Talk:India

Lead
Hello fellow editors, I wanted to suggest a slight change to paragraph two, where I think this: "By, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest."

should be changed to this: "Between and, the Indo-Aryans migrated into India from the northwest, bringing with them an archaic form of Sanskrit."

I find it odd that there is no mention of Indo-Aryan migrations in the introductory paragraphs as they are pretty important in the Indian context. PadFoot2008 10:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Noticed a slightly more important point, the body does not actually support the current text, although it does mention the migrations. CMD (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Chipmunkdavis, I'm a bit confused as to what you mean to say here. Are you saying that my suggested change is unsourced? And I know that rest of the article does mention the migrations, I am saying that instead of saying that "Sanskrit diffused into India" which sounds extremely odd and purposefully ambiguous, I think the migrations should be mentioned. PadFoot2008  16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the article does not say Sanskrit diffused into India. Your change is supported by the body. CMD (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chipmunkdavis, check paragraph 2 of the introduction. I'm suggesting a change to the introductory para 2, not the article body. PadFoot2008  02:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
the driving side is given "left". change "left" to "right". Vaishnav Jayakumar (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While India is indeed a left-side-of-the-road country, I occasionally run across mis-labeled videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aSkJCUDAes showing the traffic clearly on the right, which may be what prompted this edit request. According to the comments, that's Ethiopia, not India as claimed in the title. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Permission
Who is the owner (or gatekeeper) of this article? Fritz or whatever, ok, I'd ask for permission to add sourced content. Well, actually it is no one's property, but still some people have this unbelievable self-conceit. Ok, may I add sourced content? Cyanmax (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not "gatekeeping" and no one here thinks they own the article per WP:FAOWN, most non-minor text additions, especially in a high-traffic long-standing Featured Article such as this one, should be discussed on the talk page. I, and other people who revert major additions or poorly-sourced content, aren't claiming ownership of the article, just trying to make sure it can maintain its featured article status. The article is also quite long as it is, so we shouldn't be adding too much more content at all besides relevant updates  most content can be put instead in child articles such as Economy of India, History of India, etc. The sentence you added seems mostly fine though. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, we're discussing it now. I have restored the sentence. Pollution is known to be an impactful socio-economic challenge. Increased health issues related to pollution translate to lower productivity and increased health-related costs. It's a reasonable point to make in that section. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, and I never disagreed with the change; it was @The Herald who reverted it, I was just outlining why it is often right for people to revert content such as that. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pollution is certainly a relevant topic for this article to cover; it is even mentioned in the lede and IMO should have a couple of sentences devoted to it in the body. However, this edit is not very good for a well-developed article because:
 * Since the article is about the country and not about urban India, the stat about the number of Indian cities in some global most-polluted cities ranking is not the most relevant one.
 * The sources are poor: basically two news articles (one of which is a deadlink to, afaict, a defunct news site of no repute) about a dated (2019) self-published report by a commercial enterprise selling air filters etc.
