Talk:India/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

Contents

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

India has the himalayas and the plains people mostly live in the or near the himalayas· 50.206.84.131 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Challenges

I just removed one edit[1] that has been made without any discussion. It claims India has 18 million slaves but on other sentence it says that they are bondage labour, and bonded labour in India consists of Child labour (12 million) as well.[2] It sounded like WP:SYNTH.

Since the section also includes some details about corruption. I have renamed it from "Poverty" to "Challenges". Capitals00 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The sentence said "living in conditions of slavery." And we don't request discussion before editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently no scholarly discussion on this subject yet, not even bonded labour. Some have discussed child labour so I have no problem with that. Capitals00 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Upon further research @Fowler&fowler: edit was originally made here, but there was no consensus for it and I could find lengthy discussion on Talk:India/Archive 38#Society section, whether it should be included or not, no one including you had agreed with the inclusion. Previously he tried to make that edit on society section, and then he made it on "Economy", which still made no sense. I would say it was deceptive of @JustBeCool: to edit war over a WP:SYNTH while knowing he couldn't get consensus for it since there are major problems with it. Capitals00 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
And I have also removed the unwarranted undiscussed section splitting that was done here. I have not excluded any content that had been added with consensus but formatted same way it was earlier.[3] Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
All I know is that you can restore an edit reached without consensus to a previous edit, but you can't add your own POV editorializing "challenges." I will look at this later, but please don't add your own text (no matter how well-sourced you think it might be) if you are telling others that you are restoring something to a previous version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: where did I added anything? As for "challenges" its just a section heading of this section. I had only removed the problematic information today per standards of this article. I haven't added anything. Users like RegentsPark,[4] Abecedare,[5] and you never agreed with the inclusion.[6] Still it was added by the same user but after a couple of years[7] and also created unnecessary subsections[8] despite the article sections of an FA must not be too small. And he never discussed any of these edits, let alone gaining consensus. Removal is clearly warranted per WP:OWN#Featured articles. Capitals00 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Capitals00: I haven't signed off on the reversal, which seems to be quite major, 46 words that have been in the article for upward of two, or even more, years. I said above, "I will look at this later." I have not looked at it yet. Wikipedia has somewhat different rules about things that have been grandfathered into the article when people were not watching. We can't simply remove them in an FA in one fell swoop after a long period of time. Please tell us what are the offensive words and why they need to be taken out. I believe we need some discussion. This is a major change you are talking about. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you really need consensus to remove something written without consensus? Thats not WP:BRD. Anyway, it should not take too long to realize that the content is utterly POV and was overlooked. A claim that is based on what one activist organization claimed, stating it as fact on here or even with attribution is WP:Undue. Most of section is not even about poverty and bondage labour is not poverty either. Same with another bogus section which is named "sector", and even worse that its the above section on the the article that really talks about "sector" by saying "the industrial sector 26.3% and the agricultural sector 18.1%". D4iNa4 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Walk Free Foundation is not a reliable source for these stats either. Their claims that there are 45 million slaves worldwide is also exaggerating.[9] Better sources like one from Britain University of Hull said there are 27 million people living in slave-like conditions, while State Departments said 20.9 million (2014). There seems to be enough contradiction with these statistics. Walk Free Foundation is not trusted by academics anyway.[10][11]. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Apart from the first 3 sentences, the entire poverty section starts lacking relevance and it contains grossly off topic content. What corruption has to do with poverty? It comes under economy though, since it is one factor. What child labour has to do with poverty? It doesn't belong to this whole article unless we are talking about labour. Since this is FA, we can remove the problematic content per WP:BOLD. Capitals00 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:BRD is not Wikipedia policy, nor guideline, but a recommended method of dispute resolution. The policy in question here is: WP:OWN#Featured_articles, which suggests that significant changes in Featured Articles are best made by discussing them on the talk page first. When the edit in question was made, there was either no one watching or the people who were watching chose not to intervene. Either way, the edit has been in the article for a significantly long time. It is 46 words long. Reverting it so many years constitutes a significant change, and, in my view, requires a discussion on the talk page. Prima facie, I don't see this as an example of bad faith POV-pushing, and it probably deserves a belated discussion. The Walk-Free Foundation's Global Slavery Index is compiled by the University of Hull's Kevin Bales, a professor of contemporary slavery there. So we certainly can't use the University of Hull to clobber the report. Let us at least agree that the 46 words in question are:

India has the most people living in conditions of slavery, 18 million, most of whom are in bonded labour.[1] India has the largest number of child labourers under the age of 14 in the world with an estimated 12.6 million children engaged in hazardous occupations.[2][3][4][needs update]

Let us also agree that we are talking about "modern slavery," which the New York Times article that is cited defines as:

Unlike historical definitions of slavery in which people were held as legal property, a practice that has been universally outlawed, modern slavery is generally defined as human trafficking, forced labor, bondage from indebtedness, forced or servile marriage or commercial sexual exploitation."

This is nothing new about India; Indians have known about it, in fact India's last Nobel Laureate for Peace Kailash Satyarthi has fought against the worst forms of child labor prevalent in India for the last 35 years. This is by no means the first time the NY Times has addressed the question of modern slavery in India. They ran an editorial on it in 2014, which seemed to especially implicated India. The editorial said, "India has, by far, more enslaved people than any country — more than 14 million. Three million are enslaved in China; two million in Pakistan; 1.2 million in Uzbekistan and one million in Russia." The NY Times also ran a [Nicholas Kristof] column on it seven years before that, which said,

Meena thus joined the ranks of some 10 million children prostituted around the world — more are in India than in any other country. The brothels of India are the slave plantations of the 21st century. Every night, Meena was forced to have sex with 10 to 25 customers. Meena’s owners also wanted to breed her, as is common in Indian brothels. One purpose is to have boys to be laborers and girls to be prostitutes, and a second is to have hostages to force the mother to cooperate."

Are you saying that all this is not happening in India or that it is not happening at the proportionately exorbitant scale reported in these stories? As for the section title "Poverty," I agree that it should be more comprehensive and informative, perhaps something like, "Social, Economic, and Public Health Challenges" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
PS The "challenges" garner a sentence in the lead, "However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, malnutrition, and inadequate public healthcare." They could be even a section (and not just a subsection) of their own. After all, the biodiversity section manages to get only half a sentence in the lead, at the very end. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
But here the nature of the content is utterly POV and made without consensus. Your source[12] is citing Walk Free Foundation, which cannot be trusted when it comes to providing accurate and flawless data. Also knowing the massive criticism and controversies that it has created. Neil Howard had written an article, "The trouble with the Global Slavery Index"[13]:

The trouble with this potentially admirable effort is that the data on which these tables rely is usually second-hand and often of seriously poor quality. This means that the picture they create is frequently inaccurate, and often leads to severely problematic unintended consequences.

This one from ABC-CLIO, written by Alexis A. Aronowitz regards Walk Free as "terribly flawed" and says

"The index is based on mix of sources: population surveys in a few countries; fuzzy estimates by governmental agencies or NGOs; stories in the media; and local experts. For nations lacking any such source, the index creators engage in an "extrapolation" exercise -- they simply apply an estimate from on nation to "similar" nations lacking such estimates."

In any case we don't have to rely on such a "poor quality" and "terribly flawed" controversial data when we are talking about these things, given the inaccuracy we don't need it here on this article. And if we write about it anywhere else then we will need to write down "According to Walk Free Foundation..." cite its own definition of slavery (which includes forced labor, trafficking, forced marriage, etc.) and then cite then any of these critical sources that I have linked, mentioning the problems with the data of Walk Free Foundation. I am also reading that similar argument had been also made by RegentsPark, after looking at the links above, where he said "news story is based on an index compiled by one organization (Walk Free) and the report itself probably has caveats and explanations."[14] Which is correct, because their definition of "modern slavery" is "forced labour, trafficking, forced marriage, worst forms of child labour, bonded labour and so on".. like you have pointed out as well, but none of this qualifies actual definition of slavery.
Concerning the next sentence, "India has the largest number of child labourers under the age of 14 in the world with an estimated 12.6 million children engaged in hazardous occupations." Three sources have been cited, first source is not supporting the information, second one from 2003 supports it and the last one (from 2007) has been cited that is not supporting the information either.[15] That's why we really need to get rid of this whole sentence that includes nothing but outdated information and misrepresentation of sources. According to 2001 census there were 12.6 million child labour, but according to 2011 there were 4.3 million.
If we are going to talk about dated and accurate information, then that would be:

"As per the census of India, there were 10.75 million child labourers in the age group 5-14 years in 1971,13.64 million in. 1981,11.28 million in 1991, 12.6 million in 2001 and 4.3 million in. 2011."[16]

