Talk:India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1: Why is Bhārat Gaṇarājya not rendered in Devanagari script?
A1: See this discussion.
Q2: It's "Bengaluru", not "Bangalore"!
A2: This article uses the name that is most commonly used by English-language reliable sources. See WP:COMMONNAME.
Q3: Why was my content removed?
A3: The India page adheres to summary style, sticking to core topics and skipping excess details. To update economy figures or other content, cite credible sources. See WP:V.
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; nor does Delhi 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.
Field hockey is not the national sport as per this article "In RTI reply, Centre says India has no national game", Deccan Herald, August 2012.
Featured articleIndia 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 28, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, August 15, 2011, and November 26, 2012.
Current status: Featured article

Contents

Updation of images in Economy section[edit]

The images in the Economy section are too agricultural specific, despite the fact that agriculture now contributes only about 20% of India's GDP. Here are all the images currently in this section:

  • Out of 8 images in this section, 5 (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A7) are related to agriculture / diary / fisheries.
  • A8 is of a mid-day deal meal program. This image is a complete mis-fit for this section.
  • As evident, the data in caption of most of these images is highly outdated -- from way back in 2010-11.
  • If the near domination of agriculture in Section 1 wasn't enough, we have another image on paddy cultivation.
  • B5 Another image representing agricultural sector
  • B4 This is just a mobile tower. How is this image adding any value?
  • B3 The image is so crowded. The subjects of the caption (CNG buses and Metro) are not in focus. Very bad image.

I hope that the veteran Wikipedians would understand the point I am wanting to make here. The images badly need an upgrade to accurately depict the rapid industralization of Indian economy, especially in the past 10 years. --King Zebu (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

New Images - Proposal #1[edit]

--King Zebu (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I support these image replacement proposals, but N2 doesn't look high quality too me.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your positive response. Regarding N2, it's a graphical representation of India's exports. Several articles (such as, Canada) use these treemaps for graphical representation of a country's exports. But that said, I agree with your viewpoint that the image is not of high quality since some of the text is not readable. --King Zebu (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • N1 for B3: Yes. N2 for P1: No. N2 is not really an image and we should use images. I agree that P1 needs replacing though. N3 for A1: No. The dairy plant is too generic where BSE is an important building. N4 for B4: Yes (nice picture!). N5 for B5: No. Again, a mall is too generic. Plus, the street vendor market is actually more representative of India than the mall. N6 for A3: No. I'm not averse to replacing the picture but we should look for something more significant. An important factory for instance. N7 for B2: Yes. N8 for A5: Yes (another nice picture). Nice work King Zebu. The pictures definitely need updating so this is very useful. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Regent for your kind words :-) Regarding N3, I wanted to replace it with A1 (and not B1) which showcases a dairy farmer milking a cow. I personally don't like A1 at all because it simply doesn't add much value. It's fine if you don't want N3, but in my humble opinion, A1 should be removed. And yes, B1 represents the BSE in Mumbai (India's financial capital) - so it definitely deserves a place in this article. --King Zebu (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
A1 by N3 is ok (the text could say something about the modern dairy plants and the increase in milk production over the last 50 years). --regentspark (comment) 17:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It has been a week since I proposed these changes and looks like we a consensus here. So, I'll be BOLD and implement the changes. Thanks :-) --King Zebu (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@King Zebu: I'm sorry, some of us were away. Sorry, India is not an industrialized country. The agriculture section might contribute only 20% of the GDP, but it employs 60% of the population. It is the largest sector. In any case, services, and not industry comprises the largest chunk of GDP. As for the mechanized dairy farm, seriously, what sort of fantasy are you peddling? Here is the Economic Times, "Nearly 80 per cent of India’s milk production is contributed by small and marginal farmers, with an average herd size of one to two milching animals." See here And out of the output of 80% of India's cows, which are milked by the farmer's own hands, 34% is sold in the unorganized sector and 46% is consumed locally. Again, please don't distort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) speaking to a fellow editor with respect and good faith is the best way to move forward. Your racist, accusatory and rude attitude towards fellow editors is not acceptable. Again, I will be reporting you. Racism is not acceptable, and racist language like "Hindu garbage" like you used against me. Also note, this article is from 2015, 4 years old. During this period, India added almost 1 trillion USD in its nominal GDP. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
Fowler, a clear consensus had been reached weeks ago. You can simply engage in edit-warring pleading ignorance. For every fact stated in the paras, verifiable, reliable sources were provided. You are requested to disengage from edit-warring. If you have any concerns regarding images, you are to please resolve them on the talkpage before pushing your agenda. --King Zebu (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler, regarding your comments on India not being an industralized country - I believe that you fantasise yourself to be a greater economic expert than Mauro Guillén and Pawel Bozyk who have clearly classified India as among the newly industralized countries. Surely, the agricultural sector continues to play an important role - and why not? After all it has to support more than a fifth of the entire humanity. But to undermine the role of industrial and services sector in India is nothing short of imbecility. And let's even keep that apart, one would be a fool to assume that India became the world's fifth largest GDP in nominal terms without achieving large-scale industrialisation. And in your zeal to push your version of the article, you also reverted content updation to the Economy section wherein latest economic statistics were added - backed by VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE and LATEST sources.
And, I'm not going to claim that you are an imprudent brat (because that would be a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks). But going by your racist comments and past edit history, it is quite obvious that you have a clear anti-India and anti-Hindu agenda - and that explains why you push your POV under the guise of half-witted, illogical comments. --King Zebu (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Struck out a portion of my reply which was not in good taste. --King Zebu (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @King Zebu: I have looked at the discussion above. The following changes seemed to have @RegentsPark:'s consent: B3 to N1, B4 to N4, B2 to N7, A5 to N8, and after initial hesitation, A1 to N3. In the interest of not holding up progress, I will make all but the last of these changes. However, please note that N1 will need to mention Bombardier Transportation, the Canadian company which manufactures these trains, as both the original caption of the image and the image filename primarily refer to Bombardier; Delhi seems to be secondary. I am however not agreeable to A1 to N3, as this is based on an erroneous reading of the sources stemming from confusion between the harvesting or production of milk and its processing. The production is almost entirely, as of 2018, done in small holder farms by hand-milking. In a section below I have exhaustively discussed this. The processing has been done in India since the late 1950s, but has lately picked up pace, as processing units procure more milk from these small holder farms. The production has increased remarkably in the last 20 years, making India the world's largest producer. Still, a large percentage of the milk is consumed locally or in the unorganized sector. Indians themselves are consuming more milk. I am however not agreeable to the textual changes in the Economy section, as they were not discussed on this talk page; indeed King Zebu edit warred with RP to reinstate his initial edit. That will need to be discussed afresh here. Yes, the Economy section needs to be revised, but it can't be done in a few hours. There are complex issues which all need to be mentioned with DUE weight. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

PS I have now made these changes. I too like N7 and N8. Kudos to King Zebu. I have also changed the rotation to one of incrementing every day, rather than randomly being picked for every user each time they logged in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

New Images - Proposal #2[edit]

--King Zebu (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I think both the original B8 and the one you replaced it by can be replaced. But none of these are any better. N11 might work though so, if nothing better can be found, I'd go with that. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
B8 was added on the fly without discussion. It is not there in the current version. N11, however, is too blurry.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Numbering system[edit]

Following on from this and subsequent edits, the discussion below has been copied from User_talk:Azuredivay#Your_edits_to_India to encourage wider consensus following temporary protection from editing.

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities for commonality. It will be better if you get yourself familiarized with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, what part of "discuss this further in talkpage" did you not understand? You should wait for my response atleast before engaging in revert war. --King Zebu (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I did, wiki guidelines do mention context, and in the context of the topic of the article, the numbering does make sense, and I add links to alternate numbering. As for reverts, I did as you did, I wouldn't want people to be devoid of information due to your delay in deciding what you think if the right way to write.

Wiki guidelines at MOS:NUMERAL also mention "Group digits in Western thousands-based style (e.g., 30,000,000; not 3,00,00,000)", which you have ignored again. Please read the manual of style properly before editing further, especially the item stating "Sometimes, the variety of English used in an article may suggest the use of a numbering system other than the Western thousands-based system. For example, the South Asian numbering system is conventionally used for certain things (especially monetary amounts) in South Asian English. This is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities_for_commonality." Bazza (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Discouraged, not disallowed.

Indeed. And Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities_for_commonality goes on to say "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)." It also adds "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary.", which is not what you have been doing. Also, "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.": the South Asian numbering system is not less ambiguous or clear to the majority of English Wikipedia readers, many of whom may not have English as their first language, nor any familiarity with the numbering system concerned. It is good to see that you have refrained from further disruption. Bazza (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
It looks like I've assumed good faith which you have not earned, and you are still disruptively editing. I've struck out my previous comment. Bazza (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not name it 'disruption' when it isn't withholding information. I'm stating both numbering systems with links to both, seeing how it's an article on India, I'll stick to it being written in both Indian numbering system and the other one.

But you are not doing that. You have repeatedly used two-digit groupings for large numbers (such as population); you redid your change which was reverted with a request (from User:King Zebu) to discuss first which you ignored. You have also ignored the instructions "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." which I referred to above. That is disruption. Bazza (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And you say this while you're ignoring that if those were the violating edits, why were all of my crore (million) edits were removed too. That said, I could do the same with comma separated numbers with INS(Other NS) if that helps my edit be more in line with Wikipedia standards

Pressing "undo" reverts everything in an edit. It's more likely to happen if you make many changes in the same edit; do not provide any useful information in the edit summary; and do not engage in discussion when asked. Having large numeric values specified twice in two different formats is not acceptable: you should use three-digit separation only as specified at MOS:NUMERAL. Your primary use of uncommon number names (such as crore and lakh) ignores Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities_for_commonality. And you are making all these changes in defiance of "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." I do not understand why you persevere in this behaviour. If you do not like the MOS standards then petition to get them changed to suit your preferences rather than persistently edit disruptively. Bazza (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I did provide that information previously, until all of them were ignored. That said, I intend to keep it in Indian numbering system seeing how the article is indeed written in "Indian English" which sees those words as dictionary words.