 * We can and should do better. For example, even this 2023 report produced by a unit at the University of Chicago would be an improvement in both relevance and source quality, although better sources are likely to available (ideally, ones that cover water pollution etc too). I suggest that we follow BRD and hammer out the exact sources and content to be added to the article here over the next few days. Welcome any suggestions about either. Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2024
I want to add the chief justice of India name and it's required please give me the permission 2000editor (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not "required" and you didn't make any argument why we should list it in the infobox (where I assume you want to put it). You also are not be going to "given" the permission to edit this article; to edit extended-confirmed articles such as this one, you need an account age of 30 days and at least 500 edits. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Charliehdb (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Emblem of India
The emblem of India was and is in its true form the golden version. Although not defined in any act or notified under any rules, specifically, has it not been the precedent that the Emblem in all of the letters by Prime minister and the President's office has always been yellow (golden) in colour and not black. It is merely a misconception that the emblem is black because of the use of monochromic printing in early days after independence. Black in Indian cultural context is inauspicious and the government of India through the national portal has uploaded three images of the emblem, blue, black and golden. Presumably black and blue are merely the result of the popularity both colours enjoyed in the field of printing or calligraphy but the original was carved out of sandstone and later on brass was used to mold, both of which resembled closer looks to the colour of yellow (dull shade) or gold (in case of chrome brass). FlaminMongrel (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2024
I want to add our honourable chief justice name in the section please give me the permission 2000editor (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 may add them for you.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024
The emblem should be changed to the golden (coloured) version of the gazette. That is the official emblem originally made, black and brown being popular results of printing inks post independence, in all prime ministerial and presidential letters the original colour is gold and also the government of India website under the national emblem section posts the largest picture of gold with description of the emblem being carved out of a sandstone (closer to cream or very dull yellow) but more importantly the colour is representative of associated history with brass molding, black and blue are merely results of monochromatic printing. FlaminMongrel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made, and provide a properly-licensed image you see is more appropriate as the emblem. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Should WP:INDICSCRIPT apply here
I was wondering if WP:INDICSCRIPT should apply to this article. If I am not wrong, the decision to not use the scripts were made because it was unclear which script was actually used / should be used in a particular case and whether the spelling in the Indic script is correct was difficult to verify. However this doesn't appear to be an issue here as the spelling and the script are official and well-known. Thoughts? @Fowler&fowler, @Flemmish Nietzsche, @RegentsPark. PadFoot (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Well of course it applies to this article, but if it didn't what changes are you proposing? It is already stated in a comment in the infobox that translations and transliterations do not fall under WP:INDICSCRIPT; the main reason for INDICSCRIPT is due to the ambiguity over which translations in which Indic languages should be included in the various India-related articles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Flemmish Nietzsche, had almost forgotten about this discussion, but I had meant to say that this ambiguity doesn't exist here, as we do know the official language and official script. So, should it apply to this article and should we be excluding the name in Devanagari script? PadFoot  (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * PadFoot2002, search the talkpage archives for the many proposals to add the country's name in one or more of the 22 scheduled languages. IIRC the endless and frivolous discussions on this topic at this article were part of the impetus for adopting WP:INDICSCRIPT in the first place. Don't see any reason to revive that mess by entertaining exceptions to INDICSCRIPT, which has saved so much valuable editorial time. Abecedare (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare, alright, there's no need for it here then. PadFoot  (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
Change the Spelling of Bhārata Gaṇarājya to Bhārat Gaṇarājya Depotadore (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have done so as the edit which added back the schwa was only yesterday and was not discussed here; this does not mean either one is "correct", just that the "Bharat" spelling is what has been standard usage in this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2024
Change opening sentence to "India, also called Bharat, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), ...". The country has two official short names as per Article 1 of the Constitution of India, see Names for India source. 117.230.84.90 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is the English language Wikipedia. For example, at Germany, we don't say Germany, also called Deutschland, officially the Federal Republic of Germany....  It is however mentioned in the infobox - as it is on this article as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why a note is not added in this article as it is on Germany and Japan?--117.230.88.210 (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not sure what you mean; the Germany article doesn't list the other official name, and neither does Japan, which doesn't say something like "Japan, also called Nihon,..."   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Include the names of India in all languages as prescribed in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India
like as is the case with European Union, or South Africa, this is a solution that will hopefully not piss anyone off, whilst enabling the use of indic scripts again KabirDH (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * And why should we do this? We have INDICSCRIPTS and no Indic languages in the article for a reason; you'd have to make a very strong case for why we should include these languages, as the past arguments over the translations in different languages are not just about which languages to include, but also the "correct" translation and other issues. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * past disagreements have been because people were edit warring over which language to use...that's why WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS even exists. it's because people were disagreeing in 2012 about what language to use in a page for a multiethnic Indian actor (see Rajnikanth)
 * But that was 12 years ago and technology has come far, this is an appropriate solution, just like the EU and South Africa pages I have linked.
