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.
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:


Thank you for referring me to Talk Page. I have few proposals for five sections, particularly for Ancient India, Medieval India, Early Modern period, Geography and Biodiversity and I really hope you will consider some of it. It will be both informative and give a basic idea of Indian civilization, architecture, geography and biodiversity in images.

Ancient India[edit]

I want to contribute these two particular images in Ancient India section. The importance of Mauryan Empire in Indian history is notable, I don't think it needs any convincing but Mauryan Empire unified much of Modern India into single realm and their art, architecture and contribution to Indian civilization is notable.

Rock-cut Buddhist architecture represents more physical idea of ancient India. Ajanta painting in that particular image is largely faded and it has also been under ancient India section for as long as this page has existed, it would be good to have some changes to images on this section. However, again i would like to note that architecture gives a more physical idea of ancient India than a partially faded 2d painting.

  • Not sure of the significance of the the Lion pillar at Vaishali (as opposed to the one at Sarnath). Also image would need to be colour-adjusted to remove the yellow-tint (smog effect?), if it is to be included.
  • Subject is fine but the image is is low resolution, inadequately composed, and has overblown highlights. Not a good candidate for this page, where we can be choosey and stick to FP or FP quality images.
Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Abecedare.

  • This particular image of Buddhist rock-cut architecture from Ajanta is Featured Picture, would it be okay to add it?
  • I tried to add at Sarnath edict but it's a non-free image. Lion pillar from Vaishali is significant considering it's still standing and gives an idea of what Mauryan pillars and edicts looked like. I have fixed the yellow tint in Lion Pillar image and have cropped the image as well. If there are any problem then let me know.

I have adjusted colour & re-uploaded lion pillar image, but it keeps changing back to its original state when it's viewed on media. How can i fix this?

Thanks for the follow-up. The Ashoka Pillar image is improved, but I still don't see its significance to this article.
Will let others weigh in. The new Ajanta cave image is quite good (surprising, it is not used anywhere in article space on wikipedia. I am going to replace all occurrences of the old image, with this one soon) and is a possible (part-time?) replacement for the Ajanta painting already in the article. I suggest that the current discussion be used to select a few addition/replacement candidates such as this one, and then a wider bunch of editors be surveyed on which options they prefer.
Aside: we should do a better job writing captions for these and existing images, not simply describing what the image shows, but the context or significance. Some of the current captions in the article already do this ("The Rashtrapati Bhavan is the official residence of the president of India."; "Fishermen on the Chinese fishing nets of Cochin. Fisheries in India is a major industry in its coastal states, employing over 14 million people. The annual catch doubled between 1990 and 2010."), while others do not ("Writing the will and testament of the Mughal king court in Persian, 1590–1595"???). Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Abecedare.

  • I have changed captions, please let me know if it's okay to use or does it need any improvement?
  • It's important to have Mauryan pillar in Ancient India section as they were one of the first unifying forces in Ancient India. Another option would be adding Map of Mauryan Empire instead. That Lion pillar in Vaishali in particular is one of the surviving ashokan edicts still standing, the city of Vaishali also dates back to Vedic period and important Buddhist pilgrimage site.
  • Would it be okay to replace the current Ajanta painting with new Ajanta cave image in Ancient India section then? I would also like to add Mauryan Empire map replacing Vedic period map until we decide on Mauryan Pillar image, would that be okay?

Anyone other suggestions would be welcome for Ancient India section, do help out.

I have added these two images in Ancient India section for time being, and have refrained from adding Mauryan pillar as Map seems like a good option for now until we discuss on adding Mauryan pillar.

I don't like the idea of using a user created map in a featured article since the accuracy of the map is not backed up by reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello, regentspark. Would Mauryan pillar be a good option then? However, This map in particular gives an idea and extent of Mauryan Empire based on inscriptions and Ashoka's pillars.
That looks ok but I think we should see more images before fixing on any one. Are there any other representative images for that period? Harrapan bulls? Gandhara art? A few representative images in a gallery would work well here. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also not in favor of the pillar, it's not a great image and of course it's not the pillar. It's probably better to just add a note against the emblem image to highlight the source. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have tried to find good quality images from this period, there are very few and there aren't any good quality images of Harrapan seals either and I have refrained from adding Gandhara art as it lies in border between Afghanistan and Pakistan today. I feel it's best to add something from India's imperial history from this period. Also, Avantiputra's maps seem reliable considering his work on Indus Valley Civilization maps and Northern Black Polished Ware maps.