This is also recognized by scholarly sources[17][18] and their conclusion is that there is a significant decline in child labour.[19]
Concerning the title of the section, yes that can be changed to something else. But on lead there is a paragraph that is covered under India#History. Where as the last paragraph is already covered under India#Foreign relations and military, India#Economy, India#Demographics. That means having two sections under "Economy", this one and "Sectors" (that doesn't talk about sectors at all) is really inaccurate. It would be better to keep it all under "India#Economy", which is still not only talking about "Indian labour force", but also "Some 431 million Indians have left poverty since 1985". D4iNa4 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@D4iNa4: Allow me to nail your first argument first. You said, "Better sources like one from Britain University of Hull said there are 27 million people living in slave-like conditions, while State Departments said 20.9 million (2014)." Do you agree that you were talking nonsense when you mentioned Hull because the Global Slavery Index is compiled at Hull? What is the State Department Website? Please enlighten? One argument at a time. I won't let you slip away that easy. So, let's have the state department slavery website. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: The Washington Post article says[20] "Bales no longer stands by his estimate of 27 million, saying it dates from the 1990s, and points to the GSI as more accurate. (He is the lead author.) But the GSI figure has come under attack from other researchers for having a murky, inconsistent and questionable methodology." That means Bales and GSI should not be counted as same entity, because GSI claims 45 million.
What really matters is that we can see that the information about labour, poverty, are still found on main Economy section, you can tell that an editor after failing to get consensus on talk page, reinserted the problematic content and created subsections after cherry picking information from other sections and misplaced them just for creating a problematic section.
I had said from start, that the stats about slavery are WP:SYNTH and academics don't rely on them, instead they describe the actual definition of this "slavery" and point out the problems with the statistics. When they are so problematic, why we need them without properly analyzing their vast definition of slavery? I am sure we are not going to reward these stats a specific paragraph since we have to finally indicate that one should not rely on these statistics.
What is "However, hardly 2% of Indians pay income taxes" doing on the paragraph about biotech/biopharmaceutical? Also we need to highlight the improvements in corruption index. India ranks lower in corruption than what it did years ago.[21] Capitals00 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Let's discuss this one step at a time. First @D4iNa4:: So you do agree that your claim about the University of Hull's figures being different from those in the Global Slavery Index was incorrect? Or are you still saying that the University of Hull has some independent modern slavery estimates that are different from (and not necessarily simply older than) the Walk Free Foundation's 2016 estimates in the Global Slavery Index which was produced by a team led by a Hull emeritus professor, Kevin Bales (now at Nottingham)? If so, please tell us what those estimates are? What about the US State Department's "figures?" I ask because the US State Department does not have figures of its own. It merely uses the Inter Labour Organization's (ILO's) figures.

@Capitals00: Really you had said, "Academics don't rely on them?" And yet, the ILO, the United Nations' main labor statistics organization had four international workshops on "Measuring modern slavery" in 2015–2016, has a data initiative on modern slavery and announced in March 2017 that they will be collaborating with the Walk Free Foundation : ILO and Walk Free Foundation to collaborate on Global Estimate of Modern Slavery, whose announcement later this year is eagerly awaited.

Again, I don't care what the original edit involved. It has been in the article for a long time. Removing it requires an argument about the inappropriateness of modern slavery estimates, which neither of you have produced, not Wiki-arguments about what might or might not have motivated the original edit. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I am not going to repeat the argument again, we should really move forward. I have made 3 proposals on User:Capitals00/section, and under the heading of each proposal, I have explained the edits. Let me know which one you prefer, you can modify them as well. Capitals00 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
No, no, no, please do repeat. I entirely missed your argument why the International Labour Organization, the United Nations' flagship organization on labor issues and statistics, founded in 1919, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1969, might be collaborating with Walk Free Foundation—the same reviled on that issues the Global Slavery Index—to bring out one Global Modern Slavery Index in the 72 Session of the UN General Assembly (see here), which begins exactly a week from today. Don't worry, we are sticking to one discussion here: whether "modern slavery" belongs here, and thus far you have produced no argument for its removal. Please don't start discussions elsewhere. Just as a few people shooting the breeze on Talk:Vedic period is not functional consensus for the India page, no conclusions reached on your user page has any bearing on the India page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not starting discussion anywhere else, I have only made proposals on a sandbox because they are too big (72,000 bytes). I can bring them here if you want. For now I would add it here, that if we include a paragraph about modern slavery, it should read as:
"According to 2011 census, there were 4.3 million child labourers in the country, 65% of decline from 12.6 million labourers in 2001.[22][23] According to Walk Free Foundation, there were an estimated of 18.3 million people in India living in the forms of modern slavery such as bonded labour, forced labour, commercial sexual exploitation, forced begging, forced recruitment into nonstate armed groups, human trafficking and forced marriage."[24][25]
It is necessary to attribute the stats and describe their definition at least. Capitals00 (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a mistake somewhere. The UNICEF report describes the 2011 Census to say there are 10.1 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 engaged in work in India Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC) PS The Government of India itself, at least their Ministry of Child Development, is remarkably not including children who work 3 to 6 months of the year in its census. If you include those, the Government's own statistics jump to 8.22 million. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if we go by UNICEF, still it would mean that there is reduction of 2.6 million child labour in total. But reliable sources are mostly supporting the 4.3 million figure.[26][27] Kailash Satyarthi also noted 4.3 million figure.[28] Capitals00 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid the International Labour Organization, the UN's agency on labour issues, says it pretty definitively, In India, there are 10.1 million working children below the ages of 5 to 14 (2011 Census)" They have interpreted the census to say that. It doesn't matter how the Government of India finesses it. The ILO goes on to say, "As per Census 2011, the total child population in India in the age group (5-14) years is 259.6 million. Of these, 10.1 million (3.9% of total child population) are working, either as ‘main worker’ or as ‘marginal worker’. In addition, more than 42.7 million children in India are out of school. However, the good news is that the incidence of child labour has decreased in India by 2.6 million between 2001 and 2011. However, the decline was more visible in rural areas, while the number of child workers has increased in urban areas, indicating the growing demand for child workers in menial jobs. Child labour has different ramifications in both rural and urban India." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment After going through the section and discussion here, I tend to agree with Capitals00 and D4iNa4. The paragraph about slavery is indeed out of context and poorly sourced. Child labour stats might be included in demographics section. Slavery and bonded labour, in my opinion do not qualify for this article with better sources. Moreover, the whole section of poverty seems irrelevant in economy and should be moved to demographics. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: But the economy section of India has parent article Economy of India which has sections or subsections on Corruption and Poverty. The Demography section of India has parent article Demography of India, which does not say anything about poverty, corruption, or child labor. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the previous consensus, as well as the argument concerning the credibility of these statistics, the numbers regarding child labor and slavery should be removed. The organization supplying these statistics provides a broad definition for slavery. It also makes more sense to remove both of these subsections - they were clearly better under the “Economy”. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 03:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I think they should stay. I suggested not including it when the walk free report first came out because we had no evidence of the reliability of their work. However, a couple of years have gone by and now we have the ILO collaborating with walk free and that's pretty much as good a stamp of reliability you can get. That's for the slavery stuff. Child labor is clearly an endemic problem in India and both slavery as well as child labor are poverty related issues. Demographics don't come into the picture at all. --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I would say that we should mention the report of Walk Free, and indeed attribute it with their definition of modern slavery, but remove the child labour statistics since not only child labour but also human trafficking, forced marriages, etc. are already included in the overall statistics provided by Walk Free. These statistics are not about poverty but corruption, and black market as described by the main articles of these subjects. For such reasons I agree with others that these details should come under the section of economy, on same paragraph that should include details on corruption. Lorstaking (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. Child labour even on main contemporary slavery article has details that it is a part of modern slavery. @RegentsPark and Lorstaking: are you both interested in resolving this? The details of child labour and slavery [29] were inserted without consensus or discussion, same happened with the creation of "sectors" and "poverty" subsections.[30] So far I am seeing that editors have talked about removing these two subsections, and suggested merge back into economy. But I would say that we really need to make some progress here. Fowler has suggested changing the title of the poverty section to "Social, Economic, and Public Health Challenges", also he also agreed that "Challenges" can be the name for the section.[31] For now I would propose "Poverty" needs to be changed to "Challenges", because "challenges" is also mentioned on the lead, and corruption, healthcare, and modern slavery are part of mismanagement than poverty. The "sectors" can be changed into "Industry". How does it sounds? I will propose a version soon. Capitals00 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with the "Social, Economic, and Public Health Challenges" section that contains all the current material. But I do think the slavery stats and child labor stats should be included there. As an aside (not that it matters), I wouldn't say "mismanagement". There are historical processes that have lead to the socio-economic challenges faced by India that are completely independent of the management of India's economy!--regentspark (comment) 16:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Since no one objected the section titles for nearly 20 days, I have changed them. I have also moved "However, hardly 2% of Indians pay income taxes" to GDP growth paragraph, it fits more there. "Socio-economic challenges" seemed well. I think we have enough comments from editors to make the disputed paragraph make it read like:-
"According to a Walk Free Foundation report in 2016, there were 18.3 million people in India living in the forms of modern slavery, such as bonded labour, child labour, human trafficking, forced begging, among others.[5][6][7] According to 2011 census, there were 10.1 million child labourers in the country, a decline of 2.6 million from 12.6 million child labourers in 2001.[8]"
The Corruption details, that I had pointed above have not been objected either. We need to update it. "Corruption in India is perceived to have decreased. According to Corruption Perceptions Index, India ranked 76th out of 176 countries in 2016, from 85th in 2014.[9]" This should be the last sentence, along with "Since 1991, economic inequality between India's states has consistently grown: the per-capita net state domestic product of the richest states in 2007 was 3.2 times that of the poorest."(already on article) Capitals00 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Modern slavery estimated to trap 45 million people worldwide". nytimes.com. 31 May 2016. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  2. ^ Gamini Herath; Kishor Sharma (2007). Child Labour in South Asia. Burlington: Ashgate publishing company. p. 100. ISBN 9780754670049. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
  3. ^ "Special:Fighting Child Labour". unicef. 22 August 2013.
  4. ^ "India- The big picture". UNICEF. 26 February 2003.
  5. ^ https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/country/india/
  6. ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/india-has-the-largest-population-of-modern-day-slaves/story-PVP1mAQlFqLwOXFtE9EsII.html
  7. ^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-ranks-fourth-in-global-slavery-survey/articleshow/52528778.cms
  8. ^ "Child labour in India - ILO" (PDF). International Labour Organization. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
  9. ^ http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/india-improves-its-ranking-on-corruption-index/article8159155.ece