 * why should it be done? well, it's done for every other community page, and on top of that we have a solution now
 * i don't see a problem with it at all KabirDH (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The only official languages of the Indian Union, as has been discussed in uncountable discussions in the talk archives, are Hindi and English. Please note that the Scheduled languages are "recognised languages", not "official languages". PadFoot  (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, so why don't we do that instead? KabirDH (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Newly introduced changes
Discuss here please. Let's not enter the 3RR territory. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've left a post on Flemish Nietzsche's use talk page. Those of us who normally maintain the page have been away for a couple of months.  As you must know, editors here discuss even minor changes in the lead for weeks, indeed occasionally even months.  Restoring this article to a last consensus version has been done before in the article. The article are majorly rewritten for Gandhi's 150th on 2 October 2019.  (See the talk page discussion of the months preceding that date for a comparison with the casual discussions of the last month.) It had an FAR thereafter.  It is Wikipedia's oldest country FA, soon to be 20 years old. I'm strapped for time. Pinging   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * PS No one is more aware of 's excellent work here than I. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware why you are restoring to a consensus version, as I cite the same reasons when I have made reverts here in the past; however, as I have said I don't think mass-reverting many good edits is always necessary, as if someone doesn't work back in those good edits, the page quickly becomes out of date, which is what happened the last time you restored to a consensus version, ignoring many (now-archived) discussions where there was, in contrast to the Sanskrit edit discussion above, a proper discussion and consensus to make changes to avoid the page becoming out of date. The reason I reverted your recent edit so quickly was because I wrongly assumed it was a restoration to a much earlier version, (as in, before my and other's edits which updated the page) and any good minor edits since then have been worked back in to the article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the future if substantial edits in India are being proposed in a discussion here, could some of us (e.g. the people I have pinged above) be pinged, even use-talk-page-messaged? Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for resolving this amiably F&f and Flemmish Nietzsche! Just wanted to drop a quick note since the article is being reverted to (roughly) the June 20 version that I last edited, that that version itself may need a review and should not be taken to be the version preferred or attested by me. Frankly, as I believe has been discussed previously, the article could use a proper reread to check for drift and need for updates if/when someone has the time to start the process. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article already received two WP:FARGIVEN and the (larger FA) community peer reviewed version is over 13 years old. Yes, we have discussions and consensus establishments over time, but a full fledged review is very imminent. I'd like to propose an article review soon which can analyse the article in depth and prevent it from the overhanging FAR. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure there is any overhanging FAR.
 * Two years ago, or thereabouts, when a notice for improvements (to head off an FAR) was given on the talk page, SandyGeorgia said that only a few things needed fixing, and we fixed them. Two paragraphs, climate change and energy, were added by two editors. Around that time an Education section was added by user:Rjensen and a Visual Arts section by user:Johnbod. Earlier, in preparation for the article's second TFA on October 2, 2019, I had rewritten the lead, and added two new sections: Cuisine and Clothing. You are probably looking at the talk page milestones not at the discussions.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Article reviews are useless. Who will bell the cat?  What is their expertise? Are they MOS-mavens or subject experts?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that I haven't read the article in a long time, I believe that most of it (lede, history, biodiversity, arts) etc should be fine and only need to be checked for changes since the last "stable" version. A couple of sections (eg, Economy, and Politics) may need periodic updates though, while keeping WP:RECENTISM in mind. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Abecedare. Very well summarized and explained.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In my experience piecemeal improvements are usually better than grand reviews. Speaking of piecemeal, there are some changes that are probably needed:
 * The first ten years of Modi's rule are now widely documented in the scholarly literature: economic growth, infra-structure development, but also back-sliding democracy, crony-capitalism, more assertive religious nationalism, increased economic inequality and rising unemployment. They deserve a distilled mention in the lead perhaps.
 * The excess mortality in India during COVID-19, by far the world's highest (according to the WHO, Lancet, Economist, ...), probably needs a mention, though not necessarily in the lead.
 * I think suggestions for changes, supported by scholarly sources (in order to meet WP:RS) and by tertiary sources (for due weight; see WP:TERTIARY) are usually better. As you will see from past discussions, even changing a sentence fragment can sometimes take weeks on this page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Rather than an article review, why don't you review one of the sections user:Abecedare has referred to above, or even a subsection.  For example: India.  Would you like to review it?  It would be really helpful.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler, Yea, I'll give it a go, if possible. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Look forward.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)