Feel free to add more images to the gallery for options. I'm adding architectural images of Sanchi Stupa along with the ones already proposed.

  • The Sanchi images are possibly better additions, though I don't see something particularly stand out from these choices, but that's more of an editorial call you could say that I could be persuaded on 3 or 4. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input, SpacemanSpiff. I will add few more images but there aren't so many options from this period and quality images on wikicommons is also limited. Image 4 was part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. - Pebble101
  • I would also like to point out that Map of Mauryan Empire has detailed reliable sources in the description, it should not be discredited just yet but someone should look into it just to make sure. - Pebble101

Any one would like to contribute to this section as well? do help out Pebble101 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Adding image of Chaitanya Graha and Map of Mauryan Empire would good idea as both of them would cover some highly artiestic nature and imperial history of this period. I suggest looking at Map of Mauryan Empire image's description for reliable sources Pebble101 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note about map: I reviewed the Map of Mauryan Empire and have some concerns. Although the image description cites numerous sources (which prima facie raises WP:SYN concerns), it appears to be largely based on the inset map on page 18 of Schwartzberg Atlas, albeit with some deviations I don't understand (eg, Gangetic Delta region; north-west region etc). More problematically though is the change from showing the boundary limits of the Mauryan Empire circa 250BCE, to shading in the region the Mauryas supposedly controlled. This change may seem minor but introduces a content error, since as the map on page 69 of Kulke & Rothermund shows, roughly 40% (eyeballed figure) of the geographical region within those empire boundaries were occupied by unconquered "autonomous and free tribes". The error was made in good faith and is not egregious by wikimedia map standards, and there possibly is even a justification for this, but unless such issues are resolved, I wouldn't support adding the map to this article.
PS: The caption used when the map was recently added to the article had issues of its own. (a) this is not the map of the empire 322–185 BCE but the map of the empire ca 250 when it was at its largest, and (b) the two cited sources are not the relevant ones, and arguably are even inconsistent with the map. These of course are easy issues to resolve (unlike the previously mentioned issue with the map itself) but highlight the need for discussing and obtaining consensus for image additions/substitutions before implementing them. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Just mark the images you would like to see in Ancient India section
User Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Image 5 Image 6 Image 7
Pebble101 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
user name
user name
user name


  • In Medieval India section i want to contribute Mahabodhi Temple in rotation along with Chola Temple, the importance of Mahabodhi Temple in Indian architecture style is notable because it's one of the earliest examples of Nagara style of temple Architecture dominant in Northern India, it also marks the spot where Buddha attained enlightenment. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There is also lack of information on Jain contributions, Rastrakuta Dynasty (Elephanta and Ellora caves), and Rajput Dynasties particularly - Chauhan Dynasty in Medieval section, therefore i would like to add images in rotation in this section which would be good representation of diverse contributions. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Article already has an image of the Mahabodhi temple. Could be discussed as a replacement though.
  • Poorly composed. Also, significance to history of India? Just being old should not suffice.
Abecedare (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like to replace it with this particular image and move it to Medieval section, since it's important historical and architectural feature in Indian civilization. Would that be okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talkcontribs) 15:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some good options for medieval period, I have specifically picked UNESCO sites as it covers important aspects of Indian civilization from this period. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I suggest we add Mahabodhi Temple and Brihadishwara Temple in rotation as they are both of architectural importance, it will be good representation of Northern and Southern styles of temple architecture and that spefic image of MahaBodhi temple also shows sacred Bodhi tree Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And to the left i suggest we add Khujour temple as it's fusion of Jain and Hindu temples and UNESCO site, in rotation with Elephanta caves another UNESCO site. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have picked best quality images i could find from this period, along with good representation of architectural contributions from this period.Pebble101 (talk)
  • I would also suggest editors to check out India Article on Portuguese-wiki, they seem to have done a wonderful job. Pebble101 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we replace current Chola temple image with this new one? The one on medieval section looks rather old and outdated Pebble101 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Early Modern Era[edit]

In this particular section i want to contribute image of Taj Mahal on the right, and to the left Sikh Golden Temple and Udaipur Rajput Architecture on switch mode. All of them represent some important periods of Indian history along with their architectural contribution. It also show cases evolution of Indian civilization from Ancient to Early Modern India through images.

