From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.


Under Biodiversity section, I propose to add below: India ranked 24th out of 70 countries in the first Environmental Democracy Index for her progress in enacting laws to promote transparency, accountability and citizen engagement in environmental decision making. Please provide consensus if anybody wants to add or delete anything in the above statement.[1]hey_pal (Friend.hey)(talk) 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


Not worth mentioning. Such indexes are produced on a daily/weekly basis by some advocacy group or the other and unless there is a rich independent, secondary literature on the subject (as for "Human Development Index, even though much of the reviews are critical) they are not worth mentioning anywhere on wikipedia except possibly on the source organization's own page. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Even if I say that India has the third largest onus of controlling carbon pollution and protecting environment. It is worth mentioning to encourage such arrangements. Rest is up to you, friend.hey_pal (Friend.hey)(talk) 07:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC) This querry needs to be completed, please provide your comments.hey_pal (Friend.hey)(talk) 08:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If India come under top ten ranks in any survey of any category it is worth mentioning but 27th or more is not worth mentioning unless it is an esteemed survey which is ecologically or economically very important.Prymshbmg (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Can the British Raj period be added to the infobox under Independence? Egypt includes the Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt c. 3150 BC and China has the First Unification of China under the Qin Dynasty 221 BCE. I hardly think that these are related to the modern day Arab Republic of Egypt and People's Republic of China but we realize that articles on countries are not only about the modern day countries. Is the article on Russia only about the modern day Russian Federation? Clearly not.

Some say that India as a political/legal entity simply did not exist before 1947. This is clearly wrong. Note, the crown colony of India (not really a colony) comprised of British India and the Indian states. British India was under direct British rule while the states were under de facto rule by local rulers but they were still de jure part of Britain's Indian Empire. The British Raj merely means the rule by the British in India (1858-1947). The British Raj wasn't at all the name of the political entity, it's just a common name to denote the British rule of the political entity, India. So I shouldn't see 'born in British Raj' in articles on people born before 1947. In the case of people born in the princelty states, you don't really have to include India but it is clearly wrong to say that they were born in British India, as is the case with Mahatma Gandhi.

Nevertheless, the British Raj was the direct predecessor to India as it had been a founding member of both the League of Nations and the United Nations under the name 'India' and also participated in the Olympics as India since the year 1900. All medals obtained from then to 1947 are awarded to India as they shared the same IOC code 'IND'. British Indian Passports issued by the Government of India had 'Empire of India' stamped on each page and on the front, under British Indian Passport, it said Indian Empire. The Indian Empire was a more informal name, never used in legislation, but I think India clearly existed as an entity before 1947.

So like all other countries that have a wikipedia article, we should include the political predecessors of the Republic of India in the infobox. We already have the Dominion of India in the infobox but I think we should add the British Raj as well. (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015[edit]

Sir this is a article of our country India regarding this article i want to make changes that in the beginning the full name of india-independent national democratic intelligent area because it can express the country india in details that which type of country our india is. Androner philips (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


I believe we may have succumbed to hypercorrection in spelling civilization with an s in the article and the protestors (whom I too almost reverted) may have a point. OED's main entry is for civilization (although some of the cited examples do use the s-variant); Google ngrams didn't even find Indus Valley Civilisation in its databse; and our article is at Indus Valley Civilization. Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been that way a long time I guess, more importantly it's across multiple spots within the article and was the spelling used at the time of FL promotion and the latest FL review. I remember a discussion on this at some point (I didn't participate), should be on the archives here or at INB I think. —SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This is one, but not what I was referring to above, that discussion had Fowler in it. —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick look at some of my books shows that Stein uses "z", Kulke and Rothmund "s", Thapar is mixed with older publications using "s" and newer ones "z" (or it could be geographic, since my newer ed is an American print) while Guha uses "z". —SpacemanSpiff 06:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
with apologies to anglophiles, ize is actually the traditional spelling of most ize/ise words. The use of ise over ize is came to UK English via France sometime after the formation of America which is why ize persists in the US. Still, this ain't going to go anywhere because nothing is going to stop the spelling change war. --regentspark (comment) 10:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, my feeling is that "ize" and "ise" are both correct for British/Indian English, with a preference for the latter, but "ize" is the only correct spelling for American English. - Kautilya3 (talk)
As RP says, this is a can of worms. I had initially thought that we would simply be able to follow OED spellings since Indian spellings usually equal British English spellings. But on the -ise vs -ize issue, the OED is totally in the latter camp and uncharacteristically prescriptive about it. (OED:"But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν, Latin -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize.")
So unless we decide to go the OED way, we are left to determine the relative use of -ise/-ize in Indian sources (both are certainly "correct" in Indian English), which is pretty tough to do and can be endlessly argued. So the best we can do is pick one suffix almost arbitrarily, and simply use it consistently within articles. I am fine with either spelling options. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't care one way or the other (I use -ize personally), but we have to ensure consistency, not change just one and leave the rest as was being done these past 24 hours. —SpacemanSpiff 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I reverted an edit back to "...Civilisation" in large part because the previous editor hadn't left an edit summary. I, too, naturally spell it "civilization", but have come to see "civilisation" as British, and therefore Indian, spelling. The Indus Valley Civilization article may have its title that way, but the article text spells "civili{z|s}ation" inconsistently. Using Greek spelling as precedent seems problematic with regard to pronunciation, as "zeta" was a double consonant, but the "z" in "civilization" not so much so. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of national language = none from infobox[edit]

There is no point in keeping a none data field in the infobox. But if there is a data field none there must be a reference for it that we do not have any national language.Instead of none feild without reference and confusion official jurisdiction language or all the languages in the 8th schedule should be treated as national language.Please guide and comment.Prymshbmg (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained to you that the reference is there in the general bibliography and the fact that there is no national language should be noted. —SpacemanSpiff 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • None is useful because it clearly states that there is no national language. There is no need for a specific reference in the infobox if a citation is available in the main article. --regentspark (comment) 15:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Delhi status[edit]

I notice Delhi is not mentioned in state list but mentioned in Union Territory . Why is that ? Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's officially a UT. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
UT= Union territory which is not a state. Also, please add new discussions to the bottom of the page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015[edit]

India iIs golden Birds. (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not doneSpacemanSpiff 02:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (June 26 2015)[edit]

I make a request to change the official name of the country to Union of India instead of Republic of India.