End of copy Bazza (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Restoring last good version[edit]

I suggested to the protecting admin, CambridgeBayWeather, that reverting the disruptive addition was important, especially since there is erroneous information, some of which is in the lead. No action was promised or has been forthcoming. Is it worth trying to get someone to revert before Wednesday, December 26? Dhtwiki (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What are we referring to when we say "erroneous" information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talkcontribs) 07:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I put the errors in my post on CambridgeBayWeather's user talk page. IIRC, the lead says that India has a population of 1,200 crore, which equals 12 billion. There's also one other erroneous conversion, farther down, in a section on geological origins, where 7.5 lakh equals 75 million, where obviously crore is meant. Not huge errors, but, esp. the first, apt to puzzle some people and make them wonder at why the article is a featured one. Add to that all the odd usage of digit separators, which is practically unique on WP, although in line with Indian usage. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
All you need for a change is a few people agreeing to it on this talk page. Then use {{edit protected}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This protection is a good example of disruptive mindless administration. I don't know why people feel the need to administer something without doing any proper analysis of the problem.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The article's improvement was going nowhere. Protecting it for a short period has given a breathing space for calming down, and time for the discussion to be moved from the disruptive editor's talk page to the article's talk page so more people can participate, which seems to have worked. Bazza (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion regarding content. This discussion is about the protection policy, not about the content.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This discussion falls under the heading "Numbering system", the first part of which arose from disruptive content changes. This subsection is about the protection which was applied as a result of those changes. You commented that the protection was applied without due thought to the problem at hand. I disagreed with that because I think the protection has served its purpose, frustrating though it is to the editors involved, including me. I never mentioned "content", only the protection process which has been gone through in this instance. If you are making general comments about protection policies, there are probably better places to get a more productive discussion than on the India article's talk page. Bazza (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope we stick to the current edit with Indian numbering system in parallel to the more common one used throughout wiki, as the words are part of Indian English that the page is written in, and add more information without withholding anything or giving any wrong information - Azuredivay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talkcontribs) 20:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is not to be confused with Indian English, where your content may have a valid place. This article is not about Indian English, but about India, the country. I don't see any evidence of that this article has been written in Indian English?! --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Read the top, the article IS in Indian English, with local numbering making more sense to local readers, for other readers the other numbering is provided as well. This serves more people as more understand the context and gravity of what is being talked about. - Azuredivay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talkcontribs) 13:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Azure, firstly please sign your comments on talkpages. Secondly, I urge you to look at the other side of the coin. While you do have a point in promoting Indian numbering system, especially on India-related articles - your strategy of including both Indian and Western numbering system is flawed. Including both numeral systems unnecessarily lengthens the text and creates more confusion. It doesn't add ANY value to the article and besides, vast majority of English-speaking Indians are anyways aware of Western numbering system (millions & billions vs. lakhs & crores). This the main India article and needs to be to-the-point. Tomorrow, someone will start pushing Hinglish in an attempt to "make sense to local readers". Please provide evidence to backup your claim that English-speaking Indians cannot make sense of millions and billions. Lastly, Wikipedia policy clearly discourages usage of inconsistent terminologies and since the vast consensus here is against your proposed changes, maybe you should take a rest. --King Zebu (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought there was a policy or guideline that explicitly mentioned idiosyncratic Indian numerical expressions as exceptions to adhering to Indian English in an article but could not find such. If there is one, perhaps it could be pointed out. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
MOS:NUMERAL states "Sometimes, the variety of English used in an article may suggest the use of a numbering system other than the Western thousands-based system. For example, the South Asian numbering system is conventionally used for certain things (especially monetary amounts) in South Asian English. This is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by WP:Manual of Style § Opportunities for commonality.", and provides some more instructions including "Group digits in Western thousands-based style (e.g., 30,000,000; not 3,00,00,000)". Bazza (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
That must be it. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Having being educated in India for the most part, I know western numbering is a part of CBSE's curriculum which is followed by most Indian schools, it Is not the numbering we use in Maths/English, anything beyond knowing that "this is what western numbering is and this is how you can convert". My sole reason for this change is the fact that me, like most other Indian readers, spend a big chunk of our time converting millions to lakhs/crores as the former does not accurately show the "gravity" of the number in question. That said, my intention of having both numbering system does NOT increase the article length to the point where it is disruptive to read. And it does help more readers understand what is being talked about. - Azuredivay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talkcontribs) 16:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

What is disruptive is that your conversions were wrong in at least two instances and there have been two or three posts here, outside those of the regular group, trying to correct one of them. Never mind your obstinacy in thinking the article should be the way you want it, in spite of those who should have alerted you to the fact that your point of view is an unusual one and never mind the full protection of one of the most frequently accessed articles on Wikipedia, which I think may be unique in my experience. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Languages spoken in India:

Malayalam language from Kerala Tamil language from Tamil Nadu Hindi India's national language Marathi language from Maharashtra Telungu language from Andhra Pradesh Punjabi language from Punjab Bengali language from West Bengal Kannada language from Karnataka — Preceding unsigned comment added by I 1!WOW (talkcontribs) 14:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Population[edit]

There's a mathematical problem in the infobox. It should say (for 2016) 1,324,171,354. The same for 2011.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, completely understand your confusion. Unfortunately, an Admin thought it was best to reward someone who engaged in edit-warring, POV-pushing and violated Wikipedia MOS guidelines --King Zebu (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey team wikipedia,kindly correct the population of india written in very starting of the article.Actually india's population is around 121crore(census 2011),but in this article it is mentioned that india's population is 1200 crore insted of 121 or 120 crore.So kindly correct it. Ankit Singh dhannu (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

We've noticed that population figure is wrong, but the article is under full protection, due to edit warring, which has prevented most of us from correcting it until tomorrow (hopefully). However, thank you for mentioning this, as it justifies the urgency in correcting it that some of us have felt and that we feel others should have shared. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for 49.14.101.189 (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Needs a bit for information on what you think is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 December 2018[edit]

Total population is not rightly quoted. 122.162.29.109 (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. General Ization Talk 05:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Unofficial version of national anthem with incorrect timings[edit]

Why is an unofficial version of national anthem with incorrect timing is used in Wikipedia? 1337 siddh (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Large scale edits to India Comment[edit]

I have reverted large scale edits to this article to the last stable version edited by @RegentsPark:. To the editors engaging in these edits, please note: India is a featured article. Please read WP:OWN#Featured_articles for guidelines on how to edit an FA. For adding anything significant, sometimes even one sentence, you need to gain consensus on the talk page first, especially when an edit has been challenged. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Highpeaks: has undone your reverts fowler. Highpeaks, I'm going to revert you. The edits largely contain many new images and the consensus for images on this article are that they should only be changed by consensus. Some of the changes do have consensus and I'm pinging @King Zebu:, with apologies, so that those changes can be restored. Highpeaks, please look at the discussion on the top of this talk page to see how to go about proposing changes to the images in this article. --regentspark (comment) 22:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Highpeaks35:. (Fixing bad ping above.)--regentspark (comment) 22:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: this version has tons of old data and there are tons of updated references and info. It will be best to restore and remove areas that are not agreeded upon. This is too much revision to have any discussion. Let me know what you think. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC))
I will leave the changes here. If anyone has objections, please advise. If not, I will restore the updated data, images, and content. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC))
(ec) Could you give examples of the old data? I think 2019 gdp estimates are premature so 2018 is probably better. Are there other examples?--regentspark (comment) 22:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Data was one of the several points. But, it seems population data is also reversed and others. As mentioned, there are tons of updated info and references. Again, if there is no objection, I don’t see what is the issue of restoring. I was under the assumption of Wikipedia:There is no deadline, plus it is not a protected article. Again, if there is objection, the content will be changed, if not, we should restore. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC))
You can't restore the image changes because those need consensus. If you think some data is incorrect, go ahead and change those. --regentspark (comment) 23:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: thank you so much! Will do. :) (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

───────────────────────── @Highpeaks35: You're still adding images without consensus and you can't do that without appearing disruptive. I'm going to revert your edits again, let the discussion below run its course first. --regentspark (comment) 02:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Which image? I thought I removed all of them? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Economy section images[edit]

Regent, I cannot restore the last good version of Economy images. We had clearly built consensus here for these images and if Fowler has a problem with these images too, then the ball is in his court to build consensus to remove the Economy section images. --King Zebu (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

New Images - Proposals[edit]

Please let me know if there are any objections to these new rotating images. Kindly comment below. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

New Images - Clothing[edit]

Rotate
Traditional Hajong Pathin and Argon from Northeast India.
Images

Support or Oppose[edit]

  • Support: The rotating image provides value to section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose: Unmitigated garbage. All stitched clothes were introduced to India by the Muslims; all garments of gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheons in Hindu temples in North India are made by Muslim tailors. Indeed the profession of a tailor in north India is usually associated with Muslims. What is all this Hindu garbage. The Hindus wore only draped clothes before the Muslim conquest of India. This is documented in several books on the history of clothing in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Highpeaks35: I apologize for the intemperate and ambiguous language. Nothing personal was meant. I have scratched that bit.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Your bigitory with the above statement is not acceptable. No one made it Hindu vs. Muslim. It is about Indian clothing, regardless they are from Northeast, North, South and historical image of drapes. Again, you need to apologize for your language like "Hindu garbage".
@Anarchyte, Oshwah, and RegentsPark: please see the above statement by User:Fowler&fowler, such racist and religiously sectarian and communal language should not be permitted on wiki. "Hindu garbage" - are you kidding me? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
The bigotry is not mine; it is yours. You are the one who is relentlessly introducing "Hindu" when Hindu is irrelevant, advertising the garments in the context of Hindu, when the garments were introduced by Muslims into India. Sherwani, achkan, paijama, are all Muslim garments. Please don't try project your own biases on others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
PS And what about the elitist, Bollywood, culture masquerading as Indian culture. Really? Most Indian women wear string blouses with their saris? What percentage? 0.01% That is true racism, showcasing light-skinned Bollywood actresses wearing apparel out of the reach of 99% of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in those cloths were religion based. Only the wedding were mentioned. You bought the crude language, by using "Hindu garbage". Those cloths, as described, are worn by majority of people, cherry-picking one sting blouses pic is non-issue and we could have removed that. Now you are bringing skin color? Wow!!! I am lost for words. Only 3 pics are Bollywood, two images are from the northeast, and two wedding photos and 2 artistic. Your racism and bigotry is unacceptable. I will do everything to report you. Calling me and my edits "Hindu garbage" will not get you anywhere. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
I agree with you. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Don't know how he's allowed to still do edits inspite of his bigot comments and bias clearly stated here. 1337 siddh (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose : because it does not adequately represent the Indian ethnic dressing. South Indian dresses are missing. --DBigXray 13:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
DBigXray, what specific South Indian dress are you refering to? Saris and Dhotis are the main south Indian dresses, and both are listed. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
Please google South Indian dress also It is mostly Sari pics, gents wear should also be added.--DBigXray 23:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This just isn't everyday wear, any person wearing this stuff everyday will be laughed at. Also, the midriff and navel stuff is extremely one-sided and doesn't take into consideration a major portion of the Indian population. Even if we consider that this is ceremonious wear it is still way out of touch with the realities. Regards. — fr 05:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I concur with User:FR30799386--DBigXray 23:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - at least for the actresses and the Arvind Singh Mewar wedding. Google gives quite another impression for group Indian women, let alone group Indian men. [2] surely must be helpfull here.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Love your images Joshua Jonathan. However, King Zebu and Highpeaks35 are looking to portray the Shining India and consider such images "poverty porn," to use KZ's expression. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your input. I have removed them and added one of your image. Let me know if you vote changes. Thanks for being easy to work with, unlike Fowler&fowler. Just his above statement was simply uncalled for, rude and bigoted. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
@DBigXray and FR30799386: Joshua Jonathan made very good recommendations, let us know if the above now is acceptable. Or if there are more images you recommend. Please put it below. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Comment I have now loaded all the images currently in the article in the subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India. There are a total of 71 images in the article, including ten Featured Pictures. Many pictures are part of a rotating stack, so you won't see them all the time. The rotation was originally cyclic, incrementing by one every day. However a few years ago someone, without any discussion, changed it to random rotation, which means that the images are chosen randomly in the stack. Therefore, you might see the same image on two consecutive days, or you might not see it for many days, more days than there are images. I have pinged the editor who did this, and, in the absence of a reply, will be changing it back to cyclic rotation. Anyway, I have the sense that many editors are not aware of the full range of images that are already in the article. Please take a look at those images, and make your suggestions in the context of what is there. Please note that clothes, some beautiful ones, appear in many of these pictures. If you want some images removed, please make those suggestions too, suggesting replacements. I will soon be creating another subpage consisting of Wikipedia India-related featured pictures that are not already in the article. Once that page will be ready, there will be more choices available. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Highpeaks35: no need to repeat statements like "bigoted." And don't be mistaken: I can be a pain in the ass when I sense unjustified behavior. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: do you have more recommendations? I want to win your vote. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
How about this lungi image? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
Bhangra dancers in lungi.
I would prefer 1 instead of 3 (Women with dupatta.jpg) since it is a frontal image of the group of ladies. The group of Men in Bangalore is also good. the pic of child in Lungi is again not a representational pic of Indian dressing. --DBigXray 13:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