  • The Taj Mahal image is "beautiful" to look at but not as encyclopedic/informative as other available images, including the one already in the article.
  • Ok with the Golden Temple image, but it may be a better fit in the Culture or Art and architecture section. Also there may be other candidates of the subject to choose from; see Harmandir Sahib, where this image is not even included. Update: Just realized that the article already has an image of the Golden Temple. Open to considering this one as a replacement.
The current Sikh pilgrim one is a better image. We should keep that. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The City Palace, Udaipur is not of any great historical significance (for India, as a whole). I am indifferent essentially. (Again, the image will need colour adjustment if it is to be included)
Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Geography and Biodiversity[edit]

The switch mode for images in these two particular section does not give basic idea of India's geography and biodiversity as it gives only one point of view where images don't change unless you refresh the page. It would be good idea to have them lay out under their specific article which showcasing basic ideas of Indias geographic diversity and biodiversity with information of their importance in Indian civilization.

Here is rough example*** showcasing geographic diversity

I really hope you will consider these proposals or ideas. It show cases evolution of Indian civilization, architecture and religion from Ancient to Early Modern. and, having layed out gallery showcasing India's geography and biodiversity gives a quick view on India's diversity and their importance in Indian civilization.

Many of the images you're requesting or suitable replacements are already included in the article. Most images are in rotations, meaning that a different image loads for different visits (this is also dependent on how your browser is set up wrt caching), but I'll just give you some examples of what's included based on your suggestions above: File:GroupFromNorthEastIndiaAtTaj.jpg, File:Indischer Maler des 6. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg, File:Mahabodhi Temple Bodh Gaya Bihar India.jpg, File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg, File:KedarRange.jpg, File:Brahminy kite.jpg, File:Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide2.jpg, File:Pfau imponierend.jpg, File:Shola Grasslands and forests in the Kudremukh National Park, Western Ghats, Karnataka.jpg. There are a lot more images in rotation, I'm just using some samples that cover yours already, these images have come about after a lot of discussion on both quality (almost all of them are Featured pictures) and relevance. —SpacemanSpiff 09:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
To add, I can see that the Thar image along with the Shola grasslands could be moved under the geo section and placed under rotation along with the Kedar ranges. I'm not in favor of the snow tourism image. —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ancient India, Medival, and Early Modern[edit]

I just checked how there is no particular rotation in this sections, it would not be a bad idea to have one. It's also important that we have something of Mauryan history on ancient section along with architecture around this period, and for other two periods. Can i add those proposed images in Ancient India, Medieval and Early modern history? I hope you will consider it.

As for Geography and Biodiversity section, i was giving a rough example of gallery layout rather than images, I hope you understand what i mean because a single rotation in this particular section can be one sided point of view. A layout with image gallery on roation would be much more informative and do a good job showcasing geo and bio diversity in India next to eachother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talkcontribs) 11:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. —SpacemanSpiff 15:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b c d Gopal, Madan (1990). K.S. Gautam, ed. India through the ages. Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. p. 173. 
  2. ^ The precise number varies according to whether or not some barely started excavations, such as cave 15A, are counted. The ASI say "In all, total 30 excavations were hewn out of rock which also include an unfinished one", UNESCO and Spink "about 30". The controversies over the end date of excavation is covered below.
  3. ^ "Ajanta Caves". UNESCO. Retrieved 29 April 2011. 
  4. ^ The precise number varies according to whether or not some barely started excavations, such as cave 15A, are counted. The ASI say "In all, total 30 excavations were hewn out of rock which also include an unfinished one", UNESCO and Spink "about 30". The controversies over the end date of excavation is covered below.
  5. ^ "Ajanta Caves". UNESCO. Retrieved 29 April 2011. 
  6. ^ {{Cite book
  7. ^ The precise number varies according to whether or not some barely started excavations, such as cave 15A, are counted. The ASI say "In all, total 30 excavations were hewn out of rock which also include an unfinished one", UNESCO and Spink "about 30". The controversies over the end date of excavation is covered below.
  8. ^ "Ajanta Caves". UNESCO. Retrieved 29 April 2011. 
  9. ^ The precise number varies according to whether or not some barely started excavations, such as cave 15A, are counted. The ASI say "In all, total 30 excavations were hewn out of rock which also include an unfinished one", UNESCO and Spink "about 30". The controversies over the end date of excavation is covered below.
  10. ^ "Ajanta Caves". UNESCO. Retrieved 29 April 2011. 
  11. ^ {{Cite book

RfC: Area number and map in infobox should reflect present realities on the ground, not claims?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus in this discussion. To little participation and not enough agreement for any of the opinions. AlbinoFerret 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Should the area number be made consistent with other encyclopaedias/sites' country profile ([1][2][3][4][5]) as well as the wiki article listing nations by Land area? This number reflects area under de-facto control by the country, just like other country articles on WP.