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

2405:205:A046:2A40:298F:DBC8:E858:F105 (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

national game are hockey.....

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER 11:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

India gdps

India must respect all presentation standards of all other main countries.United States,UK like all main countries have 2016 estimates.2017 has yet to end.Do you live in the future?If nobody explains it'll be corrected.Kingofwoods (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

About Map

Is it OK to show distorted map particularly Kashmir since India have all the authority over it as per 1947 assertion signature of raja of Kashmir? Raju Achar (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Raju Achar (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Demography changes

As you can observe a pic in demography showing coal miner but isn't that void of wiki rule?Without that individuals permission someone have added this pic please go through that. Raju Achar (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Raju Achar (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017

hi all people Qwertyboy123456789 (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You didn't specify an edit to be made, so I'll mark this request closed for now. Feel free to actually request a specific change. -- Begoon 14:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

Niranjan 03 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

To edit some information

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. JTP (talkcontribs) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2017

Please change information to improved information. 2A00:23C4:7A88:4C00:B:94A2:1330:FAD1 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2017 (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. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2017

Change "Anthem: Jana Gana Mana (Hindi)" to "Anthem: Jana Gana Mana (Bengali)" in 'Quick Facts' box. AyonIndian (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Read the attached citation, there is explanation for this  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

article needs a "Languages" and "Education" sections added to it [like almost all other nations in wiki].

as per title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talkcontribs) 19:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

improvement

this article needs much more improvement. please, some of you folks from India do your country a favor and improve it ! thx ! Gizziiusa (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)gizziiusa

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

India has an elephantine constitution Cinderella Sequeira (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is either a non-request or just a "Please change X to Y" request. ToThAc (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

223.185.195.120 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: blank  shivam (t) 18:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In Etymology, please edit the part where ancient Greeks reffered to Indians as Indoi to Indi. Whoever wrote it like that used Greeklish and foreigners that don't know that in Greek o+i=i will read it as In-DO-I. Thanks and sorry if I used the wrong format for this edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekPerson12345 (talkcontribs) 12:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017

Add the name of Republic of India in Hindi in Devanagari script as it is the official way Hindi is written. 24.47.230.45 (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Not done - Please see WP:INDICSCRIPT. WikiProject India's style guide does not permit the use of Indic scripts in the leads or infoboxes. -- Begoon 05:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove Narendra Modi's pic with Vladimir Putin

This pic is given under the heading "Foreign relations and military". This pic's caption mentions India and Russia share "extensive economic, defence, and technological ties", which gives the misleading impression that India is an ally of Russia and is enemy of USA. I would say either remove this pic or also put a pic of Indian PM with Donald Trump there. In recent years, India's ties with USA have become more extensive than with Russia, as a result of which Russia is coming closer to China and Pakistan. 122.180.192.65 (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Not done - This is not a place for your personal opinions on India's foreign relations. Secondly, the image doesn't give the impression that India is an enemy of the united states. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Language of jana gana mana national anthem

National anthem was written in Bengali and we are using the same , there is no hindi version available, it may written hindi or other languages, but its not a translation. there is no information available on hindi version other then its orginal form. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana ಶಿವಕುಮಾರ್ ನಾಯಕ್ (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Strong support - Jana Gana Mana, although not written and/or sung in pure Bengali, has never been translated into Hindi. It has only been transliterated to Hindi while minor changes have been made to the vowels (Bengali O to Hindustani A). We continue to use the Sadhu Bhasha/Bengali version of the anthem even today, not Hindi. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

India: Drives on the left is wrong. In India people drives on the Right. Yaali1919 (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Please change 'Drives on the left' to 'Drives on the Right' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaali1919 (talkcontribs) 12:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Wrong info. Driving is on the left in India.  LeoFrank  Talk 12:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

Add one more sentence at the end of Demographics section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). The sentence is as follows "However India is a secular country and there is no state religion."

Why this change ? Because 79.8% of India are Hindus. People are quoting that line to claim India is a Hindu nation. Biswajana (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Misapplication of Wikipedia articles in other fora is the fault or responsibility of those misrepresenting them, not Wikipedia or it owners or editors. The demographic data is reliably-sourced while the proposed addition is not. The very top of that section also prominently links to the article Religion in India which states prominently: The Secularism in India means treatment of all religions equally by the state. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Culture section restore

I want to restore (mostly partially) the section back to how it was in 2011 post-FAR. Compare the two: Now and Then

Rationales include there have been some additions to it which weren't discussed and checked since then, we can't vouch for their sourcing etc; giving more weight (in the form of subsections) for relatively lesser aspects like Clothing, Cuisine etc (which are prone to good-faith additions) lowers our agreed-on level of detail for summarising, thereby possibly implying other frequently rejected sections (Defense, Tourism etc) can be put as well; and finally, MOS, it simply doesn't reflect a good structure to have so many (eight, most of them stubby) subsections under one main, unless there's a good reason for it.

I recall there were improvements to it as well since then and I'll try to preserve those while trying to restore. I'm mostly concerned about the structure and bare new additions. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Single paragraph sections are not in line with MOS, and indicate a lack of summarystyle. CMD (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

List of metropolises

In an edit in September 2016, a list of metropolises was added to the first paragraph of the lead, without any discussion on the talk page. Some FAs such as Germany and Canada do have a list of largest metropolises. But they are countries in which more than 75% of the population is urban. In India, it is 30%. It doesn't make much sense to give such privileged mention to the urban 30%, when the 70% rural population garners none at all anywhere in the lead. Besides, a list of metropolises seems incongruous immediately after a of India's neighbors in the Indian ocean. I have temporarily removed that sentence, but I'd like to hear from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This was something I was about to raise as well. There's more, in the Demo section, someone also changed mentioning of cities to urban agglomerations: According to the 2011 census, there are 53 million-plus urban agglomerations in India; among them Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, in decreasing order by population. As such, that's a really lesser understood term than just cities which is used throughout the article. Besides just restoring it, what do we do of the "list-like" nature of this statement in general? What's the best way to present this other than impose an arbitrary but reasonable limit of a mention of just five cities? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Treating it by magnitude could work. eg: ...there are 53 cities with over a million people in India, with Mumbai and Delhi supporting over 10 million each. I feel this conveys the impact better than a simple list of cities >1 million. I wouldn't put anything in the lead at the moment as it reflects the bodies lack of space given to demographics. However, if the body is changed, the lead could follow. CMD (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Very well spoken, CMD. As it stands, the three-paragraph Demographics Section has just one sentence about urban conglomerations. It is not lead-worthy yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Permanently replace the "revisionist" term "South Asian" with original historic term the "Indian-subcontinent"