New Images - Cuisine[edit]

Rotate
South Indian style vegetarian thali served in a restaurant.
Images

Support or Oppose[edit]

  • Support: The rotating image provides value to section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose Again, unbridled nonsense. Why the surfeit of "vegetarian thalis?" What percentage of Indians are vegetarians and go to a restaurant to order vegetarian thalis. What is in these thalis? Is it explained? If not, how is that information encyclopedic? (The trader castes of North India, particularly fussy about food to the extent of avoiding onions and garlic, hardly ever eat out.) At least the previous images are not the cheap, quick, ones lifted from restaurants. Besides, where is the Goan beef curry, the Dalit pork curry, the Muslim Kalia or the pasanda, the mutton/buffalo nehari, the Hyderabadi mutton biryani? The Bengali or Assamese fish dishes? Strongly object to one editor flooding this page with information-less images. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fowler's views are spot on here. here is the article with the numbers. Vegetarian India A Myth? Survey Shows Over 70% Indians Eat Non-Veg, Telangana Tops List The list above has been cherry picked for vegetarian food with complete disregard to the figures and eating habits of 70% of Indians. It might have been inadvertent but the images selected does not adequately represent Indian cuisine. --DBigXray 13:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
DBigXray, the Assamese, Sikkimese, and Bengali thalis are non-vegetarian. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose The images don't in any form what so ever encompass the length and breadth of the Indian cuisine. Most of the thali's here are typical of those served in restaurants not belonging to the region which the thali is said to represent. Just looking at the Bengali thali tells me that there are five? meat dishes whereas a typical bengali meal contains only one. The Rajasthani thali is served in styrofoam plates coated with a silver lining? To top all of that of, the picture quality is horrible as is the captions which don't at all explain the components of the thali properly. — fr 05:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is all restaurant dishes. See commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Food_of_India.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now loaded all the images currently in the article in the subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India. There are a total of 71 images in the article, including ten Featured Pictures. Many pictures are part of a rotating stack, so you won't see them all the time. The rotation was originally cyclic, incrementing by one every day. However a few years ago someone, without any discussion, changed it to random rotation, which means that the images are chosen randomly in the stack. Therefore, you might see the same image on two consecutive days, or you might not see it for many days, more days than there are images. I have pinged the editor who did this, and, in the absence of a reply, will be changing it back to cyclic rotation. Anyway, I have the sense that many editors are not aware of the full range of images that are already in the article. Please take a look at those images, and make your suggestions in the context of what is there. Please note that clothes, some beautiful ones, appear in many of these pictures. If you want some images removed, please make those suggestions too, suggesting replacements. I will soon be creating another subpage consisting of Wikipedia India-related featured pictures that are not already in the article. Once that page will be ready, there will be more choices available. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment hi all, I would like to draw the attention of the users to Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Indian_cuisine_personal_user_awards#top which contains some very nice pictures of Indian cuisine that are fit for an FA article. Please take a look and include some of them. At the very least please make sure to include this Tandoori Chicken pic. regards --DBigXray 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear @DBigXray:, Those are excellent pictures, and show individual dishes. I can't decide though if they are pictures of restaurant food or include home food as well, in the way that @Joshua Jonathan:'s pictures do, or as one-half of the picture currently in the article does. We have to strike a balance between the different forms of available food, special occasions food, peasant food, home food, restaurant food, and so forth, but you've given us a lot to think about. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

New Images - Literature[edit]

Rotate
Rama and Hanuman fighting Ravana from Ramavataram, an album painting on paper from Tamil Nadu, c. 1820 CE.
Images

Support or Oppose[edit]

  • Support: The rotating image provides value to section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Object strongly to all. All poor quality. All are pictures from texts. No explanation of what the texts say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. 3 pics from Ramayana-Mahabharata and one Tamil author, again a very poorly thought selection of images. The nominator has not explained any kind of justification for this selection and appears to me be done without much thoughts.--DBigXray 13:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - follow the text, and give illustrations to the text. Tghe illustratins above seem okay to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now loaded all the images currently in the article in the subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India. There are a total of 71 images in the article, including ten Featured Pictures. Many pictures are part of a rotating stack, so you won't see them all the time. The rotation was originally cyclic, incrementing by one every day. However a few years ago someone, without any discussion, changed it to random rotation, which means that the images are chosen randomly in the stack. Therefore, you might see the same image on two consecutive days, or you might not see it for many days, more days than there are images. I have pinged the editor who did this, and, in the absence of a reply, will be changing it back to cyclic rotation. Anyway, I have the sense that many editors are not aware of the full range of images that are already in the article. Please take a look at those images, and make your suggestions in the context of what is there. Please note that clothes, some beautiful ones, appear in many of these pictures. If you want some images removed, please make those suggestions too, suggesting replacements. I will soon be creating another subpage consisting of Wikipedia India-related featured pictures that are not already in the article. Once that page will be ready, there will be more choices available. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

New Images - Architecture[edit]

Rotate
Built during the course of the 15th century by Rana Kumbha, the walls of the fort of Kumbhalgarh claimed to be the one of the longest continuous wall.
Images

Support or Oppose[edit]

  • Support: The rotating image provides value to section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose : because it does not adequately represent the Indian architecture. It is surprising to not see Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Char Minar, etc, from Islamic architecture in a list of Images that is supposed to represent Indian architecture. Again a very poorly thought selection of images. The nominator has not explained any kind of justification for this particular selection and appears to me be done without much thoughts.--DBigXray 13:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
DBigXray, Taj Mahal and Red Fort are already in the article, they provide other info like government, tourism or religion. But, we can add Char Minar or others if it makes any difference. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
DBigXray, I have added Char Minar. Let me know if your vote changes. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Support: There are very few images in the India article which represent Hindu architecture. We already have an image of Taj Mahal (which represents Islamic Mughal style) and Rashtrapati Bhawan (which represents Anglo-Indian style). Given the fact that Hindu architecture represents native Indian architectural style doing back to thousands of years, it definitely deserves representation in the article. --King Zebu (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. 1337 siddh (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan, thanks! I think Toda Hut is a great addition. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
Joshua Jonathan, I have added it above. Let me know if your vote changes. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
@Joshua Jonathan:, @Highpeaks35: The Toda Hut, a Wikipedia featured picture, has been in the article for upward of ten years. It is in a rotating stack in the culture section: [[File:Toda Hut.JPG|thumb|A [[Toda people|Toda]] tribal hut exemplifies [[Indian vernacular architecture]].]]. Please note that the article already has 71 pictures. We can't add many more pictures. There are already pictures of cuisine and cooking, four or five, some with two sections, in the society section rotation group, and clothing appears in the demographic section image rotation, in the apparel worn by various diverse individuals; we can simply add the name of the clothing in the caption. These pictures already cover a wide range of clothing. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now loaded all the images currently in the article in the subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India. There are a total of 71 images in the article, including ten Featured Pictures. Many pictures are part of a rotating stack, so you won't see them all the time. The rotation was originally cyclic, incrementing by one every day. However a few years ago someone, without any discussion, changed it to random rotation, which means that the images are chosen randomly in the stack. Therefore, you might see the same image on two consecutive days, or you might not see it for many days, more days than there are images. I have pinged the editor who did this, and, in the absence of a reply, will be changing it back to cyclic rotation. Anyway, I have the sense that many editors are not aware of the full range of images that are already in the article. Please take a look at those images, and make your suggestions in the context of what is there. Please note that clothes, some beautiful ones, appear in many of these pictures. If you want some images removed, please make those suggestions too, suggesting replacements. I will soon be creating another subpage consisting of Wikipedia India-related featured pictures that are not already in the article. Once that page will be ready, there will be more choices available. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Mostly support' - There needs to be more variation and images of pre-Muslim styles and also what King Zebu said earlier. 1337 siddh (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

New Images - Sports[edit]

Rotate
Indian hockey team, captained by Dhyan Chand (standing second from left), after winning the finals at the 1936 Summer Olympics – their third of six consecutive Olympic golds.
Images

Support or Oppose[edit]

  • Support: The rotating image provides value to section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose any new additions. See below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
1. Boys playing football in Manipur.

1.This informative picture of boys playing soccer in Manipur has been replaced by a shabby image of an empty field, which is claimed to be an old polo field. No kidding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Girls play hopscotch in Juara, Madhya Pradesh.

2.This beautiful picture of girls playing hopscotch in Madhya Pradesh has been removed.

3. A game of kabaddi in Bagepalli, Karnataka

3. This beautiful picture has been replaced by a postage stamp resolution type picture of a bunch of skinny men playing kabaddi.