Naturally, the same logic extends to whether the infobox should display the version ([6]) which neither shows other claims on Indian controlled territory, nor Indian claims on non-Indian-controlled territories. A map to display claims is already shown later in the article under 'Subdivisions'.

By leaving the current map (and area number) as is, it subtly pushes a POV only showing Indian claims on other territory, whilst not applying the same to disputed territory controlled by India (Indian controlled J&K + Arunachal Pradesh in dark green). Not to mention that it is inconsistent with how other encyclopaedias and even WP conveys such information. (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This is standard practice, the different area definitions are mentioned in the notes. And it's no different from Pakistan or China map usage. Not sure why there's an RfC for this when there wasn't even a discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 03:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes those articles have similar map usage. For better or worse, disputed area controlled by the country is shown in the same color as areas which are not disputed. I guess this is the wrong place for a suggestion on policy changes for maps, so perhaps we can focus on the area number.
      Please check the article infobox for China and Pakistan where the given area number excludes both states' respective claims. In fact those articles are on the other extreme— the number even excludes disputed areas that they control, whereas this article shows a figure that includes all disputed areas (ie. whether controlled by India or not). Should it not be made (across the board preferably) such that area figure quoted should only be the land under actual control of the state? It would be the 3166414 figure for India. I mean even the note does not mention this factual number of area under actual control, which is definitely misleading for an 'encyclopaedic' article. (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Not sure where the 3,166,414 sq km cited by Britannica Book of the Year comes from (none of the other sources you cited are worth much), especially given that it is contradicted by Encyclopedia Britannica uses 3,166,391 instead. I think we are better off going by the more "official/authoritative" sources such as the Indian government, CIA factbook/LoC Country Studies, UN's World Statistics Pocketbook etc, listing and attributing the varying claims in the footnote (as is already done). Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)I'm not sure what numbers you're using. Our article uses the CIA factbook numbers and map and that's here -- [7], this clearly classifies the parts of Kashmir not under Indian control as being out of the territory. The UN Data numbers are hardly any different. The de facto map is no different from EB. The full country listing from the CIA factbook is here -- [8] and these are de-facto borders. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes there is a complex history behind the number stated by the UN, which I believe is followed by the CIA world factbook. The number 3287240 claimed by government of India in fact includes the disputed area under administration of China and Pakistan. [9] The UN I believe went with the claimed number on the basis that the instrument of accession included the whole princely state, pending resolution of the dispute. For instance, the CIA factbook link shows Pakistan with 796095 area which actually excludes Pakistan controlled Gilgit-Baltistan/Kashmir (it would be 881912 if both these areas were included). Hence, the UN and CIA factbook numbers erroneously quote the Indian claimed number, not controlled (neutral) number.
        • Abecedare, the contradiction with the Britannica article and book is because of the net 10559.966 acres (or ~42.7347 sq km) that were transferred to Bangladesh with the land boundary agreement this year ([10], p.5). It is uncertain whether both governments counted the other country's enclaves as part of its state territory during survey/census all these years, or the extent to which they did so, and therefore the numbers don't quite add up. But, we can probably trust the editors of britannica to have researched the correct number (3166391) that resulted from the agreement. Moreover, I hope both the GoI census link I provided above, as well as the britannica number, clarifies that the current number includes all claimed territories, whereas the 3166414 (or 3166391 after LBA) number is only territories under control of India.
        • If you need more proof, please go to States of India by urban population, note the total area (3287240) and area for J&K (222236), then click on Jammu and Kashmir you will find the Indian administered portion of Kashmir is 101387. So the widely quoted area number includes J&K in its entirety (Chinese and Pakistani controlled areas too), whereas the true number under control is 3287240 - (222236-101387) = 3166391 (post LBA britannica number). In fact the list of states by population is a featured list, such nationalist POV pushing should have been picked up and corrected there as well. (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In summary: It is hopefully clear now that 3,287,240 km2 (current) is territory including areas of AK/GB/AC not controlled by India,[11] whereas 3,166,391 km2 is the area controlled by India, excluding claimed but non-controlled territories held by Pakistan/China.[12] The difference between the two numbers can be verified from the Jammu and Kashmir page, or from the above conversation with Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff. As the user to propose changing the infobox number to area controlled, rather than area claimed as presently displayed, I obviously SUPPORT this change. (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that the 3.287M sq km area includes the whole of J&K (the Indian government could hardly be expected to exclude that from its official figures), and if other authoritative sources cited a number without the disputed region, I would have preferred quoting that more "neutral" number instead. However as US and UN both use numbers close to 3.287M (while using a map separately marking the disputed regions just as we do), I think we need to go with what these high-quality, independent sources say, rather than cite one of the numbers of unknown provenance picked by Encyclopedia Britannica. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The UN, CIA and obviously the Indian government have compulsions related to politics and international law (esp. regarding the Kashmir dispute). So even though they are 'high quality', 'independent' sources, they reflect the facts of political claim, rather than on-ground control. Now, we have to evaluate whether as an encyclopaedia we should convey those political claims (as is currently done in the infobox), or facts on the ground like another encyclopaedia and Indian government census clearly indicate. Mind you, even the note at present does not even hint at the 120,849 sq km difference in dispute, nor the 3,166,391 sq km under control. If a reader is trying to find the actual de facto area held by the Indian state, they should not have to scour the internet or various pages and do arithmetic. It should be the first number they see. So do you advocate no corrective edit whatsoever, and thereby misleading readers at first glance? (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The previous comment above me is in accordance with my point of view, which is that both numbers should be used, with a clear footnote added that explains the discrepancy. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur with that. It's our "job" to be informative, not to WP:GAME things like "high quality" and "independent" (the latter of which the Indian govt., the CIA, and UN really are not; the first is also a primary source, while the latter two are tertiary sources) at the expense of being an encyclopedia. There's far too much "There Can Be Only One!" argument with regard to infobox parameter values. Use WP:COMMONSENSE: If there are two kinds of conflicting values, different readers can reasonably be expected to be looking for either or both, then give both values and distinguish & source them; nothing to argue about.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition Required[edit]

