Talk:India/Archive 45

"Also known as" the Republic of India?
Shouldn't it read "India, officially the Republic of India"? The "also known as" phrase would refer to an informal, popular name, but the "Republic of India" is the formal, official name, isn't it? I've never heard anyone call it "The Republic of India" in a conversation before. This is similar to the UK page: "The United Kingdom (UK), officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousboii (talk • contribs)


 * This comes up every now and then and will continue to come up in the future in various country articles. Brief history: about a decade ago, there was a user who changed all mentions of the conventional longform in country articles to officially — I disagreed and, as far as I know, Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia who does this. It seems like original research and if it gets corrected in individual country articles (or in all of them, en mass), all the better, as far as I'm concerned. See also what I wrote recently at Talk:Israel. El_C 16:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I didn't realize it had changed to "also known as" on India.  As far as I know, Britannica does have official name, "Republic of India" for India.  Let me rummage in the history.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Happened only a year ago or thereabouts in this edit of . Perhaps he can explain.  Britannica does say in its "infobox:" OFFICIAL NAME: Bharat (Hindi); Republic of India (English). See here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the The World Factbook, which only mentions long and shortform per se. I actually don't recall Britannica —which also says alternate title— saying this a decade and a half ago when we had this argument, but it's possible I may have missed it at the time. El_C 18:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , the phrasing "officially" was removed because a point was made here that India/Bharat is what the Indian Constitution calls it. So, it wouldn't be appropriate to imply that these names are "unofficial". In legal terminology, it is called the "Union of India". The passports say "Republic of India". I gather that these are "long forms", and all are official. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There are sources:
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs. To be honest, I hadn't noticed the change in the first sentence!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  PS There are probably also sources that say, "also known as Republic of India."  :)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs. To be honest, I hadn't noticed the change in the first sentence!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  PS There are probably also sources that say, "also known as Republic of India."  :)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs. To be honest, I hadn't noticed the change in the first sentence!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  PS There are probably also sources that say, "also known as Republic of India."  :)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs. To be honest, I hadn't noticed the change in the first sentence!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)  PS There are probably also sources that say, "also known as Republic of India."  :)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fair enough. That does show tertiary sources view the Republic of India long form as "official." El_C 18:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Offtopic: in the case of Israel, the aforementioned amended law does use the short form as "the name" — which in my mind makes it as "official" as the long form. El_C 18:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , and, please first refer to this discussion initiated by me in January 2018. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops! Meant to ping you, ! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that discussion is based on false premises. We can't use the Indian constitution.  It is a primary source.  Interpreting it is not allowed.  At the point, the easiest thing would be to reword it: India, officially or formally, Republic of India, is a country in Asia."  I will soon reproduce dozens of the best secondary sources that use that terminology including the UN, all its agencies.  We can't have "also known as."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS Or if you want to be even more inclusive: "India, officially, formally, or in convention long form, Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That was my idea when myself and that editor (whose name escapes me) had that argument concerning officially across all country articles — I suggested, at the time, we just preface these with conventional long form. (Sorry, it has been ~15 years, so I'm just unable to find that discussion.) El_C 22:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No probs. Here are the sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , and : Hi! I am afraid the discussion is not about how “the Republic of India” is not an official name, but, about how “India” is not not an equally officially name.
 * As far as the Constitution of India is concerned, yes, it’s a primary source and that was already established in the prior discussion; the thing is one has to prove that India is not an official name for India; please also consult the sources I cited in that discussion, including ones from The Hindu and The Indian Express.
 * As a compromise, I will be okay with something along the lines of:
 * As weird as that may come off someone’s tongue. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that was my original point — the conventional short form can also be used in official settings. El_C 00:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is ultimately beholden to sources, not to earlier consensuses. That consensus is meaningless, as it is not based in sources.  Do you have the kind of sources I have below?   Please present your sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think SshibumXZ is arguing that just because the long form is designated as official, does not mean the short form is somehow unofficial or less-than-official, which is what the use of official renders it as. Those tertiary sources may not mention the short form as official because it's a tautology. El_C 00:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, but, ultimately, if there are no sources of the quality that I have adduced below that say India is the official name, his argumentation is OR. So far, I haven't seen any sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we look at https://www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html everything is short form. El_C 01:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we look at https://www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html everything is short form. El_C 01:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, but that is clearly laid out in 11th United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, New York, 8 -17 August 2017, page 43, it also says at the outset: "The principal aim of this document is to present country names in the language or languages used in an official capacity within each country in the world. These names, presented in the National Official name section, are provided in two forms: the short names, which may or may not be official, are the ones in common use, while the formal names are those used in an official diplomatic context. The form of the article is provided where necessary to indicate gender." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am sorry, but, no, the argument is that India is not an unofficial name.