Recall, more than two thirds of India is rural. The other pictures are the same as the ones already in the stable version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as is I prefer the current set of pictures, though I feel adding a quality picture of people playing cricket wouldn't hurt. — fr 05:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

New Images - Motion pictures, television[edit]

Rotate
A scene from Raja Harishchandra (1913), the first full-length Indian motion picture.
Images

References

  1. ^ Rosen, Elizabeth S. (1975). "Prince ILango Adigal, Shilappadikaram (The anklet Bracelet), translated by Alain Damelou. Review". Artibus Asiae. 37 (1/2): 148–150. doi:10.2307/3250226. JSTOR 3250226.
  2. ^ Didactic Narration: Jataka Iconography in Dunhuang with a Catalogue of Jataka Representations in China, Alexander Peter Bell, LIT Verlag Münster, 2000 p.15ff

Support or Oppose[edit]

  • Support: The rotating image provides value to section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose : don't agree with this set of images because it does not adequately represent the indian cinema/TV industry. All the images are very old. --DBigXray 13:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Any reason why we need more images the article appears to have enough already. MilborneOne (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
These are rotating images for each section. These sections above are blank without any images and having one rotating image provide the reader with an added value. I am not proposing we have several images per section, just one rotating image which adds value - as mentioned, just the noted sections above which do not have any image. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
OK but I object to the new images, I dont think we need any more and commons is available to those interested. Some of the section are just overviews that already have image filled articles linked. MilborneOne (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: Understood, but, let me know if you find any of the above rotating galleries useful to their respected section. Or you object to all of it? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
I personally think we should have something for sports and clothing, at least. But, that is just me. We obviously need to agree as a community. :) (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

───────────────────────── Agree with @MilborneOne: We don't need new images, especially not adolescent touristy ones. India is not an industrialized power, at least the industrialization has not brought uniform wealth; otherwise India's rank in the list of countries by per capita income wouldn't still be 140 out of 180, just a few ranks above Pakistan and well below Sri Lanka and Bhutan. India is still a largely rural country. The percentage of Indians living in rural areas per the last census was 69%, some 3% below the previous census, but still more than two thirds. None of the images I see upstairs are of any worth for an FA. Recall, for those who remember, there was a time when only Featured Pictures were fielded in India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article. We can't let it go to dogs on somebody's whim or fantasy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We certainly can't have pictures of a bunch of so-called Rajputs dressed up at a wedding, with caption: "Achkan sherwani and churidar (lower body) worn by Maharaja Arvind Singh Mewar and his kin during a Hindu wedding in Rajasthan, India." What Maharaja? The privileges, titles, and remuneration to the former rulers of princely states were abolished in 1971. And this fellow is a distant relative. He was the manager of the Lake Palace Hotel in Udaipur, where the Ambani's had Beyonce perform recently. Might as well have a picture of Beyonce in Indian outfit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
PS I mean we can't have that picture on Wikipedia, let alone an FA. Please someone, delete it from WP, and the Maharaja's page as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: If Maharaja's sherwani picture does not meet FA, that is fine. We can remove it. That is the type of discussion we need to have, not edit warring. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
But you can't load pictures or text en mass as you have been doing in a Featured Article and then expect us to clean up your mess one item at a time. Similarly, please revert the textual mess you have created in the lead and the history and (probably) other sections to the stable version of RegentsPark. Then bring them up here for discussion one at a time (not in a big data dump). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
One thing at a time. It will get done. Also, what does industrialization have to do with the above? Those images are mainly about culture - not economy, per se. I think you are bringing User:King Zebu edits as well. But, those were accepted awile back by consensus. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
The textual edits were certainly weren't accepted by RegentsPark as I reverted to his reversion. Sorry, I can't discuss a image dump. All your images are poor quality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That is certainly fine. Let other editors comment. Thank you for giving your input, instead of edit warring. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

───────────────────────── I'm still waiting for you to revert the text to the last stable version of RegentsPark. I don't see any consensus for the textual edits, to the poor language, exaggerated tone, etc. If you push your luck too much, I'll put it on FAR and have the FA status removed, and then you and your cohorts can work on a sinking ship all you want. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We will move as we build consensus, not by your impatience. You do what needs to be done, however, I am not responsible for all the edits for the last year. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
I'm not a fan of the rotating image scheme in general, as it's apt to leave people mystified when they return to an article and can't find a photo they remember being there. Stick with a single good, representative picture, if you need one, and depend on people following links to articles on dress or cuisine, etc., to find illustrations there. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently the 'Geography' section of the article has a picture of the Himalayas next to prose about the Indian coastline... That's concerning given how beautiful the coasts are. Also why the 'Economy' section has two(?) gloomy pictures of rice fields is beyond me. Or why the 'Sports' section has a picture of a martial art (not a sport).

Perhaps drop this posturing about rotating images and collaborate on restoring or adding the best images to the article; maybe even try to find room for one or two more. Cesdeva (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I have now loaded all the images currently in the article in the subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India. There are a total of 71 images in the article, including ten Featured Pictures. Many pictures are part of a rotating stack, so you won't see them all the time. The rotation was originally cyclic, incrementing by one every day. However a few years ago someone, without any discussion, changed it to random rotation, which means that the images are chosen randomly in the stack. Therefore, you might see the same image on two consecutive days, or you might not see it for many days, more days than there are images. I have pinged the editor who did this, and, in the absence of a reply, will be changing it back to cyclic rotation. Anyway, I have the sense that many editors are not aware of the full range of images that are already in the article. Please take a look at those images, and make your suggestions in the context of what is there. Please note that clothes, some beautiful ones, appear in many of these pictures. If you want some images removed, please make those suggestions too, suggesting replacements. I will soon be creating another subpage consisting of Wikipedia India-related featured pictures that are not already in the article. Once that page will be ready, there will be more choices available. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Text[edit]

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Which text are you referring to? This one in the lead? Please advise:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE — one of the world's earliest civilizations.[1] The Iron Age Vedic period, saw the composition of the Vedas, the seminal texts of Hinduism, coalesced into Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste. Large-scale urbanization occurred on the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the first millennium BCE leading to the Mahajanapadas (large, urbanised states), and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Magadhan dynasties of Nandas, Mauryas and Guptas from the north and by the Satavahanas and Chalukyas in the Deccan; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms, notably Pallavas and Cholas, influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia; while the Tripartite Struggle, centred on Kannauj, lasted for more than two centuries for the control of the Indian subcontinent between the Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Gurjara-Pratiharas in the early Medieval era. Much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. The country was unified in the 17th century by the Mughals, during this period Sikhism arose. In the 18th century, much of the Indian subcontinent came under imperial Maratha and Sikh rule, however, by the mid-19th century much of the Indian subcontinent came under the British East India Company, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.

(Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

This is the last stable version of RegentsPark. It isn't a year old, but from 27 November 2018. Please revert to it. Then bring your textual edits here one at a time for discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
He already reverted it. Again, I am not responsible for those other edits. The above paragraph is what I worked on. Let me know what you don't like. We can work on the other ones as well. Even though, those are not mine. But, I do agree with it. So, I have no issue working with you on it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) What is objectionable on the above paragraph? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
I'm sorry but the prose is too poor for an FA. There is redundancy, e.g. after mentioning 3rd millennium BCE what need is there to say "one of the world's earliest civilizations. There are claims for which there is no consensus among scholars, such as Vedas being "the seminal texts of Hinduism." The next sentence is run-on. What does "coalesced into Janapadas and social-stratification based on caste" mean? "Coalesce" means "to combine, to merge, to form one whole." It seems to be merging into two things. "Later shifting to British crown rule?" It didn't just shift; it was the result of the Rebellion of 1857, which resulted in the abolition of Company rule and direct administration by the Crown. You've removed mention of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. Sorry, it is a non-starter. We had hammered out the lead over months, a sentence at a time. Yours is too bloated, even after removal of some previous text, it has added four lines. This was the stable version:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE. In the following millennium, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism began to be composed. Social stratification, based on caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia. In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, all adding to the region's diverse culture. Much of the north fell to the Delhi Sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. The economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal Empire. In the mid-18th century, the subcontinent came under British East India Company rule, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This version is missing a lot of info. But, I can agree with many of your points and disagree.
  1. "one of the world's earliest civilizations - we can remove that.
  2. "the seminal texts of Hinduism" - we can remove that.
  3. Both Kuru and Panchala did "coalesce", they were tribes that formed a realm. The name Panchala itself is a coalesce of 5 tribes. However, I don't want to make it like the Greek-Macedonia name dispute, and fight you over that word. How about emerge? Or any other word you recommend for the Janapadas.
  4. "You've removed mention of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc." - Christianity and Judaism played a small role compared to Hinduism or Islam. And Islam was mentioned with Delhi Sultanate and Mughals.
  5. Please note: Wikipedia:There is no deadline
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) As such, is this acceptable. I took all your concerns and addressed it. Kindly let me know what else needs to be changed, if there is any:

The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE.[1] The Iron Age Vedic period, saw the composition of the Vedas, the rise of Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste. Large-scale urbanization occurred on the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the first millennium BCE leading to the Mahajanapadas (large, urbanised states), and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Magadhan dynasties of Nandas, Mauryas and Guptas from the north and by the Satavahanas and Chalukyas in the Deccan; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms, notably Pallavas and Cholas, influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia; while the Tripartite Struggle, centred on Kannauj, lasted for more than two centuries between the Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Gurjara-Pratiharas in the early Medieval era. The late Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim population, with much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the 17th century, much of the subcontinent was unified by the Mughals, during this period Sikhism arose. In the 18th century, much of the Indian subcontinent came under imperial Maratha and Sikh rule, however, by the mid-19th century much of the Indian subcontinent came under the British East India Company, and by the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.

(Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Sadly, the prose is not even G class much less FA. Sorry, but you can't present a paragraph. I have given you the stable version. If you want to change a sentence, please present that sentence and your improvement, and we can have that discussion. The history section of the lead of the India article is the summary style distillation of the entire history section of the India article, which in turn is the summary style distillation of all History of India articles. You are directly editing the lead. Please read WP:Lead_fixation. Again, one sentence at a time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
RegentsPark (talk · contribs) can you please mediate this? I think Fowler and I hit a wall. Can you talk into consideration both versions and make a neutral call? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
Highpeaks, I haven't hit any wall. My version has been in the article for many years. This history section for some eight years. You apparently think summarizing is so easy that you can within minutes replace one doozy with another. Here is one, and there are many, in every sentence: "The late Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim population, with much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate." Really? Who was taking the census in India before 1871? What part of the History section is that summarizing, not to mention the errors of simple syntax ? And you expect me to waste my time engaging your edits, in any rational manner. Pasted below is the actual paragraph from the history section about the Delhi sultanate and the Vijayanagara kingdom. Tell me where does that say anything about the growth of the Muslim population. It says only that the non-Muslim subjects were largely left alone; it speaks of the migration of urban elites, artists, etc from the lands devastated by the Mongols and the creation of an Indo-Islamic culture, without mentioning any demographic bump. More generally, you have bloated the text with names of Hindu rulers, exaggerating their relatively short-lived confederacies or kingdoms to empires. Really, the Marathas came to control much of the subcontinent? Did they ever reach the Sutlej? Did they ever get below the Krishna river? Ever in Awadh? Ever into Bengal, other than their periodic raids of mass murder and rape, including of the weavers of Cossimbazar and Dacca? Did they leave behind perhaps, a Qutub Minar, a Red Fort, a Humayun's Tomb, an Agra Fort, a Fatehpur Sikri, even crumbling monuments of architectural significance in the Western Ghats? In 1707, Aurengzeb was still in the Deccan, the heartland of the Marathas, when he died, and in 1761, the Marathas had been defeated in the Battle of Panipat by the Afghans, not to mention the British winning the Battle of Buxar in 1764, and controlling the revenue in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. So, half a century constitutes the Maratha Empire, but two centuries of Mughal rule, acknowledged around the world, with the many linguistic uses of the word "Moghul," you refer to as [[Mughal empire|Mughals]]? Here is the first half of the original of what you seem to be summarizing by some mysterious artifice of historiography and precis writing: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The relevant paragraph from the history section: "After the 10th century, Muslim Central Asian nomadic clans, using swift-horse cavalry and raising vast armies united by ethnicity and religion, repeatedly overran South Asia's north-western plains, leading eventually to the establishment of the Islamic Delhi Sultanate in 1206.[62] The sultanate was to control much of North India and to make many forays into South India. Although at first disruptive for the Indian elites, the sultanate largely left its vast non-Muslim subject population to its own laws and customs.[63][64] By repeatedly repulsing Mongol raiders in the 13th century, the sultanate saved India from the devastation visited on West and Central Asia, setting the scene for centuries of migration of fleeing soldiers, learned men, mystics, traders, artists, and artisans from that region into the subcontinent, thereby creating a syncretic Indo-Islamic culture in the north.[65][66] The sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the indigenous Vijayanagara Empire.[67] Embracing a strong Shaivite tradition and building upon the military technology of the sultanate, the empire came to control much of peninsular India,[68] and was to influence South Indian society for long afterwards.[67]" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) by that logic, how was Christianity or Judaism significant to the history of the subcontinent? I don’t think British considered themselves as Christian power, as they divided Indian history in Hindu, Muslim and British. Why put Judaism here? Isn’t that exaggerating Jewish history in India? If you are impartial, shouldn’t Christianity and Judaism which take a sentence be removed? We can add Sikhs in the same sentence after Mughals. As I have done above. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC))

Also, your cherry picked views on the Maratha is rubbish; Guptas, Mughals in India or eastern Romans or Sassanids in West Asia did NOT have uniformed control of their territory beyond their core in any time in history. You should know better. The Marathas did control upto Attock and south to Tamil Nadu under various Maratha dynasties or Peshwa rule as listed here. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
And you are telling me, Mughals or British did not kill or rape? If yes, why bring it up regarding the Marathas alone? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
The British never came even remotely close to killing and raping at the level of the Marathas in Bengal, anytime, anywhere during their 200 year old rule in India, they especially did not rape. Never were 400,000 massacred. The diversity of religions (i.e. references to Parsis and Jews, to Christians and Muslims) in the lead goes back some 10 years. That is not my work. You'll have to look at the many discussions on this talk page about that. You are only the 25th newly-arrived editor who has attempted to remove that edit in the last ten or twelveyears. As for the Mughals, please do not distort the facts. What was the core region of the Mughals? For in 1605, their empire ranged from beyond Kabul and Qandahar in Afghanistan in the west, to Kashmir in the north, to the Brahmaputra-Meghna delta in Bengal in the east, to the Godavari river in the Deccan. In 1700, it ranged from beyond Kabul and Qandahar in Afghanistan, to Kashmir in the north, to the Brahmaputra-Meghna delta in Bengal, to even farther south, the Kaveri in Tamil Nadu. I have maps, from 150 year old ones to 50 year old ones that attest to this, not to mention modern references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This, by the way, is as far as I go in engaging you. Had you anything significant to state, I would have. My contribution history on this page belies any notion that I run away from discussion, but I don't suffer UNDUE gladly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Who is distorting facts? The Mughals had core regions of the Ganges-Yamana and the rest was through tributaries or faced constant rebellions: from the Hindu rajas of Bengal and Orissa in the east, like Raja Sitaram Ray, to their core areas by Jats, Sikhs and Rajputs in the west. And using a straw-man and unreferenced argument like "British did not come close killing and raping at the level of the Marathas in Bengal" is absolutely rubbish. The man-made famines they caused in Bengal itself is more, forget any war. And the accounts mainly come from British and Muslim sources, and both had vested interested against a Hindu power, and Hindus (Bengali Hindus) were poor with historical record keeping. Either way, the Marathas were the foremost power from 1720 to at least 1806 in India. The British themselves acknowledge it in their surveys: "India contains no more than two great powers, British and Mahratta, and every other state acknowledges the influence of one or the other. Every inch that we recede will be occupied by them..."[2][3] -- Charles Metcalfe, 1806. Your last statement will not serve your cause. Either engage or don't complain about the revisions. (H4ighpeaks35 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC))

───────────────────────── Really Metcalf and Nehru? Are they secondary sources or tertiary? Primary sources, especially old ones don't count. Here is a tertiary source, Webster's Encyclopedia's India page's history section: "India has been inhabited for thousands of years. Agriculture in India dates to the 7th millennium BCE, and an urban civilization, that of the Indus valley, was established by 2600 BCE. Buddhism and Jainism arose in the 6th century BCE in reaction to the caste-based society created by the Vedic religion and its successor, Hinduism. The first Muslim contact with the subcontinent was in the 8th century CE. Muslim invasions began after c. 1000, establishing the long-lived Delhi sultanate in 1206 and the Mughal dynasty in 1526. Vasco da Gama's voyage to India in 1498 initiated several centuries of commercial rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and French. British conquests in the 18th and 19th centuries led to the rule of the British East India Co., and direct administration by the British Empire began in 1858. After Mohandas K. Gandhi helped end British rule in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru became India's first prime minister, ..." Where are the vaunted Marathas? See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What about Britannica's History section? Its major subdivisions are: 1) India from the paleolithic period to the decline of the Indus civilization. 2) Indian civilization from 1500 BCE to 1200 CE 3) The early Muslim period 4) The Mughal empire 1526–1761 5) The Regional states 1700–1850, 6) India and the European expansion, c 1500–1858, 7) British Imperial power 1858–1947, 8) Republic of India. Where are the Maratha Confederacy (not empire) placed? In the Regional states section along with the Sikhs, the Afghans, Rajputana, Mysore, and Travancore, etc. Who are the authors of the Britannica article? They are (section wise): 1) Frank Raymond Allchin, 2) Romila Thapar 3) R Champalakshmi, 4) Muzaffar Alam, 5) Sanjay Subrahmanyam 6) Percival Spear, 7) Stanley Wolpert. They are all well-known historians of India. Britannica doesn't have a lead, but I am going just by the distribution of text allotted to the Mughals, their own section, contrasted with the Maratha Confederacy, a subsection in the Regional States section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
As for famines in India during British rule, which were the man made famines? The Great Bengal Famine of 1769–1770, when the British only had the Diwani (the right to collect taxes, which they had farmed out to the Nawab of Bengal's tax collectors in Murshidabad), but not the Nizamat (the right to govern), which they did in 1772, after the famine? Or are you talking about the Bengal famine of 1943? Read the Wikipedia article. Where does is say it is man made and man=British? There were many guilty parties, not least the Muslim interim government of Suhrawardy, which unlike the Congress, had not resigned in 1939; there were the Hindu grain merchants of Calcutta who were hoarding grain and sending prices sky-rocketing; there was the absence of Burma rice, after the fall of Burma in early 1942; there was the abandonment of women and children by Hindu rural men, in a last-ditch effort to preserve the male line, by migrating to the cities (see Arjun Appadurai's review of the Bengal famine books); there was the recalcitrance of Winston Churchill and his war cabinet; and there were still a few other factors. If you don't mean the two Bengal famines, then which famines do you mean, as all the others between 1770 and 1943 were the result of drought and crop failure. I should know, I wrote all the famine articles. They were all consequences of El Niño events. The British after all appointed three famine commissions which wrote the famous India Famine Code, which was adopted by the UN and WHO for use in much later famines, worldwide. India's agriculture has always been rain dependent. There were famines in Indian ruled states before the full supremacy by the British: see, for example, Chalisa famine and Doji bara famine. See also the section on famines in Tirthankar Roy's Economic History of India 1858–1947. Again, the British were the first people in India to collect data, but they did not rape and plunder like the Marathas. The famines were not rape and plunder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for at least now coming back with facts, rather than insults. I appreciate it. Britannica section barely mentions Vijayanagara Empire in contrast to the Sultanate. However, this is increasingly changing in recent scholarship. Both Vijayanagaras and Marathas are given more attention in recent literature (2000s and after).[a][b][c] Vijayanagara and Marathas are not included in the Chronology of 1990s or earlier (British Chronology).[d] (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
You are welcome. To be sure, some Britannica sections are dated, such as Company era history written by Percival Spear (long dead) or the British Raj, written by Stanley Wolpert (long retired), but the Mughal and early modern sections (which include Vijayanagara and the Marathas) have been written by active current historians, Muzaffar Alam at Chicago and Sanjay Subrahmanyam at UCLA. Their sections were added to the Britannica history during the last ten or twelve years, well into the 21st century. In my understanding, both Vijayanagara and the Marathas gained power as a result of using the military technology, of both hardware and strategy, of the Muslim power up North, i.e. the Sultanate and the Mughals respectively, see for example Asher and Talbot, India before Europe (2008) and Metcalf and Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India 2013, respectively. The problem with the lead is that there was a word limit, as I remember it, and we had reached it. The current version was the best NPOV version within the word limit. Adding something means removing something else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, if word limit is an issue. We have a sentence that we both can agree is over embellished with bias: "In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, all adding to the region's diverse culture." With the exception of Islam, which is mentioned in later sentences, the other regions are overbearing in the lead. We can easily get rid of this sentence and replace with mention of Sikh and Maratha political ascendency or something else of importance we can both agree. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
It is not you and me. I already oppose your suggestion, on the grounds that the section is not just about history but also mentions the religious culture of India. There aren't that many Buddhists in India either, or for that matter Jains. They number less than Christians in India today. You try to get consensus for removing it from others, given that the sentence has been in the lead for ten years. Good luck. And if no one responds, or only one or two people respond, then you don't have consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
This is about the impact not population. Buddhism and Jainism had a profound impact in large sections of Indian history. It is not about current population or religion, but past. Christianity or Judaism were not Indian relgions nor are their impact significant for the lead, maybe in a later paragraph. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC))

References

Economy section: Reverting images and content upgrade[edit]

Back in 1st week of December 2018, we had clearly built CONSENSUS on this very talkpage regarding new images for Economy section. We had also upgraded the content of this section - adding latest economic statistics backed by VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE and LATEST sources.