I think we Should Include more about Armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitch Hicking Across Sahara (talkcontribs) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Already in Indian Armed Forces we cant include everything in what is just an overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the name of most important place for agriculture in India ?[edit]

What is the name of most important place for agriculture in India ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We dont normally do homework type questions, have you tried reading Agriculture in India. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015[edit] (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No request. —SpacemanSpiff 11:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


@SpacemanSpiff: I see some old discussion about whether ganarajya should be mentioned or not, but it seems to have been inconclusive. Since the term is mentioned in the lead, a short explanation of it in the Etymology section is appropriate. I agree that it doesn't need to be a big Sanskrit lesson. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

See Archive 12 for the disputed etymology discussuion. Let's also note that the term is there because of it's use in Hindi, not Sanskrit. —SpacemanSpiff 12:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a better source for the Ganarajya in Bharat Ganarajya? Dunlop encyclopedia doesn't inspire confidence. Especially since Britannica uses only Bharat in Hindi.[13]--regentspark (comment) 12:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, it is a Sanskrit term imported into Hindi. So it is in both languages. The discussion in Archive 12 was about whether it was Sanskrit or Hindi, which doesn't impress me very much. I have cited two regular history books, which cite two ancient texts using the term (in Sanskrit/Pali). It is useful to mention Sanskrit because all people of India relate to it, whereas only Hindi speakers relate to Hindi.
Regentspark, if I am not mistaken, all Indian passports are labelled as "Bharat Ganarajya". There is nothing controversial about it. Here are a bunch of sources that mention it: [14], [15], [16]. Bharat/India is the name of the country. Bharat Ganarajya/Republic of India is the name of the State. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ganarajya is just a common noun and the Hindi word for republic, and I don't think its etymology is worth mentioning anywhere in the article, just as explaining the etymology of "United States of America" would not get into the roots of united and States. Ditto for it "dating back to the ancient times"; is there any source or even reason to believe that it was chosen for that reason as opposed to, again, being the Hindi word for republic? Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I am suprised at the amount of "heat" that this edit is inviting! We are not writing the Wikipedia just for Hindi speakers with their common knowledge. We are writing it for everybody. I don't know what was common knowledge when the Indian Constitution was written but I do know that all the freedom fighters of India including Nehru had studied ancient Indian history quite thoroughly and they knew that there were republican states in ancient India. On the other hand, even most Hindi speakers today would not know that. So it is worth mentioning. We are after all trying to impart knowledge to people through the Wikipedia! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya, the "heat" is solely due to the fact that changes in articles, esp. high-profile ones such as this one, are scrutinized much more rigorously than the existing content (which may in fact have more serious problems). And we wiki-regulars are an opinionated argumentative bunch. :)
As to the issue itself: I agree that since we shouldn't presume that the article reader knows Hindi, we should provide a translation of ganrajya, as in the lede. I wouldn't have had much problem with an addition in the Etymology section that just did that; I would consider it redundant but not worth arguing over. However the topic of organization and administration of states and kingdoms in Indian history should be discussed directly in wikipedia articles related to the subject, rather than implicitly though the "dating back to the ancient times" gloss. And what we should certainly not do is impart/imply knowledge that we don't have, based on unsupported surmise, as in, Indian freedom fighters studied Indian history + ancient India had some republican states = the word republic was added to India's name as a subtle homage to those ancient states.