I find it interesting that the lead mentions, India being in the "South Asia" and not in "Indian-subcontinent". The term Indian-subcontinent has been used for much longer. The term South Asia is relatively new "Revisionist invention", likely coined primarily by the Pakistanis in USA and reused by others (those who might be either naive liberal, apathetic pacifist, oblivious/ignorant of the terminology, supremacist, and so on). Why this revisionist term "South Asia" is accepted? Specially, when it is mainly pushed by the Pakistanis (who formed a country on the basis of religious division), with their objectins to the long established term the "Indian-subcontinent". It is wrong to engage in the appeasement by being "subjectively" and excessively politically-correct to accept the "revisionist" agenda/POV terminology. Apologies if this has been discussed before. I do not know how to search older posts, except going through lengthy list of history of this talk page, which is impractical. Hopefully, editors will use rationality and more assertive editors will not silence rational voice. I am proposing to please permanently change the term "South Asia" to the "Indian-subcontinent". Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What page or what content are you talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I support the use of "South Asia" here. It is the region of the world that India is in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Even if this is the older term, this does not necessarily make it the better one. Rational arguments will be considered, mere complaints about the motivation, etc, of other people will be ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates of establishment of India

While the dates of establishment for other countries like Egypt, China etc start with the ancient civilizations for India it starts with Independence from UK in 1947 which is very misleading and gives an impression that India is a a new country. Nothing can be further from truth.

Please start it with Indus valley civilization 3300 BC. Start of Vedic Civilization 1900 BC Unification under Chandra Gupta Maurya in 312 BC

India is a new country that was formed in 1947. Indian history may go back thousands of years but, as a nation, it has only existed since 1947. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no, the India article doesn't say that it started from independence; the Egypt article does not say that that nation was established at the time of an ancient civilization. Having said that, I'll add that this kind of thing is treated idiosyncratically. Consider the article United Kingdom (which is about the UK of GB and NI, as there's a separate article about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland):
Prior to the creation of the UK, Wales had been conquered and annexed by the Kingdom of England. This meant that the united kingdom created in 1707 by the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland encompassed all of Great Britain. The Kingdom of Ireland merged with this state in 1801 to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Five-sixths of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present formulation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are fourteen British Overseas Territories,[21] the remnants of the British Empire which, at its height in the 1920s, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land mass and was the largest empire in history. [...] / The UK [...] was the first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
So first we're told that the UK (of GB and NI) only started up in 1922; and then, in the very next paragraph, we are told that, before it even existed, this nation was "the first industrialized country". So that article, which I presume is well policed, doesn't even manage to be internally consistent.
As for categorization, India is in Category:States and territories established in 1947; Egypt is in Category:States and territories established in 1922, the Youkay is not.-- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Current use of the established events parameters of {{Infobox country}} is highly variable: Poland has a huge list, Germany has none. History sections typically stretch way back into the past, and long by they do so. The UK page has recently seen some bickering over what counts as an establishing event. Beyond possibly giving the creation date of the current accepted sovereign state, they are more trouble than they are worth. I'd be happy to see them removed. Batternut (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Me too, though I think they're OK for the kind of data that's backed up by ISO or similar: international dialling code, top-level domain, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Leading Line

Hey there everybody, I have problem with the statement in opening section where it says

Social stratification, based on caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE....

because there is not one opinion on origins of caste [32] it shouldn't be added (especially) in lead section and because there is not one opinion on it, it, therefore, violates WP:NPOV.

And when referring to 3000-year-old affairs of India

Isn't the word caste a little controversial then. Anmolbhat (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The varnas did emerge in the first millennium BCE, and at the level of detail appropriate to this article that is the emergence of "caste". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Then we should replace the world Caste with Varna because there was no such thing as caste back then. It would be more neutral and better. Anmolbhat (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

Add Tamil in Official Language. 1.22.196.38 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The official languages given in the infobox are supported by detailed, reliable sources. You have provided neither a reason nor a source for your requested change. Begoon 10:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Edition

Please give a link of Seven wonders of India in See also. Jainallotrope (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change number of states from 29 to 30. In the article published by you have written 29 states but in 2015 a new state of Telangana was constituted in the Union of India. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:3112:3161:A038:E456:204B:847C (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done The 29 includes Telangana. See Administrative divisions of India#States and union territories. General Ization Talk 19:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New findings of Humanlike population in India - Edit request

Humanlike exists in the southern part of India as per below list of research findings and paper published in Nature. Can I add these info to Ancient history in India page please?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/india-stone-tools-human-evolution-archaeology-science/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/02/01/very-old-very-sophisticated-tools-found-in-india-the-question-is-who-made-them/ https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sharp-stones-found-india-signal-surprisingly-early-toolmaking-advances

--Inbamkumar86 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

The population is 1,324,171,354 according to the 2017 revision of the World Population Prospects[1] Ilovejellybagels (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as the requesting user is indef blocked as a sockpuppet. I have no prejudice against a user in good standing making this change in good faith. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

can i please edit this because some facts are incorrect and i would like to change them. I know a lot about this because I'm Indian Shashankbrahmbhatt (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER 07:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate errorra

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


2405:205:1284:45AD:EC6F:9BD9:7258:EA53 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The coordinates in the article appear correct to me. If you think that there is an error, you'll need to give a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2018

114.69.238.72 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 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. No edit proposed. Begoon 06:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Slave carpet making

"Slavery: A Global Investigation". Vimeo. True Vision. Retrieved 13 March 2018.Bales, Kevin (2007). Ending Slavery: How We Free Today's Slaves. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 22–23, 36–46. ISBN 978-0-520-25470-1.Bales, Kevin (2012). Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (Revised ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 225, 238, 240. ISBN 978-0-520-27291-0.Kara, Siddharth. "Tainted Carpets: Slavery and Child Labor in India's Hand-Made Carpet Sector" (PDF). Harvard University.Bahree, Megha (February 5, 2014). "Your Beautiful Indian Rug Was Probably Made By Child Labor". Forbes. Retrieved 13 March 2018.Rambho Kumar; Rama; Ravi Shanker Kumar; Shahnawaz; Ashok; Battis; Sandeep (2008). Bales, Kevin; Trodd, Zoe, eds. To Plead Our Own Cause: Personal Stories by Today's Slaves. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 69–81.Kumar, Ravi Shanker. "Ravi Shanker Kumar". End Slavery Now. Retrieved 13 March 2018.FitzPatrick, Terry. "Rambho: Survivor of Child Slavery in India". Free the Slaves. Retrieved 13 March 2018."Case study 2 - Rama (India, 2004)". National Museums Liverpool. International Slavery Museum. Retrieved 13 March 2018."Ashok - 2004". Antislavery Usable Past. Retrieved 13 March 2018.Fitzpatrick, Terry (December 21, 2016). "2016 Highlight: Rescue Frees 11 Boys from India Carpet Slavery". Free The Slaves. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Some child slaves are forced to make carpets, and this is a topic interest to some who research slavery.

I have provided eleven references showing that child slaves are sometimes forced to make carpets in India. I'm not sure how much more evidence you want. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither I nor the other editor who reverted this addition have questioned its accuracy or reliability. What we have said is that we consider it probably WP:UNDUE to add this level of specific detail to a summary article about the country, and that the statistical data you have added, along with what exists, should be sufficient. As suggested in the edit summaries, there may be more appropriate articles to add this to. -- Begoon 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

So you had this secret conversation someplace. In any case, the webpage you link states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That would seem to imply that the references are still quite relevant, albeit not for the reasons I originally guessed. To go over them one by one:

This documentary, is, in my opinion, the most compelling, but not the most comprehensive of these references. It provides examples of slave labour being used to make carpets that clearly meet the definition of slavery under international law. (Which is important, because there are some out there who use broader definitions of slavery.) Recently freed slaves and other relevant people are interviewed, and there is footage of a police raid to free people from being enslaved to make carpets. "Slavery: A Global Investigation". Vimeo. True Vision. Retrieved 13 March 2018.Bales, Kevin (2007). Ending Slavery: How We Free Today's Slaves. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 22–23, 36–46. ISBN 978-0-520-25470-1.

This book, written by a well-regarded expert on the topic of contemporary slavery, has around 14 pages or so on the topic of slaves being used to make carpets, and of freeing those people from carpet-related slavery. Bales, Kevin (2007). Ending Slavery: How We Free Today's Slaves. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 22–23, 36–46. ISBN 978-0-520-25470-1.

This book, written by the same expert as the book above, has a few pages which confirm the use of slavery in carpet making, but an entire chapter on about slavery in India, including customs around slavery, examples, efforts by the Indian government to free slaves, and problems with corruption. This suggests that coverage of slavery in the article about India should actually be expanded. Bales, Kevin (2012). Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (Revised ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 225, 238, 240. ISBN 978-0-520-27291-0.

