improvements happened).
Administrative divisions section doesn't mention about 29 autonomously administrated areas of India.
please include Autonomous administrative divisions of India link under Administrative divisions section. There are 29 such areas, which should be given some visibility.
These autonomous administrative divisions are subparts of the main article Administrative divisions of India. There's no point or relevance to provide a link on India's article. It can be given at the see also section of the former article as they form a part of the larger Administrative divisions article. The objective of an article about India is not to give all the possible information in the world crammed up in this one article. Pointers are given for each sub section because of this. The hits and the views that these two articles get is vastly different and a general reader doesn't differentiate between these two. Also, Wikipedia is not for giving more visibility to a specific article or to promote one specific group of ideas (see WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
add a line about marathas in the (top) section
maratha empire is acknowledged by western, british historians (no 1 point) that means it did existed. it also had an area about 2.5m sq km which means it was bigger that 1 m sq km hence a big enough empire to be added in (top) section. it crushed mughal empire by force (but you dont have to write that as it would be equal to indians defeating turks pbuh swt which is not possible so you just write something like "mughal empire was gradually followed by marathas however we dont yet know about how mughals declines"). then add a line stating that three anglo maratha wars resulted in british rule (istead of saying "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed" like if mughals were the greatest before british Uvrajgupt (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, RegentsPark has reverted my edit which can be seen here and asked me to get a consensus for the fact that the Marathas ended Mughal rule and established the Maratha Empire consisting of most areas of the Indian subcontinent but lost almost all those territories to the English East India Company in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha war using the sources mentioned in the diff (about the establishment of the Maratha Empire). Can you start a, 'Request for Comments" for the same?
Hey, may you please explain more about "request for comments", i would really love to help you out.
Making the Raj is good enough (ive only read first few pages) but it doesn't tell you that marathas ended mughal rule, we need another one for the same, we need to find some good source, these days im really busy but will surely look into them in a week or maybe after three or four days, till then if you find something similar, do let me know and tell me more about request for comments, i never heard of it and the web is showing different results for the same Uvrajgupt (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
ADD to initial description after
"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."
Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.[1]Vuquiz (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding some more context to per capita income rise in short description
In the short description it states the following:
"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."
I suggest adding some more context in a new sentence after this one, giving more context to the suggested rise in nominal per capita income. While this number may very possible be true, this lacks some important context for readers.
For one, about 90% of India's workforce works in the informal sector of the economy (which contributes about 50% to India's GDP).[7]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long[8]https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_vol_4_final.pdf (in the foreword, page 5) Since this is, by its very nature, not monitored by the government, its about impossible to give an accurate depiction of average incomes in the country as most workers would not be taken into consideration for this statistic.
Secondly, the per capita income statistic is reductive in itself. It doesn't give the reader an idea on how these incomes are distributed, by the nature of how averages are calculated.
Hence, I suggest adding the information that about 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal economy.
Furthermore, it might be useful to give an example of the development of incomes of an actually formal sector of the economy where accurate data exists. I suggest referencing the findings of a paper by the IZA World of Labor journal. They analyzed the development of real wages of workers in the organized manufacturing sector. Their findings were that wages have stagnated over the last several decades. [9]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long#izawol.425-figure-000012
Otherwise, it might be useful getting rid of the nominal per capita income number in the short description in general. It's a very reductive term that lacks crucial context (inflation, distribution of said incomes etc.).
Put together into a coherent text, the addition to the short description may look like this:
Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1.
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