I haven't found any such discussion in the proceedings on the constituent assembly, and the only place the 1950 constitution even mentions ganrajya/republic is in the preamble where "प्रभुत्व-संपन्न लोकतंत्रात्मक गणराज्य" are used as one-to-one substitutes for "sovereign, democratic republic". Of course, my "research" is also deeply flawed since the online debate records I searched are incomplete (missing all the proceedings of the various sub-committees), and there may be other reasons for reaching a conclusion such as yours that I have overlooked. That is the reason we should not be playing amateur historians on wikipedia, and should rely on secondary sources to draw conclusions, and help decide weight issues. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have added better references, including one that makes the connection between the constitution and the ancient history. The point is that the use of gana in this sense, "assembly" for some people or "people of equal rank" for others, is only limited to the ancient times. It hasn't been used in that sense in the Common Era. It is certainly not in Hindi at all. The term came into use only because the Indian nationalists tried to find roots in Indian traditions for all their ideas. (And, I first learnt about the ancient republics from Nehru's Discovery of India.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Lots of interesting material in those refs (and at least on a superficial read, Thapaar and Sharma seems to have different interpretations about how close those ancient Ganarajyas were to class-less democracies). Perhaps the best solution would be to add all this material to the Gaṇa sangha article (Gana is mainly about the use of the word in religious, as opposed to political, context), and then wikilink to it. Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed that User:Kautilya3 is already on the task! Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I like the Thapar reference as an explanation for ganarajya so that part is reasonably well sourced. But we still need a good source for Bharat Ganarajya (passports notwithstanding!) as a name for India. Kautilya, there is no heat here, just a desire for good sources. Well sourced statements, like pickled vegetables, last longer :) Coming to think of it, should we be sourcing "officially the Republic of India" to the Dunlop Encyclopedia of Facts. Surely, we can do better than that. --regentspark (comment) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

RP, see this section for the latest prior discussion on that topic; not that it took us anywhere. —SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015[edit]

I request that the line " In North India, Hinduism asserted patriarchal control within the family, leading to increased subordination of women." from the Ancient India section be removed as I believe it does not adhere to the neutral point of view. Thank you ArunK93 (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The statement is well sourced to Stein, B. (16 June 1998), A History of India (1st ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-0-631-20546-3 and Singh, U. (2009), A History of Ancient and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Delhi: Longman, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9. Reliable sources cited in articles do not need to adhere to Wikipedia policies concerning neutral point of view, Wikipedia editors do. Unless you have a reliable source to offer that contradicts the sourced statement or can show that these sources are not reliable, the statement will remain. General Ization Talk 03:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


Please add a section in the article of SECURITY . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvipman6 (talkcontribs) 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

India-Bharat Ganarajya[edit]

Dear team During My browsing I found a letter miss in Bharat kindly add this letter so it can be got right..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranajeet r (talkcontribs) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)