Here is a 38-page report about slavery and child labour in India's hand-made carpet industry, written by another expert and published on Harvard's website. Kara, Siddharth. "Tainted Carpets: Slavery and Child Labor in India's Hand-Made Carpet Sector" (PDF). Harvard University.

This webpage gives an example of a right-wing news outlet that considers this topic important. Bahree, Megha (February 5, 2014). "Your Beautiful Indian Rug Was Probably Made By Child Labor". Forbes. Retrieved 13 March 2018.

This book gives 7 or 8 examples of people who have been freed slavery at carpet looms in India, along with some commentary from the editors. The editors believe that it is important to give former slaves themselves a voice to talk about their experiences, and published this book to give them that voice. Rambho Kumar; Rama; Ravi Shanker Kumar; Shahnawaz; Ashok; Battis; Sandeep (2008). Bales, Kevin; Trodd, Zoe, eds. To Plead Our Own Cause: Personal Stories by Today's Slaves. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 69–81.

These are four webpages which publish some of the same examples in the aformentioned To Plead Our Own Cause book. I thought they would be helpful for people who didn't want to go look up the book themselves. Kumar, Ravi Shanker. "Ravi Shanker Kumar". End Slavery Now. Retrieved 13 March 2018. FitzPatrick, Terry. "Rambho: Survivor of Child Slavery in India". Free the Slaves. Retrieved 13 March 2018. "Case study 2 - Rama (India, 2004)". National Museums Liverpool. International Slavery Museum. Retrieved 13 March 2018. "Ashok - 2004". Antislavery Usable Past. Retrieved 13 March 2018.

This one provides an example of people being freed from carpet-related slavery. It seems important to remind people that slavery is not actually legal in India, despite the high number of people enslaved, and that efforts are being made to free people. Fitzpatrick, Terry (December 21, 2016). "2016 Highlight: Rescue Frees 11 Boys from India Carpet Slavery". Free The Slaves. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

More references can be provided if needed, but I think these show that the use of slave labour to make carpets in India has, for whatever reason, been an issue that "published, reliable sources" have decided to cover extensively.

Ashy Waves (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

14.192.54.3 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

GNN NEWS AGENCY-GNN

Declined as request is not clear. -- Alexf(talk) 22:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

India doesn't have an official language. But in this article, it is written that the official language of India is Hindi and English DeathlockH (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@DeathlockH: Not done India does have two official languages. What India does not have is a national language.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 04:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Power status of india

As every country can be classified as small, middle, great, superpower, rising, etc. It is imperative that such information relating to India should also be added to this page. As my earlier edits were reverted, I am starting a discussion on this page regarding India's powert status and whether such information should be added or not. As India ranks 4th on Global power index, third in terms of military strength and 5th in terms of economy, 2nd in population, one among the top nations in terms of space technology, having strategic position in Indian ocean, being the member of G20 and having good relation with almost all countries of the world except Pakistan and probably China, etc. I suggest this power status should be added. Here is the replica of what I had added(it may contain some extra links of which necessary links may be selected and rest abondoned if the discussion lead to addition of the information):

"India is considered a middle power[1][2][3][4] and a potential or emerging superpower.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]"

Lets have an unbiased discussion on it and decide on consensus whether to add it or not.

Thank you. shitansh sinha 03:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shitansh (talkcontribs)

References

About Indian official language

There is no official language authorized by the government or the Constitution. Though Hindi spoke by large population, it is not official language. And also English is not official language. Prashantdaphal9 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no "national language", but many "official" ones - see Languages of India. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As per article 343 of the constitution of India, Hindi is the official language of india. Also, after anti-hindi protests by southern states, official lamguage act, 1963 was passed allowing continuing English as also an associate offiial language of India. So, both Hindi and English are the official language of India. Also, 8th schedule of the consitution of India list further 22 languages which are recognised by the constituion, the purpose for enlisting these 22 languages was to give representation of these language speakers in official language commission and also to enrich hindi using its words, etc(Sources:Indian polity: M. Laxmikant, Constitution of india and law) shitansh sinha 04:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC) shitansh sinha 04:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shitansh (talkcontribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2018

197.161.50.175 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 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. L293D ( • ) 13:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

2405:204:900F:637F:C028:21AF:264C:763D (talk) 05:42, 19 April 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. ~ Winged BladesGodric 06:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Population of India

As per World Bank data, India's population reached the 1.324 billion mark by 2016. Please refer [1]

The article still shows 1.2 billion. Kindly update.

--Suryakantb (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Universal suffrage

Unlike,many other countries,the republic of India has used Universal suffrage / adult franchise for its state and national elections right from its first poll in 1952.Let me know where this information should go in the article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This does not say anything about eligibility for voting.United States, United Kingdom or South Africa have claimed to have been democracies for centuries but universal suffrage came to UK in 1920s,USA in 1965 and in South Africa after the end of Apartheid in 1994.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Official name of India

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

Passport of India

In the article — and throughout Wikipedia — the official name of the country is referred to as 'Republic of India', but, I can't find any primary or secondary sources which support this claim. Article 1 of the constitution as "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.".[1] Further, article 300(1) of the constitution says "The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.",[2] which basically means that GoI would be referred to as 'Union of India' in legal correspondence, but, I can't find anything more substantial in official and unofficial sources. Any and all comments related to this would be welcome.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 05:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

So, if no one has any problem, should I just go on and replace 'Republic of India' with 'India' in the article? Also, should a similar process be undertaken throughout Wikipedia?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 05:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
India is a republic, and it says so in the preamble to the constitution, even though the exact words "Republic of India" aren't used. I think you should wait for a positive consensus to form before you change anything. "Republic of India" has been the longstanding designation. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki: that is exactly what I have been trying to do. The preamble also calls the nation, "SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC", that doesn't necessarily mean the nation should be called the 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India'. So — in my opinion — the nation should be referred to as 'India', unless someone can find a mention of 'Republic of India' in any Indian or international legislation. Again, any and all response related to this would be welcome.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The Preamble of the Constitution of India, refers to the state as a "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic", and this is generally shortened to "Republic of India". Also, Republic of India (country, or state of India) ≠ Union of India (government of India). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Foreign treaties signed by India (see this example of a DTAA with Cyprus), as well as recitals of all Acts of Parliament ("BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-fifth Year of the Republic of India as follows") refer to the "Republic of India" (country, or state of India) rather than the Union of India, which is a reference reserved for the Union government at the central level (see this example). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: Fuck, I forgot about the passport. However, the article 1 of the constitution — aptly titled "Name and territory of the Union." — says, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.".[:reference 1] The Hindu and The Indian Express have referred to India as, well, just 'India'.[:reference 2][:reference 3] Further, the supreme court once dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) calling for the change of instances of 'India' with 'Bharat' in all official and unofficial documents.[:reference 4][:reference 5][:reference 6]
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 07:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

───────────────────────── From the research I did a while ago (but don't have references handy), "Union of India" was the official name of the Dominion of India, which came to end with the passage of the Indian constitution. However, the term "Union" was retained for legal purposes, to maintain continuity. The country/state that came into being with the Constitution is best referred to as the "Republic of India". Let us not to do too much hair-splitting here. What exists on the page is perfectly fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: With all due respect, I don’t agree with your notion that what exists on the page is perfectly fine. If we don’t have a source of the country’s official name, I don’t think that the line about the nation being called the ‘Republic of India’ should stay, then. The nation — as a member-state — is referred as ‘India’ in the UN, whereas, nations like Iran are called ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’. What I would suggest doing for now, is that the line, “India, officially the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya)”, be amended, and, be read, “India, also called the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya)”.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 10:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The edit you suggest, to replace "officially" by "also called", is perfectly fine by me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Great! If anyone has a problem with this, or anything else, do let me know.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 12:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@SshibumXZ: India is usually referred to as "Republic of India" in official documents of the UN [33] [34] [35] [36], while "India" is used elsewhere. "Republic of India" is also used in official joint statements with other countries [37] [38] [39] and international agreements/treaties [40] [41] [42]. India.gov.in also lists the country name as Republic of India. There are sources for India's name changing from "Dominion of India" to "Republic of India" on 26 January 1950, here is one for example [43]. I don't see any reason to change the current wording. —Gazoth (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gazoth's views above. India is referred to as "Republic of India" and is officially recognized as such in the international fora, and therefore there is no need to modify the current wording. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Gazoth: but the constitution — which is the supreme law of the land — calls the country 'India'. Also, the UN, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund use both terms, 'India' and 'Republic of India', see: [44], [45], [46], [47] and [48]. Also, I did a bit more research on this; turns out that the GoI itself isn't sure of the country's official name,[1] according this and the citation, at least. Hence — in my opinion — changing the wording to reflect this is the only viable option.