Consensus was achieved, changes were made and the section was clearly stable. Now, Fowler&fowler comes in, pleads that he was away for weeks, and blatantly reverts all the hard-work. Going by the racist and derogatory comments this User has made in this very talkpage, it is clear that he has a clear anti-India and anti-Hindu bias and that explains the intent behind some of his edits to India-related articles.

It is therefore Fowler who needs to build consensus now to remove the Economy section images and content added in early December 2018. --King Zebu (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Also wanted to highlight that once Consensus has been achieved, it has been achieved. If someone raises an objection weeks after consensus was achieved, then we go back to the round-table for discussion. But that doesn't mean that all the hard-work done after achieving Consensus becomes null and void and it can be removed / reverted. In this case, it is the responsibility of the one who has raised an objection to now build a Consensus to remove this content. --King Zebu (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I have just read this page, although I've not trawled through all of the recent changes and reverts to the article. (I saw a note about it on the talk page of someone whom I watchlist.) I don't see that you got anything close to a viable consensus late last year. FAs are tricky things: consensus needs to be broad and proposed changes need to be both well advertised and allowed a suitable period for comment, which is not a week or so. I am an extreme case here as I barely edited from October through to January, so I can't really blame anyone but myself for that. However, there are many people who, for one reason or another, are experienced and knowledgeable in the subject matter but not necessarily day-to-day or even week-to-week contributors. Their input could be invaluable.
I realise that some people perceive a slower process as being indicative of inertia but a couple of relatively new, stridently voiced, aggressively editing contributors to a Featured Article is not usually helpful. There are articles where large and significant changes are justified, if done accurately, but they are never FAs and only rarely even GAs.
And using FAR seemingly as a tool to enable the changes stinks, sorry. It is Machiavellian, uncollaborative and a case of using a hammer to crack a nut. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Images on FA India: how they were selected in 2011 and 2012[edit]

The FA India has a total of 71 images (including maps). Other than one extra paddy field image that was added without consensus by someone later, the selection was the result of a discussion that lasted over a year with inputs from dozens of editors. It began with admin Saravask's post in section 25, Talk:India/Archive 35, October 2011, and sections below, and continued in methodical fashion to Talk:India/Archive 36, and ended with Talk:India/Archive 37, sections 33 through 38, in November 2012. Please see: User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India for a complete list of images. (I say there that many images are part of a rotation group whose displayed image changes every day, so you will not see the images all at once, but only gradually over a week.) I believe no Wikipedia FA has as many images as FA India.

@King Zebu: has declared consensus for a change in images as a result of two responses after one week. Did he ping any of the editors involved in the previous consensus, many of whom are active on Wikipedia, but don't actively watch this talk page? Did he post on WT:INDIA? I didn't see anything. How then is this consensus, especially when the reasons offered are not in line with the facts. Is he aware that as of 2015, 80% of India's milk production was contributed by dairy farmers with one or two milch cattle? How then does a mechanized dairy become more representative? He has claimed that while there are images of the Taj Mahal, there are not enough images of "native Indian architecture style which goes back thousands of years." But this is not in line with facts. As you will see in my list, the article already has Ajanta (Buddhist), Chola temple, Hampi (Vijayanagara), Mahabodhi temple, etc. The Taj Mahal image, moreover, is as much about the clothing (shawl and sarong) of the visitors from Northeast India in the foreground, as about the Taj forming the background. It is claimed that agriculture contributes only 20% of India's GDP, as if contribution to GDP is the critical factor in the choice of images, but it is not mentioned that the agriculture sector employs 60% of India's workforce. It is claimed that India is ranked sixth in List of countries by GDP (nominal), a mark of its progress, especially industrial progress, but not mentioned that it ranks 140 out of 188 countries in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, with average income of $1,983 per year, according to the IMF data for 2017. There are no clear guidelines on how to choose images for a Wikipedia article, but whatever is chosen needs to be representative and relevant and the result of credible consensus. I am not saying that the old images are etched in stone and cannot be changed, but that if it is felt a change is needed, that idea should first be discussed. Second, as India is the flagship article for WP:India, other editors who work on India-related topics, but not necessarily on this page, or have participated in previous image discussions, editors such as Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Vanamonde, Sitush, AshLin, Sarah Welch, Tilo Dutta, RedtiergX, Spaceman Spiff, Abecedare, etc, should be invited to weigh in on the new selection of images. The image selection should also be advertised on various WP venues. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, that is rubbish. If King Zebu did that, he would have been accused by some of WP:CANVAS, WP:BATTLEFIELD or WP:TAGTEAM, etc. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
I'm going to keep this short and crisp long and boring
What are the Wikipedia guidelines for building Consensus? Does Wikipedia:Consensus say to build consensus on talkpage? Yes, and I did so. Does Wikipedia:Consensus specifically say that a Consensus is not valid if 2 other Wikipedians have supported it and no one else has opposed it? No, it doesn't. Does Wikipedia:Consensus say that a Consensus is not valid if the topic is not raised on relevant noticeboard (in this case, WT:INDIA)? No, it doesn't. It only mentions the Noticeboard in instances of dispute.
This User expects me to seek the opinion of all parties involved in previous Consensus which was achieved 7 YEARS AGO. Is this how Wikipedia expects to operate? If this is going to be the mechanism of operation, then the content of Wikipedia will never improve. I went through India artcile's edit history, identified Wikipedians who have frequently edited India article in recent past and requested them to chip-in. I did my part, but this User will still find reasons to undermine my efforts because my efforts don't fit into his bias and agenda (which is evident to everyone).
Now, this User accuses me of posting content not in line with facts and conveniently cherry-picks dairy farming topic to dismiss the entire set of changes made. To re-emphasise, all the content added were backed by neutral, verifiable, reliable and latest sources.
It is clear that this User is taking recent improvements made to the article as a personal snub ("my list", etc.). It is extremely dangerous when Wikipedians start seeing Wikipedia as their own personal projects and vehemently defend their version of article (which he is conveniently trying to defend as the "FA version").
It is evident that most of the content in Economy section and in the images' caption in this User's version dates back to 2011-12. And, the recent improvements simply updated the content to include latest statistics (automobile production, electricity generation, etc.). He removed all of it - but will talk about only dairy farming but that is more convenient for him. So, let's talk about dairy farming.
I had clearly mentioned that the old image on dairy farming (which showed a dairy farmer milking a cow with his bare hands) didn't add any value to the economy section. India's dairy sector has seen rapid growth over the past few years and industrial landscape has changed a lot, especially since 2011-12.
Here are some latest facts:
These are facts and figures from 2018 period. And therefore, that 2015 article is already outdated. There is no denying the fact that some dairy farmers in India haven't adopted mechanisation yet. But to have an image of a dairy farmer milking a cow on main India image and somehow manage to argue that it is representative of India's economy?! I don't buy this at all and I see a clear bias and agenda here.
Now coming to agricultural sector in India. This User claims that even though agricultural sector in India contributes only 20% of the GDP (which is again outdated; it is far less now), the sector employs 60% of the workforce. And he provides no source to back his claim. See, I don't cook up statistics out of thin air.
So, clearly agriculture no longer supports the majority of jobs in India - but this User chooses to remain stuck in 2011-12. There is no denying the fact again that though agriculture now contributes less than 20% of India's GDP, it is still the single-largest source of employment in India. But does that mean that more than 90% of images in the Economy section be on agriculture/fisheries/dairy sector?
Is the bias of this Wikipedian not evident when he cites List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita (which ranks India 140 out of 188) but conveniently does not mention List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (which ranks India 120 out of 182)? Is the bias of this Wikipedian not evident when he conveniently chooses to ignore List of countries by real GDP growth rate (which ranks India 1 out 192 nations), List of countries by industrial production growth rate (which ranks India 24 out of 202 territories and clearly the only large economy in top 30), List of countries by GDP (PPP) (which ranks India 3 out of 190) and List of countries by GDP (nominal) (which ranks India 6 out of 190)?
I can put forward many more arguments, but I don't have the time to spare. That said, I hope that the facts and viewpoints shared above have shed some light on what this User trying to do. Rest, I leave the esteemed Wikipedia community to decide.
Oh, and one last thing - as the old Chinese saying goes, "change is the inevitable fact of life". So, this User can pretend to be stuck in 2011-12 and pull up outdated facts to back up his claims, but fact remains that one who resists change perishes with time. --King Zebu (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you not reading your own references? Here is your example: Organised dairies in India will enhance capacity by 30% over next 3 years There is a difference between the production or harvesting of milk and the processing. Your new image has caption, "A high quality image which showcases industralization of diary processing sector in India." The processing of milk has always been mechanical for 60 years in India. It is that sector that is growing, as more Indians are buying processed milk, rather than having a milkman deliver it in a can. The milk in a processing plant is, however, procured from a farmer. The old image was addressing the production or harvesting of milk. Most milk in India was in 2015, and still today, harvested from milch cattle in a herd size of a few cattle owned by private farmers. The original image showed that farmer and that cow. The economic fact, illustrated by the picture, has not changed much. See Science Direct survey H. Wahid and Y Rosnina Buffalo milk in Asia, 2016, (scroll down the left column for it), which says, "The annual production of buffalo milk in the Asia–Pacific region exceeds 55 million tonnes (see Table 4), with India and Pakistan contributing more than 50 million tonnes (Figure 3). Almost all the milk is produced in smallholder farms." and a little later, "Milking Technique: Milk letdown is slower in buffalo than in cattle. The presence of the calf initiates the milk letdown reflex. In most smallholder farms, animals are hand-milked and the calf is used to stimulate milk letdown," If you think the picture has changed substantially in 2018, please read Jack Yates, "Three diverse Indian dairy systems compared," Farmer's Weekly, UK, 23 November 2018, which says, "Around 75m of India's farmers are dairy producers, with an average herd size of just one-to-five cows on a holding of anything from one acre to no land at all. These farmers account for a total of 18% of the world’s milk production, making India the largest milk producer on the planet." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Realism versus airbrushing in images, real or metaphorical[edit]

The Delhi Metro rapid transit system and the low-floor CNG buses. Infrastructure in India in the next five years is estimated to bring in $1 trillion in investment, half of it by India's private sector.
"The subject is the focus of the image.

This page has had a picture of the Delhi metro, and the bus transportation below, as an example of infrastructure development. user:King Zebu has attempted to change it to a picture of a empty, clean, metro station with train steaming in, or perhaps out, with this accompanying rationale: (Old image) "The image is so crowded. The subjects of the caption (CNG buses and Metro) are not in focus. Very bad image." (New Image) "The subject is the focus of the image."