Reason: The Constitution of India does not contain the words Republic of India. Although popularly sited as the official name, and seen on various offical documents (including the Passport), the term lacks sanction The citation provided on the Wikipedia page is actually a reference to Dunlop illustrated encyclopedia of facts, which is hard to verify because the source is not publically available (is copyrighted). However The Constitution of India Art. 300 [1]states that the Government of India can be sued by the name of Union of India, giving the term an official status in Indian jurisprudence.

The introductory sentence, hence, would read

India (Listeni/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Union of India (Bhārat Sangha),[2][a] is a country in South Asia.

instead of

India (Listeni/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[b] is a country in South Asia.

Samitus mallicus 20:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm marking this as done but that's only procedural, but we can discuss the request itself as it's not a simple edit request and shouldn't just be done by someone.
The reference to "Republic of India" is within the Constitution itself, referring to the Union as "Republic of India" starting from the Third Amendment. There's some missing context in this one, we've had a brief discussion on it in the archives somewhere about the Republic bit. —SpacemanSpiff 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I had myself wondered about the question some years back and User:Lexmercatoria had convinced me that RoI is indeed used as the official name for the country in formal documents, treaties etc. Should we change the citation from Dunlop Encyclopedia to CIA factbook? Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The CIA factbook and EB might be better sources than Dunlop. I think Lexmercatoria used the same point I was trying to make, amendments to the Constitution, and therefore the Constitution itself refer to the country as Republic of India from the third amendment. It's perhaps something to do with the fact that the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution while it was the Dominion of India and therefore couldn't refer to itself off as a Republic, therefore making that change possible after the initial adoption and subsequent coming into effect on 26 Jan 1950. The current accepted long form per both the Constitution (viz the amendments), government usage, and external verification such as through the CIA factbook, EB, etc does point to "Republic of India".—SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. Btw, there have been on-and-off discussions about removing Ganarajya from the lede and mentioning Bharat alone. So how about this:
India (Listeni/ˈɪndiə/), also known as Bharat and officially the Republic of India,[3][c] is a country in South Asia.
The CIA Factbook reference also supports the "Also known as Bharat" bit, but if needed we can add a reference to Article 1 of the Constitution. Comments and tweaks welcome, since this is the lede sentence of the article, which should ideally be stable and have wide consensus. Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with this, seems reasonable. Though I'm guessing the same long form would be applicable in Hindi too, I just haven't been able to find an online copy of the amendments in Hindi. —SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I support the Bharat bit (without the Ganarajya). I also want to point out at this point that although several (not all) Constitution amendment bills mention the term 'Republic of India', they do so only in the introduction to the bill. None of the amendments insert the term in the Constitution itself. Also, As this is the lead sentence, and Bharat is indeed a widely known endonym of the country (in all official languages of country except for English and probaby Tamil), I think it is very important that it should stand out in at least an equal eminence to the name India. Samitus mallicus 09:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(I've re-closed the edit request as this is clearly something that needs to be debated and decided on this page. You might solicit more input from the wikiprojects listed at the top of this page. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Indian Constitution is obviously the authority on these matters. As per the constitution, the official name is just India. Bharat is an alternative name (used in Indian languages). This India is described as a Union of States and a Republic of a certain kind in the first couple of sentences. Hence the "conventional long name" Republic of India. But I think it is wrong to say that it is the "official" name, thereby implying that India by itself is not official. The term Union of India is only used in legal documents. I believe that, in this case, it is a reference to the Union government. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Constitution of India at Ministry of Law & Justice website, Govt of India:
  2. ^ "Dunlop illustrated encyclopedia of facts", p. 91, by Norris McWhirter, Ross McWhirter
  3. ^ "World Factbook: India". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 28 June 2015. 


"The map shows the actual borders and all related claims" Could this be changed to "de-facto borders" or something of that ilk? "Actual borders" sounds like it says that anything else is false, and I don't think people would object to "de-facto". I don't want to change it, because someone might think I'm just changing things to fit one POV or the other. (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"De-facto" wouldn't be applicable to most of the border as the disputed section is minimal and the rest of it is, well, de jure. On the Chinese side, it appears that actual appears to be the preferred term. But this is just an FAQ, the article deals with it properly in that it talks about territories and not borders. I get your point though, probably a better explanation would solve it, not just change in words. —SpacemanSpiff 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've modified it a bit, think it might be ok now. —SpacemanSpiff 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I misunderstood and thought the answer was just talking about the disputed areas, not the undisputed borders elsewhere. I like the new wording. (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015[edit]

i want to change the population stat from 1,210,193,422 to 1.252 billion because the latter being more recent. Rakshit34sharma (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mz7 (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015[edit]

The National anthem should be of 52 seconds and thus i request you to adhere to this request. (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2015 (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. ‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The OP's point is regarding the .ogg file which is 64 seconds long as opposed to the mandated "about 52" seconds (closer to 52.6 in reality). Valid point, but there's no other available recording of good quality. It is the same recording used in the Jana Gana Mana article too. —SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).