References

  1. ^ Shukla, Neha (October 5, 2012). "What's the country's official name". The Times of India. Lucknow: The Times Group. OCLC 23379369. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
@SshibumXZ: The name "Republic of India" came into use after the constitution was adopted, so I don't see the name missing from the constitution as an issue. The websites usually use short names, such as "Belgium" instead of "Kingdom of Belgium" and "Armenia" instead of "Republic of Armenia", so it is not relevant to this discussion. The lack of a definitive reply to RTI requests is a bit more concerning, but the widespread usage of "Republic of India" in official documents should override the concern. —Gazoth (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth: the constitution — like the constitution of any sovereign nation — is the basic and supreme law of the nation, though, and, any law/document in conflict with the constitution is considered void ab initio. Also — like I mentioned before — the article 1 of the Indian constitution calls the nation 'India'. As an example, the official name of US — as mentioned in its constitution — is 'United States of America', even though the commonly referred to name is the/these United States. But in the Constitution of India, the nation is only referred to as 'India', and nothing else. I agree with your points about Armenia and Belgium, though.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@SshibumXZ: The name "Republic of India" is not in conflict with the constitution, since it does not forbid the use of such a name. Most (if not all) ratified treaties of India carry the name "Republic of India" and it is also mentioned in the SOP for concluding a treaty. Ratified treaties have constitutional validity and by extension the name does too. —Gazoth (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Gazoth: I am not debating that, what I was suggesting is that 'India' is as at least as official — if not more — as 'Republic of India', so having 'Republic of India' as the only official name wouldn't be fair. Hence, the suggested wording change.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 15:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Your message seems to have gotten lost somewhere. Let me try.
The point is not that there is anything wrong with calling India the Republic of India. Rather there is something wrong with terming it "the official name", thereby implying that "India" is an "unofficial name". SshibumXZ is saying, you can't do that, because "India" is the name in the Constitution. There is nothing "unofficial" about it. I hope that clarifies.
The CIA [49] calls the two names "conventional short form" and "conventional long form". Somebody here has jumped the gun by calling one name official and the other unofficial. That is clearly unsourced, as SshibumXYZ has pointed out. So, without a source, the "officially" part should be dropped. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In light of the above discussion, I would like to propose the following changes:

The Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[a] commonly known as India, is a country in South Asia.

Let me know your thoughts. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Current lead is similar to Pakistan and Bangladesh. I think that "India" should indeed appear before "Republic of India". D4iNa4 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, this is going in the wrong direction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@SshibumXZ: You are right, there is no source that says that "Republic of India" is more official than "India". If a mention in article 1 of the constitution is a sufficient condition to be considered as an official name, "Bhārat" should also be mentioned beside "India" similar to the way "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is after "Republic of India". —Gazoth (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth: I have got no problem with your proposed change(s).
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - I have reverted a change to the article, please dont make changes while this discussion is open and await a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately, having restored an unsourced phrase, you have now taken over the WP:BURDEN of providing a source. Good luck finding one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest sticking with the current text. The sources provided by Gazoth (e.g., [50]) are adequate. Also, SshibumXZ, the Indian constitution is a primary document and should not be used as a source here. (It doesn't, anyway, say anything about an official name for the country so, even if we could use it as a source, your interpretation is OR and unsupported.) --regentspark (comment) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: I do know that the Indian constitution can't be used as a secondary source, but, the articles 1 in part I of the constitution is literally titled "Name and territory of the Union.", that wording is clearly unambiguous, further, the country has only been referred to as either as 'Union' or 'India' in the constitution, the constitutonn doesn't even use 'Republic of India'. Also, what about the other sources I provided including ones in reputable-ish newspapers like The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Times of India?[1][2][3] Also, what about the dismissed supreme court public interest litigation calling for a change in the name of country?[4][5][6] My points being:
  • That many reputable sources use 'India' as the sole official English language name of the country.[1][2]
  • The Government of India itself is not sure what the official name of the nation is.[3] See this Right to Information (RTI) application, too.
I am in no shape or form implying that using 'Republic of India' as a name for India would be wrong or unofficial, but, using 'Republic of India' as the sole official English language name of the nation would be: (a) unsourced; (b) unverifiable; and (c) wrong. That is exactly why I recommended a wording change.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 23:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Dhananjayan, V. P. (February 23, 2014). "Bharat vs India: one nation, two names". The Hindu. The Hindu Group. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
  2. ^ a b Anand, Utkarsh (April 25, 2015). "Explained: The India, that is Bharat". The Indian Express. Indian Express Group. OCLC 70274541. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
  3. ^ a b Shukla, Neha (October 5, 2012). "What's the country's official name". The Times of India. Lucknow: The Times Group. OCLC 23379369. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
  4. ^ "Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Changing Name From India To 'Bharat'". NDTV. New Delhi. Press Trust of India. March 11, 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
  5. ^ Sinha, Bhadra (March 12, 2016). "SC dismisses PIL seeking renaming India as 'Bharat'". Hindustan Times. HT Media Ltd. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
  6. ^ "SC dismisses plea seeking direction to use 'Bharat' instead of 'India'". Deccan Chronicle. New Delhi: Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited. Asian News International. March 11, 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
Hmm. Trawling the web it looks like there is on official "official" name for India. I'm ok with the change but suggest "India, also Republic of India," rather than including "called". --regentspark (comment) 01:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: great! I have no problem your proposed change.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 02:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The term "officially", in this case, refers to usage in official contexts in international fora, rather than a specific, official name for the country itself. The most common usage in such contexts is "Republic of India", as the sources produced by Gazoth demonstrate. I am inclined to retain the current wording. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: First of all, sorry for the delayed response. Second, that is a very subjective interpretation of the word, 'officially', and hence, I suspect is in violation with WP:No original research. Third, shouldn't what a country calls itself take precedence over what others call it? To give a contextual-ish example, Taiwan — depending on the organization/nation/region — is referred to as 'Republic of China', 'Taiwan', 'Chinese Taipei' in diplomatic correspondence, but what it calls itself ('Republic of China') takes precedence over other names. And now, for a shittier and weirder example, say your parents named you 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Third Count of Wisconsin', but, you call yourself as 'Nick' for most practical intents and purposes, but you — or your family — refers to you as 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Third Count of Wisconsin' at family gatherings. Now, in this case, what would your 'official' name be?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 11:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

India is known as Republic of India in indian passports. In article1, it is surely written as India, that is Bharat.... this was done because there no was consensus whether to call country officially as India or bharat in the consituent assembly(as per Indian polity-M. Laxmikant which referred to constituent assembly debates). To resolve the deadlock, india and bharat both these terms were used in such a phrase. I suggest it should read like this india, also known as repiblic of india,(Hindi: Bharat)....

Thank you. shitansh sinha 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) shitansh sinha 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shitansh (talkcontribs)

Proposal

It has been a few days, and since no one has raised an objection, I would like to propose that the line:

India, officially the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya)

be amended and be read as follows:

India (IAST: Bhārat), also called the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya)

Pinging users who have participated in the discussion: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs), Dhtwiki (talk · contribs · count), Gazoth (talk · contribs · logs), Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · email), RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Shitansh (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 09:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support — as proposer.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 09:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Looks fine. —Gazoth (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - It is a no-brainer really. The name that is mentioned in the country's constitution cannot be suggested to be an "unofficial" name in any sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support—I have no objection. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. Official doesn't seem to supported by RS. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose


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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

India is today known as the 'Land of 20% Growth'.27.97.81.113 (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry your request doesnt make sense, please tell us where in the article and what you would like to change or add, also some information and reliable sources to indicate that the change or addition is noteworthy to the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The myth of Indus

The idea that India is named after the river Indus is pretty widespread, both in the scholarly community and the popular perception, but apparently that is not true.