But the subject of the first picture is really as much about "Infrastructure," the elevated concrete platforms supported by pillars for the trains, the roads below, that have made the systems operational. The concrete is very much in focus; as is the orange bus and pavement below (you can read the license plate number). The crowds are fairly normal for a metro station in Delhi. As for the new image, it shows a Bombardier Transportation train built in Canada (the filename is: DelhiMetroBlueLineBombardier), purchased by India, steaming into a empty, clean, station. What is the picture a representation of? Canadian technology? Or of a generic train station, for if you did not notice something written in Devanagari on the top left corner, you would have little idea of where the picture was taken. In other words, even when you are showing modern sectors of the economy, you have to show them in the context of India, with its crowds, chaotic traffic, litter on the street, and so forth, in order to be encyclopedic. Otherwise, you would be providing false visual information. You can't have images of the shining India in an encyclopedia, i.e. pictures taken out of the usual context in order to burnish the country's reality. I'm not saying that the first image is perfect. But the second clearly distorts the reality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) This is what I mean by selective bias. Have you seen NYC article? Regarding its metro? There are tons of trash, rats and litter, but you see images of a well kept metro on the article. Which is correct? As, the focus is on the metro. And in cases, both Delhi metro or NYC metro both are well kept or not so in others. Why not put a picture of rats and trash in NYC metro? Riders of NYC metro see it everyday? You are just pushing your bias with Indian crowds, trash, etc. and forgetting, this is seen in any populated country. Regardless, if it is rich as USA or UK, or developing like India or Mexico. Rwanda is poor, but it’s Capital was the cleanest city I ever visited, but it is small nation with small population. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
Agreed. 1337 siddh (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This very concern raised by Fowler is a clear reflection of his hidden bias and agenda. Pick up the ugliest image of a crowded Indian street and showcase it as some sort of poverty porn. The other picture (which was added after achieving Consensus on this talkpage) was taken at 9:02pm (as evident from the platform clock in the image) - which is an off-peak time is less crowded. It is perfect because the focus remains on the Metro, not on anything else. It is not "empty" as passengers are clearly visible in background. But yeah, some people air-brush images, some people air-brush facts. --King Zebu (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
+1 1337 siddh (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple withdrawal of FA status or FAR?[edit]

I mean this sincerely and not as a joke or threat. India became an FA in 2004, and subsequently went through two Featured Article Reviews (WP:FAR), the latest in 2011. It has been an FA longer than any country article. From the time of its first FA run in 2004 (with Nichalp) it has had a high standard of prose, NPOV content, and relevant images, many of which earlier were Featured Pictures (WP:FP). A handful still are. However, it has now got to the point where the editors who had contributed earlier to make it an FA, or for it to retain its FA status, are no longer able to take an active role in maintaining it. A fresh crop of editors have taken to editing it. In my view, under their helm, (see this version of January 1), the article has deteriorated both in prose quality and NPOV/DUE content. It is moreover now subject to edit wars, or disputes over content, that violate Featured Article Criteria 1 (e). One solution to dealing with this dilemma is to request that the FA status be withdrawn and let the new editors take it for an FA run at the time of their choosing. Alternatively, we can let these editors edit the article as an ordinary article, without restriction, and then in one month's time, have them nominate the article for an FAR. If they are able to have the article retain its FA status, more power to them; otherwise, let the article have a Wikipedia imprimatur which reflects its true quality. The best Wikipedia articles are true collaborations, however, what the article had become on January 1 was looking more and more like something falsely piggybacking on earlier work that had brought the article WP recognition. For that version was also violating Featured Article Criteria 1 (a) and 1 (d). It also had image overload with falsely summarized edits, for how does an editor add ten images to an FA in one edit with edit summary, "tweak"? It was not the only such example. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Anarchyte:, @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, great job undermining the "fresh crop of editors" by terming their efforts as "piggybacking on earlier work". This article has always been subject to edit wars, the source of latest one being you. --King Zebu (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
We all piggyback. I said "falsely piggybacking," in other words, not piggybacking at all, but changing what brought the article WP recognition while continuing to carry the recognition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
And I have absolutely no objection to reviewing the FA status of this article. But to use its FA status as a basis to resist and undermine efforts to improve and update the content of this article is beyond logic. One can find all the faults with "prose" and "relevant images" — but maintaining outdated information in a so-called "Featured Article" is fine? Is a FA a personal project of one Wikipedian wherein he can freely push his own bias and agenda? Is the hallmark of a Featured Article defined by religious bigotry on its talkpage? If yes, then go ahead and revoke the FA status of this article. --King Zebu (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Featured Article criteria are well-defined. The article as it stood on January 1 was violating three criteria. In my long history with the article it has never had edit wars of this sort, at least not since its last FAR in 2011. I have over 1000 edits in the article since 2007, more than any other editor. This is not to brag, only to suggest that I've had a long association with the article and know its history. The FAcriteria don't say anything about "religious bigotry" on the talk page. You know very well, it was not "religious bigotry." It was careless use of language for a surfeit of uploaded images of garments that had been characterized as "Hindu," especially in the context of garments such as Shalwar kameez or Pajamas, whose own names betray their Islamic Persian or Arabic origin (Shalwar: Persian شلوار), Qamis (Arabic, spelled with qaaf, whose sound does not exist in any Indo-Aryan language, قميص), or Paijama (Farsi: پايجامه ending with small he, the h sound, not alif or aa sound). You can't set up false criteria about your characterization of alleged behavior on the talk page, to overlook gross violation of Feature Article criteria. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Shalwar kameez or Pajamas are native to the Indian subcontinent, not the Middle East. The Persianized dynasties (who spoke Persian, and some Arabic for liturgical reasons) of North India wore them, now almost everyone in India wears them regardless of religion. I did not point to “Hindu clothing”, not even for Dhoti or Sari. These are Indian cloths, and you called it “Hindu garbage” above. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
You were illustrating garments worn in India, but you weren't only illustrating the garment, as, for example, done for a style of kurta in File:Kurta traditional side open knot.jpg, but also showing them in two Hindu weddings, which their captions titled as "Hindu," which belies the fact that they were Muslim garments adopted by Hindus. That is what a more accurate encyclopedic illustration of a garment will give. As for pajamas, the OED (Third edition 2007, subscription required) says, "Originally: loose trousers, usually of silk or cotton, tied round the waist, and worn by both sexes in some Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Subsequently also: nightclothes consisting of loose trousers or shorts and a jacket or other top (now the principal use). Also occasionally in singular. Footnote: The loose trousers were adopted by Europeans living in Eastern countries, esp. for night wear, and the word came to be applied outside Asia (originally in trade use) to a sleeping suit of loose trousers and jacket." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler By that cherry-picked logic, we can't say a restaurant is Indian restaurant or Indian paper currency. The concept of Indian restaurants or Indian paper currency were abopted from non-Indian. These cloths are now uniquely Indian, just like the paper money or Indian restaurants. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC))
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Also, though disputed, Shalwar kameez is believe to have come through the Kushans. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
Really? And the source is Aawaz-e-Gurjar "the voice of the Gurjar nomadic tribe," published by Gurjar Research Institute, Jammu. That is supposed to be a reliable source for an FA? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, I request this FA be revoked. Wikipedia:There is no deadline, the current FA is being used as means to retain a version written long ago and questioning the good faith of many more. We need to remove the FA. This I am fully in support with Fowler&fowler. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
  • I'm not in favor of revoking the FA status. The article has been reasonably stable and FA status acts as a defense of sorts. Without it, this article will quickly become an overladen mess with poor quality content and overladen with images, many of dubious quality. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It has not been under review since 2011, per Fowler. I think there are tons of editors who monitor this page. I think a request to check FA status is worth it. It seems most of us here agree. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
  • I am not familiar enough with the article to have a useful opinion on this, sorry. Anarchyte (talk | work) 01:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that if people do not want the FA status to be revoked then they need to stop people such as King Zebu and Highspeak from making random edits with false sources. King Zebu is conflating the production or harvesting of milk and its processing, not even reading his own references, arguing with me, not to mention wasting my time. See my last post in the section about how images were chosen in 2011 and 2012. Highspeak keeps jumping from one argument to another in order to not be pinned down. A minute ago he was attempting to show me how the Indian elite spoke Persian and some Arabic, and that that is the reason, why these garments came to have Persian or Arabic names. (However, I can read Persian and Arabic and know better, i.e. those words already existed in these languages before the Muslim conquest of North India) and now he has changed the argument to Indian restaurants. See his posts above. So, what are mature, knowledgeable editors supposed to do on this page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, you made little to no sense. Regardless, I have asked the FA to be checked here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/India. Hopefully, the community will remove the FA from this article. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC))
And I have left the following response there: "user:Highpeaks35 is a new, and somewhat tendentious, editor. He doesn't know what an FAR involves. Moreover, the information he has given above is false. India became an FA in 2004, has remained one since, having gone through a drastic revision during a successful FAR in 2011. There wasn't much wrong with the article (in terms of meeting the featured article criteria) until he himself began to randomly, and and prolifically, add text and images a few weeks ago. When his effort was stopped, and the article restored to its original form, in which it sits locked now, he struck upon this FAR idea, although it was being discussed on the talk page as an option if editors such as he could not be stopped. He thinks an FAR will allow him to restore his edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)" You apparently think an FAR involves others doing the review and pronouncing judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

────────── @Fowler&fowler, King Zebu, and Highpeaks35: I requested a procedural close for the Featured article review, which was accepted by the FAR coordinators. See the "Coordinator note" at the bottom for details. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Yes, I noticed that earlier. Thank you very much for this. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Was there any consensus for text and images added recently?[edit]

It is clear that @Highpeaks35: does not have any consensus yet for adding any images or text. However, @King Zebu: has been claiming that he has consensus for changes he made in November and December. I don't believe consensus had been achieved, either for the content changes, or for the image changes. These editors know very well that this is a Featured Article, in which any significant edits are typically discussed on the talk page first. However, they have done little of that. Here are some examples of King Zebu's text edits:

  • At 19:45 (UTC) 24 November 2018, with less than accurate edit summary ("Added recent report findings"), King Zebu both removed text from the article as well as added new text. Nothing was discussed on the talk page, before or after.
  • At 16:38 (UTC) 26 November 2018, user:RegentsPark removed that edit, with edit summary ("restore last good version")
  • At 05:38 (UTC) 30 November 2018 King Zebu restored his edit with edit summary ("Restored revised version with latest data. If someone has a problem, please raise concern on the talk page instead of edit warring")
  • At 06:52 30 November 2018 King Zebu added nearly two paragraphs of text with edit summery ("This entire section is filled with obsolete and incomplete information. Fixed some things -- much more is required.")
  • At 19:03 30 November 2018 King Zebu removed text and added nearly two paragraphs more with edit summary, "removed outdated information and replaced with latest, verifiable and reliable data")

As for the images changes, editors can see for themselves in Talk:India#Updation_of_images_in_Economy_section, King Zebu did make a post on 2 December 2018, proposing certain changes. He essentially received one response, from @RegentsPark:, for the other was a perfunctory response by a user with redlinked name. On the basis of that response, he declared a week later that he had consensus. Is this how we proceed in editing a longstanding featured article whose images were added after a year long discussion (from October 2011 to November 2012, see section above), filling three talk page archives, and involving the input of dozens of editors? Now that the article is no longer locked down, I am concerned that they will attempt to restore their edits, leading to edit warring again. I have already shown above, that the proposed change in the milk dairy image was based on a false premise, which confused the harvesting of milk, which as of December 2018 in India, was done by hand by farmers with small herd size, with the processing of milk. There are issues with others as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

From cyclic rotation of images to random selection on 12 August 2015[edit]

Could @Frietjes: please explain why you changed (in this edit of 12 August 2015) the cyclic rotation of image groups, which would increment the image in the image stack by one each time the cache was emptied, to a random selection, which in the long run will display all images with the same frequency, but in the short, can result in repetition of some images and the absence of others? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Random item] is the standard for displaying a random item. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had thought the original, as seen in the left hand edit in the diff, had CURRENTDAY in it, not CURRENTSECOND, which is random. I have now changed it to CURRENTDAYOFYEAR, so all users will see the same page stably all day, as I understand it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing India's official name in Devnagari Script[edit]

I request the Wikipedia editors to edit the official name of Indian in Hindi from romanticized version to Devnagri Scipt as भारतीय गणराज्य .All other nations in wikipedia pages have thier official names written in 2 or more languages one is english and others in official languages. So since Hindi is also the official language of India , the official name should also be written in Hindi. Now previously one the editor showed concern regarding large linguistic diversity in india.But that cant be any reason to block my request.It is not a legit argument.Many people speak languages other than English in UK but that doesnt mean thier page have thier offial name in Other than in English Srijanx22 (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read Frequently asked questions at the top of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Which page? There's no FAQ in this talk page. Regardless, the Devanagari version should be present, as it is one of the official language of India. 1337 siddh (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Support : Yes, the Devanagari version should be there. Absence of it is wierd considering Hindi is one of the two official languages of India. 1337 siddh (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Again: Please read Frequently asked questions at the top of the page (labelled Frequently asked questions (FAQ)). Bazza (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Mehrgarh and precursors of IVC Comment[edit]

I have made some edits in response to user:Vanamonde93 post at the FAR for India. In that context, I wanted to say that in the history section, we largely rely on the material in widely used modern text books published by scholarly publishers or widely cited surveys published by academic journals, as they are best able to make assessments of both what is reliable and of due weight. With mega journals exploding, publishing more than a thousand articles a month, with very quick peer review, we cannot cite a journal article, especially a recent journal article which has not appeared in a text book or survey.

The Ancient India section had a sentence from the time of its last FAR. The sentence is, "Around 7000 BCE, the first known Neolithic settlements appeared on the subcontinent in Mehrgarh and other sites in what is now western Pakistan.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|pp = 24–25}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India."

This text has been changed many times by various later editors. I restored the original version yesterday. Soon after my edit, @Highpeaks35: changed the text to a more recent version:

"Around 7000 BCE, the first known Neolithic settlements appeared on the subcontinent in Mehrgarh and other sites in the subcontinent.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|pp = 24–25}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|p = 2}} with edit summary, "with Lahuradewa, Bhirrana and other sites within India, keeping it as it was previously was the best option."

There are several problems with this edit. First the cited references don't say anything about Bhirrana or Lahurdewa. Second neither site has uncontroversially appeared in a widely used, reliable, textbook or academic survey. See Quote 3 below. Thirdly, it is not accepted uncontroversially that these sites developed into the Indus Valley Civilization. Fourth, repeating "subcontinent" twice in one sentence is not stylistically sound.

Rather than get into a controversy about which site is older, I have decided to replace the Possehl citation (published 2003) with a citation based on the textbook of Coningham and Young (published 2015), see quote 1 below from pp 104-105, and change the sentence to, "After 6500 BCE evidence for domestication of food crops and animals, construction of permanent structures, and storage of agricultural surplus, appeared in [[Mehrgarh]] and other sites in what is now [[Balochistan]]. {{sfn|Coningham|Young|2015|pp = 104–105}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}}{{sfn|Coningham|Young|2015|pp = 104–105}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|p = 2}}

Quote 1: "With regard to the Indus Valley Tradition, we will focus on selected key sites such as Mehrgarh in Baluchistan and Kot Diji in Sindh, and demonstrate how the archaeological evidence supports their interpretation as precursors of sites belonging to the Indus Civilisation. In modelling the first evidence for domestication, permanent structures, long distance trade, the conservation and storage of agricultural surplus, and analysing ceramic and aceramic traditions, the village of Mehrgarh and its associated communities are the crucial backdrop for understanding the origins and foundations of the cities of the IndusValley Tradition. (p. 104)"

Quote 2: (p. 105) Early food producers timeline (which shows Mehrgarh in Baluchistan as the oldest among various other sites in India and Pakistan)

Quote 3: "Additional evidence has continued to be published, most recently with Rakesh Tiwari's report of domesticated rice and a sedentary village at the four metre high mound of Lahuradewa in Uttar Pradesh from the seventh millennium BCE onwards (Tewari et al. 2006). However, controversy continues over the specific dating and identification of domesticated rice at a number of the key sites as it is accepted by some scholars (Singh 2008: 110) and contested by others (Fuller 2006). (p. 130)"

Note: Coningham and Young makes no mention of Bhirrana. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of membership from Infobox[edit]

pls remove membership column from infobox. -Useless -Doent include all imp organization -Not alll countries in wikipedia page have this Srijanx22 (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

43.245.8.85 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Paleolithic period[edit]

I'm open to discuss my edit from november. The current reasoning doesn't appear logical to me. The finding is rather recent and hence couldn't be there from the glorious FAR times. What's wrong in completing the stone age period with the paleolithic age? And how can the second oldest human culture in the world not be of significance? Please don't say something like "because it was always like this and that on this page... ", which is barely helpful for an ever evolving community project like wikipedia --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Good question. I haven't thought about it in a long time, and I don't have much time now, but here's my two cents. "History," technically, refers to recorded history, i.e. the past as recorded in written human documents. OED, for example, defines it as: "The branch of knowledge that deals with past events; the formal record or study of past events, esp. human affairs." However, it has come to include the past of humans going back to their earliest days. Webster's Unabridged defines it as: "a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events as steps in the sequence of human activities." In the case of humans, i.e. Homo sapiens, it goes back to their hunter-gatherer days. As far as I am aware, the sources we are using in this article with titles History of India restrict themselves to anatomically modern humans. Their earliest records in the form of cave paintings or stone tools, such as Bimbhetka, is what these books typically begin with. The other country FAs, that I remember, I haven't checked recently, such as Australia or Canada, begin with human history. Finally, and you've said you are unimpressed by precedent, but for its entire history as an FA since 2004, the India page has included only human history. Therefore to now suddenly include hominids, such as Homo erectus, would go against precedent. I mean we are talking now about not only pre-literate, but also pre-spoken-language, members of the Homo family. It is something that would require some consensus on the talk page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
PS I have removed "neolithic," and am happy to remove "mesolithic." For most readers these are opaque terms. Instead of "mesolithic," I will write, "Nearly contemporaneous human rock art sites are ... " Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Anther issue is relevant here. In the history section, we largely confine ourselves to making only those statements that are supported by widely used textbooks published by academic publishers, or by survey articles published in scholarly journals. Both are examples of tertiary sources in which the question of what is due or undue has been answered for us by the vetting to which the tertiary sources are subjected for issues of weight, something that secondary sources are not. For this reason, we avoid using specialist monographs or journal articles, such as the Science journal citation you have used, unless they are elicited in support of some simple factual data. Older journal articles, if they are reliable and of high historical impact, will have made it into textbooks. Newer ones will likely have not, the policy thereby protecting us against WP:RECENTISM. For these reasons, I shall be removing the sentence you have added at the beginning of the history section. You are welcome to seek consensus for its inclusion here. But as I have stated before, including that sentence will extend our history not only to pre-literate human beings, but also to pre-verbal hominids, who were not anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

India-related WP Featured Pictures[edit]

I've created a subpage titled Wikipedia India-related featured pictures. Featured Pictures are Wikipedia's best pictures, in the same way that Featured Articles are the best articles. However, since featured pictures are contributed by excellent photographers, indeed professional photographers, their subjects will depend on the photographers interests as well as the photographic opportunities available to them. In other words they cannot be expected to be balanced with respect to region, gender, ethnicity, etc. But by judiciously choosing from them, balance can be maintained. The India FA has ten, which are not shown in that page.

All the 71 pictures currently in the India page can be seen on another subpage: Images in FA India. The ten featured pictures there are marked with a star. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the odd image rotation things in any FA article? Very odd not every reader gets to see the same image.... all because some images are more relevant than others some are better quality than others.... seems like a gallery run around.--Moxy (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the rotation to one of cycling through CURRENTDAYOFYEAR modulo size-of-image-stack, with Jan 1 = 0. The same images will now be displayed for every reader, and they will change at the end of the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019[edit]

Let me edit India I 1!WOW (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
  • You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.
Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019[edit]

Change "The earliest authenticated human remains in South Asia date to about 30,000 years ago." to "The earliest known human remains in South Asia date to about 30,000 years ago." Less wonky. ..... Sahil dhara ..... (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, but I noticed that under the History > Modern India section, there is a floating bullet point underneath the header with a link to History of the Republic of India. Shouldn't it also be like the other section, i.e. something like Main article : History of the Republic of India ? Sahil D (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed with the {{main}} template. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Official Languages of India[edit]

As per the constitution of India , India has 22 official language with equal footings. This has been established by the High Court of Gujarat verdict in 2010. India does not have a national language. The working language in Union Parliament is English and Hindi and the official language in the High Court and Supreme Court is solely English.

There has been some discrepancies regarding this by some editors of Wikipedia.

Courts verdict and Constitution of India is the sole basis of recognizing the official languages not public opinion. If wikipedia promotes public opinion it can amount contempt of court and constitution and Wikipedia can be held liable for the sites it operates in India. This is a serious charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalurumaga (talkcontribs) 13:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

More important is that you are now edit warring to introduce your version, you need to gain consensus here first before adding it, it would be polite to revert your changes until you gain such consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

New Section for Science and Technology[edit]

Hello everyone, I would like to propose a new section for Science and Technology which would cover IPR records, Indian Space Program and other sort of notable advances.

Although well behind developed world and upper middle income economies, India maintains very high number of intellectual properties and patents per capita, ranking of academic institutions, number of Ph.D. scholars annually, high R&D budget, a highly diversified economy with relatively better rank in Economic Complexity index and a respectable rank in Global innovation index compared to any other lower middle income economy. Other significant area to cover would be Indian national space program instead of creating new section. Regards Aman (Talk) Jan 22nd,2019

Please refer to the frequently asked questions at the top of the page where it indicates that current consensus is not to include a Science and Technology section(s). MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2019 (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).