The word "India" was certainly the Greco-Roman derivation of Persian "Hindush", but it was the Persian name of the province of Sindh (Sanskrit: Sindhu). Indians named Sindh after the Sindhu river, but there is no evidence that either the Persians or the Greeks did:

  • The Avesta recognises the equivalent homonym [of Sindhu] as a generic word for river but not as the river Indus.[1]
  • Skylax and Hekataios may be considered to have been the earliest authors to refer to India ('Indoi).... A more detailed account of this territory is preserved in the History of Herodotus, where it is described as a satrapy of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I (522-486 BC). "India" ('Indoi) conquered by Darius I lay on the Indus, stretched up to the sea (Arabian sea), and was separate from the land of the Gandariai (Gandhāra, including the Peshawar and perhaps Rawalpindi districts)....It appears that "India" of Herodotus (and perhaps also of Skylax and Hekataios) occupied the country on the lower Indus, corresponding largely to the modern province of Sind.[2]
  • The lower Indus country was thus the original "India" ('Indoi). As foreignerş entering into the subcontinent through "India", became familiar with its interior, the name of the border area was extended to the inner regions. This process commenced even by the time of Herodotus, who knew of the Indians ('Indoi) living beyond "India" ruled by the Persians.[13][3]
  • The term 'Indians' was used by Herodotus as a collective name for all the peoples living east of Persia.[6] This was also a significant development over Hekataios, who had used this term in a strict sense for the groups dwelling in Sindh only.[7][4]
  • The writings of Alexander's companions, as quoted in late texts suggest that by the time of his invasion of India in 327 BC, "India" ('Indoi) included at least a great part of the northern section of the subcontinent stretching from an area to the west of the Indus to the land of the Gangaridai (to be placed in the lower deltaic region of West Bengal and perhaps parts of coastal Bangladesh).[14] In the late 4th or very early 3rd century BC Megasthenes included in "India" ('Indoi) not only Palbothra (Pataliputra) and Prsioi (a section of the eastern part of the subcontinent), but also Pandaia (or the Pandya country in the far south).[15][5]

So, on the whole, the connection we make between the Indus and India seems wrong. The connection is via Sindh, which is a crucial part of the link (and the fact that it became part of Darius's empire and that the Sindhi mercenaries went to fight in Greece and so on). Moreover, it was the Greeks that invented the name for India, not the Persians. The Persians knew only of Sindh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kochhar, Rajesh (1999), "On the identity and chronology of the Ṛgvedic river Sarasvatī", in Roger Blench; Matthew Spriggs, Archaeology and Language III; Artefacts, languages and texts, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-10054-2
  2. ^ Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (2001), Nationhood and Statehood in India: A historical survey, Regency Publications, pp. 2–3, ISBN 978-81-87498-26-1
  3. ^ Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (2001), Nationhood and Statehood in India: A historical survey, Regency Publications, pp. 3–4, ISBN 978-81-87498-26-1
  4. ^ Arora, Udai Prakash (2005), "Ideas of India in Ancient Greek Literature", in Irfan Habib, India — Studies in the History of an Idea, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, p. 47, ISBN 978-81-215-1152-0
  5. ^ Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (2001), Nationhood and Statehood in India: A historical survey, Regency Publications, pp. 3–4, ISBN 978-81-87498-26-1

Changes in the contents w.r.t. India

There are many contents in the page of “India” which consists of various deiscrepancies due to which a negative of my nation “India” is being build! Please accept my recommendations which i will be providing to you in the next discussion which will be after your reply to this letter Regards Ankit Oberoi Ankit obe (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Note this page is for improving the article no need to wait for somebody to say something before you make a suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Main article

In the main article of "India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India)", it is very uneasy to see the line "However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, malnutrition, and inadequate public healthcare." I agree India as a country is suffering with these problems, but it is not correct to add these statements in the main article of Wikipedia. Also, many countries which are suffering from the similar problems does not have these statements in the main article. I urge to remove this line from the main article of India, if it has to be mentioned then it can be added in the any sub articles likewise done for the other countries.

( Gokuldhanvanthri (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC) )
Sorry but, we are not hear to hide things in sub-articles if it is an important fact to balance others in the lead. Outside of layout and presentation each country article has its own consensus on what is included and here it has been decided that this is an important factor that needs to be in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
How is this statement an important factor just only for India? Many countries in the world is suffering from poverty, corruption, malnutrition & inadequate public health care. I wont be wrong if I say that even the developed countries are also facing these issues. Also, my point is not about hiding the reality, it is about consistency in the articles published. I have listed out multiple Wikipedia articles mentioning about these issues for many other countries but not the same in the main article. ( Gokuldhanvanthri (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC) )
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_China
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_the_United_States
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#/media/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Pakistan
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Bangladesh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokuldhanvanthri (talkcontribs) 19:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF you are welcome to raise the issue on the other country talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. is there any wiki talk about the mentioned topic before being included in the article? If not, I wanted know based on which information contents are added in the article. This will help me in raising the further issues in wiki talk. Thanks, (Gokuldhanvanthri (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

171.76.190.30 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018

2405:204:A42D:16CB:5875:975E:7757:BD55 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Partition of India

As we all know that the name "India" to this country was given by british, so in independence part plz insert The partition of India :14-August-1947 as it is the part of Indian history and independence of India Subcontinent studies (Subcontinent studies) 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure who "britishers" are but please read the article as the "partition of india" is already mentioned, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that User:Subcontinent studies has changed the first postings (and removed my reply twice), it is more normal once somebody has replied to use strike through so the original message and hence reply can be understood, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The name "India" (actually "Hindia") was given by the Greeks in the Persian empire in 500 BC. See the section above called The myth of Indus. It is one of the oldest names for the country, if not the oldest.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Add sections for Military power and Technology Advancements in Ancient and Modern India

It would be good to add these sections. It shows only people with high permissions can edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.218.238 (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

feedback on content of this article

Following is mentioned in 2nd paragraph of article "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"

My Feedback : Book published by Netaji scholar General GD Bakshi has published conversations with Clement Attlee. In these conversations the then British Prime Minister apparently said that the role played by Netaji's army was paramount in India being granted independence, while the role played by the non-violent movement was dismissed as minimal.

In an interview to BBC in February 1955, Mr Babasaheb ambedkar elucidated the reason why the British left India in 1947. Subsequently, Attlee agreed Netaji was the toughest challenge the Empire faced. Several defence and intelligence experts agreed, too.

Also there were many freedom fighters who have contributed & sacrificed their lives for independence of India. Since the list is so long, it is impossible for me to mention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.99.6 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Tourism subsction

Surprised to find that, under Economy section, there is no sub-section named "Tourism". In comparison, I found "Tourism" section in wiki page of Isreal. Let there be a brief section on Tourism in this article ( However, there is separate page for Tourism in India/as also Tourism in Isreal). Rayabhari (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't Foreign relations and Military be two different sub-sections like it is in other Country articles?

Why do we have Foreign Relations and Military merged into one section?

Doesn't it dilute the importance of having the second largest army in the world?

Furthermore, Foreign Relations and Military are two distinctive sections.

Reference:

Wikipedia contributors. (2018, May 23). List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:07, June 9, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel&oldid=842526667

Vishme21 (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Because we already have a summary in the article and the detail in Indian Armed Forces so we dont need to change anything. Being the second largest Army is not a reason to give it a "section", in Indian terms when measured against the population it is not that large. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


I understand that there is a "summary" and "detail" in the article. Shouldn't the same rule be applied to the United Kingdom article for the same topics?

Also, as you mentioned that the Indian Armed forces is not that large as it has huge population, the same applies to the United Kingdom army (in terms of "military personnel per capita").

Reference:

"Countries Compared by Military > Personnel > Per capita. International Statistics at NationMaster.com", World Development Indicators database. Aggregates compiled by NationMaster. Retrieved from http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Personnel/Per-capita

Vishme21 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)VVishme21 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about the United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Obviously it is not about the UK. I am just giving you an example how there is a separate "section" for Foreign relations and military despite having a "summary" of the topics in the UK article but not for the India article.

Moreover, why is that the Foreign Relations and Military are two distinctive sections in the other country articles (USA, UK, China, Germany, Brazil, Russia, etc.,) and not for India?

Vishme21 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Etymology Adding More Content

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rrh4tY3v2A4C&pg=PA496&dq=Nabhivarsha+india&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5oLKc6snbAhXJb30KHVD6AE4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Nabhivarsha%20india&f=false Techtonic365 (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Techtonic365 (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a comment related to improving the article ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding More Content in Etymology section

According to text Bhagavata Purana, before India was called Bhāratavarṣa; it was known as Nābhivarṣa (lit. land of Nabhi). Emperor Nabhi was a Chakravartin (Universal Sovereign of India) and father of Rishabhanatha.[1][2][3]Techtonic365 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Techtonic365 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this is relevant - I think you should make these comments at Names for India. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Not relevant at all, and the content removed was also WP:UNDUE. —SpacemanSpiff 07:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition of partition date as 14th in infobox

@Subcontinent studies: why do you want to mention partition as a separate event? Why are you choosing 14th as the date of partition? Discuss here, preferably with some reliable sources. —Gazoth (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Subcontinent studies posted the following message on my talk page:

As you asked me that why I have included partition of India as a separate event so reason is that partition of india is part of Indian independence act and no body can change the history of its own, and Partition of India took place on 14 August when Pakistan was born as a separate nation within Indian boundaries. Subcontinent studies (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Subcontinent studies:, Indian Independence Act was effective from 15th August 1947. Quoting directly from the act, As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan. Pakistan's choice to interpret 14th August as its independence day has no effect on the actual day of partition. The current format gives an impression that India was in state of limbo between 14th and 15th August, but the partition of India and establishment of Dominion of India happened at the same time on 15th August. —Gazoth (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Gazoth is absolutely right and @Subcontinent studies:, you should stop edit-warring now... You are unnecessarily trying to change Pakistan article too... This is not the right approach --Adamstraw99 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=847484433&oldid=847474448 should be reverted. Alphabetical order shouldn't be used here, especially since Hindi and English do NOT have the exact same status as shown by Note B: "Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union. English is an additional official language for government work alongside Hindi.[4][1][5] States and union territories can have a different official language of their own other than Hindi or English." The order should be as listed in the Indian constitution. Hindi, then English. 37.9.44.146 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 DoneGazoth (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Drives on Right

Drives on Right side Tharealmaya (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox already says drives on the left, if you are suggesting a change then you will need to make your request clearer and provide a reliable source. Although it is unlikely they have changed overnight. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The original poster is probably just confused as to what the infobox field means. The "drives on left" designation refers to which side of the road a vehicle travels on. However, the actual driver is on the right side of the vehicle. I know I was confused the first time I encountered the "drives on right/left" nomenclature as I had always considered the difference from the perspective of driver position, not vehicle position.--Khajidha (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Indian Population is over 1.35 billion as of 2018 by W.H.O Chin1977 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER 04:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


2402:3A80:835:E129:30D2:F8FF:FE81:212D (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You haven't specified what you think is wrong. If you think that there is an error in the article, please explain clearly what it is (and, if possible, what you think the incorrect coordinates need to be changed to). Deor (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

India Outline shows Jammu regions to be occupied by Pakistan and China

Why is the outline map of India showing regions of Jammu and Kashmir to be not belonging to India? Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh are integrated regions of India. The legend which is given there is wrong! It shows that parts of Jammu and Kashmir to be Chinese and Pakistani territories claimed by India which is completely wrong! They clearly are a part of India! What are the facts on which that outline has been made?

On what basis this page is showing that these are Pakistani and Chinese territories claimed by India? What is the evidence that these parts belong to Pakistan and China and not to India.

India#Subdivisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.215.28 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to read "Q6: The map is wrong!" at the top of the page and perhaps related articles like Kashmir_conflict and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) to understand that different views persist. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede sentence

I have a proposal for simplifying the lede sentence to make it more readable and also comply with MOS:

India, also called Bharat or formally the Republic of India,[1]...

For comparison the current version (assuming my recent edit simplifying the citations is acceptable) states:

India (IAST: Bhārat), also called the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[1]

To spell out the changes:

  • Avoid unnecessary use of IAST in the lede itself; the IAST transliteration would still be available in the etymology section for any interested reader.
  • Bold 'Bharat', as required by WP:BOLDSYN
  • I don't believe the parenthetical 'Bhārat Gaṇarājya' is needed since the only additional information it provides is the Hindi translation of 'Republic', which seems unnecessary and comes at the cost of readability.
  • I agree with the conclusion of the previous discussion about the lede sentence that calling 'Republic of India' India's "official" name is not well supported. Instead I propose marking 'Republic of India' as India's "formal" name to distinguish it from the shorter India/Bharat and to spell out when it is preferred. I don't believe an in-line citation is needed in the article itself to attest for this fact (and I would prefer to avoid citation clutter), but for purpose of this discussion see this reference.[2]

Comments and suggestions welcome. Abecedare (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Clémentin-Ojha, Catherine (2014). "'India, that is Bharat…': One Country, Two Names". South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal. 10. Archived from the original on 28 September 2015.
  2. ^ United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (2007). Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names. United Nations Publications. p. 188. ISBN 978-92-1-161500-5.
Don't think that this violates any WP policy/guideline, as it's extremely indiscriminate.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 11:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
See Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names,[1] as a reference for calling 'Republic of India', India's "formal name". By the way, on page 183, it defines that as "full name as used in an official diplomatic context", which sound just about right. Abecedare (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That is fine, but Bharat is not really used in English. So I don't see the justification for promoting out of a parenthetical remark. See, e.g., Germany or Japan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kautilya3 on this. Bharat is not used in the English language so it does not need to be promoted out of the parenthesis. --regentspark (comment) 22:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I could make the argument that the Indian constitution didn't associate languages with the two names (IIRC there were proposals before the Constitutional Assembly to do so, but they were rejected) but as far as wikipedia policy of due weight goes, the evidence backs you up. For example, Google Ngram shows 'India' being used in its corpus ~100 times more often than 'Bharat' (or 'Hindustan' fwiw). I'd still argue for my version on purely aesthetic grounds but de gustibus non est disputandum.:) Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
So, should I archive this? Or is there a further argument to be made about making 'Republic of India' the formal name of the nation?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 13:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial support - I am ok with removing the Bharat Ganarajya parenthetical remark. It could be mentioned somewhere down in the body. (Wikipedia is indeed valued for trivia like this!) I also support replacing "also called Republic of India" with "formally". I think that settles it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I don't think the UN manual ref is sufficient to mention "Republic of India" as the formal name. From what I could gather, it reflects the prevalent usage in areas of diplomacy and international relations, rather than an official recognition by India. —Gazoth (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not so casual (nothing involving UN bureaucracy ever is!). See United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names and their own website for the process involved and the divisions set up to consult with the countries etc. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I was concerned that "Republic of India" might not be used outside of diplomatic contexts. However, it appears that Gazette of India uses "Republic of India" almost exclusively to announce signing of new laws. I'm going to withdraw my oppose, but the lack of an explicit designation from Indian government prevents me from supporting this change. —Gazoth (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would stick with "India". Republic of India is a statement about the form of government that the country has rather than about the country itself (for e.g., if India becomes a theocratic state tomorrow, it would still be India though not "Republic of India"). But, since the future is uncertain (and the end is always near), who knows which will go first, the country or the form of government so I'm ok with either. --regentspark (comment) 01:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Power status

Appropriate power status regarding India is missing. I would like to add it.

The sentence that I that I want to add is:

"India is considered an emerging or rising power and a middle power."

The sources and reasons which support insertion of such a sentence is given below:
1. India is sixth largest economy of the world(By some account the fifth largest)(with $2.8 trillion) by nominal GDP and third largest by PPP.[2]
2. It is the world's 2nd largest military force.[3]
3. Rank fifth in military expenditure.[4]
4. Ranks 4th in global firepower index.[5]
5. It's a nuclear weapon state with a nuclear weapons numbering 120-130.[6]
6. It's the world most populous democracy in the world.
7. It has good relations with most of the countries of the world.[7]
8. It is a member of numerous important international organization including UN,WTO, G20,Australia group, MCTR,Wassenaar arrangement, BRICS, G4, SCO, etc.
9. It has provided most number of UN peacekeepers(in total till date).
10. It is the world fastest growing major economy and is predicted to be 2nd or 1st economy by nominal GDP by 2050, surpassing even USA.

Other links supporting my suggestion:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2003-09-01/india-emerging-power [8]
http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=13811[9]
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/alyssaayres/2017/08/14/india-at-70-an-emerging-world-power-with-unfinished-business-at-home/&refURL=https://www.google.co.in/&referrer=https://www.google.co.in/[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_power[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_power[12]

I request anybody whether in support of it or against it to come forward to make your stand known here. Thank you.

shitansh sinha 09:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shitansh (talkcontribs)

--shitansh sinha 09:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shitansh (talkcontribs)

References

  • Oppose on two grounds - it doesnt make sense in English and is a clear example of Synthesis. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as it's a confusing sentence that undervalues India, which is considered a borderline great power at the middle power article and is certainly more than an "emerging" power. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


27.34.104.140 (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You haven't explained what you think is wrong, and I'm not seeing any obvious errors in the article's coordinates. If you still think that there is an error, please supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits to history in article lede

I have now twice reverted edits to the article lede by User:Bajirao1007 that removed mention of social stratification based on caste system, and added mention of the Maratha kingdom. Besides being undiscussed changes to the long-standing consensus version, I don't believe that these deletions and additions are WP:DUE; they also are imprecise in terms of the timeline. Can the editor explain their reasoning and gain consensus for the proposed changes?

PS: Bajirao had made similar changes back in Feb, which had subsequently been reverted by User:Fowler&fowler. Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)