 * As far as references go; how about these:


 * Also, whilst the Constitution of India is a primary source, we can still quote it without making inferences.
 * P. S. — I didn’t get your ping. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 01:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it does. Thanks, I was unaware of that. "Which may or may not be official" — that does leave it, at best, in the dark. El_C 01:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. some "diplomatic context" could be really helpful. El_C 01:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added three Embassy of India Factsheets in the sources below.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all about a debate about changing the country's English name to Bharat. Its official name would then either become Bharat Ganarajya if the want to use that in English, or Republic of Bharat.  That debate is not about official names, but common, short, names.  The Indian government's National Portal of India, gives the country's name as: Republic of India, Bharat Ganarajya.  See here.  Clearly they are not literally interpreting India's constitution.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , nope; both *The Hindu* and *The Indian Express* say that India is an official name for India; so do a good amount of other sources.
 * Again, my argument is not that the Republic of India is an unofficial variant; it’s that plain, old, run-of-the-mill is 'also' official. Also, at any rate, the Constitution of India is for the courts to interpret and apply, not the government. Anyway, I am off to sleep now; would reply to any other comment later. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's interesting, but those are rather small embassies — ones for the US, China, etc., seem to be using the short form exclusively on their website. What they use on official documents is another matter, however. El_C 01:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What does the Hindu website read: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/bharat-vs-india-one-nation-two-names/article5717280.ece What does that mean?  It means it is an opinion piece, not reliably sourced news.  On the other hand WP:SOURCETYPES clearly says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."  I have produced seven scholarly sources, not to mention the US State Department, the British Foreign office, the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and in addition India country profiles of The Washington Post, and  The Economist.  And you are offering me a casual opinion (open page) written by a guy who usually writes obituaries in The Hindu.. Obviously, if you think your shabby sources are reliable I can't argue with you.  Others will have to make the decision.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , okay, of course The Hindu source is not that reliable, but, what about ''The Indian Express' one? There are also tons of other sources, some of which I have cited, that speak on this issue.
 * Once more, and I can not emphasise this enough, the argument is not that the Republic of India is an unofficial name; it very clearly is not. It's that India is not an unofficial name and for that I have seen no references so far, whilst at the same time, there is tons of material which says that India is an official name for the Republic of India. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once more, and I can not emphasise this enough, the argument is not that the Republic of India is an unofficial name; it very clearly is not. It's that India is not an unofficial name and for that I have seen no references so far, whilst at the same time, there is tons of material which says that India is an official name for the Republic of India. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
I'm proposing that we reword the lead sentence to be one of three: Here are the sources:
 * (A) the most inclusive: "India, officially, formally, or in conventional long form, the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia." (But there are no sources for "conventional long form.")
 * (B) "India, officially or formally, the Republic of India, is a ..."
 * (C) "India, officially the Republic of India, is a ..."

OFFICIAL NAME

 * Tertiary sources:
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: India, Official Name: OFFICIAL NAME Bharat (Hindi); Republic of India (English)
 * Webster's Concise Encyclopedia: India, geographical name, officially Republic of India.
 * (subscription required) Quote: "In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh)"
 * Quote: "Official name: Republic of India"
 * Quote: "Official name: Republic of India"
 * Quote: "India officially became the republic of India on January 26, 1950."
 * Quote: "Official name: Republic of India."
 * Quote: "Official name: Republic of India; Bharat Ganarajya (Hindi)"
 * Quote: "Official name: Republic of India; Bharat."
 * Quote: "India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bharat) is a country that occupies the greater part of South Asia. (page 21)"
 * International Organizations:
 * UNESCO International Bureau of Education, World Data on Education, 6th edition, India Quote: "Official name of the country: Republic of India."
 * Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Country Codes/Names
 * ''Ethnologue, Languages of the World, India
 * Other Governments:
 * US Department of State, Country profile: India
 * Quote: "Officially known as the Republic of India, the nation is a 'sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic' "
 * United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Country Names
 * Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report: India, Background Information, page 6, " The country’s official name is the Republic of India."
 * Newspaper Country Profiles:
 * ''Economist Country Profile: India
 * Washington Post. Country Guide: India
 * Indian Embassies or High Commissions:
 * Embassy of India, Belgrade, Serbia: Official name: Republic of India
 * Embassy of India, Minsk, Belarus, Factsheet on India. Official name: Republic of India.
 * High Commission of India, Cape Town, South Africa Quote: "Officially referred to as the Republic of India.'
 * Embassy of India, Vientiane, Laos. Factsheet. Official name: Republic of India
 * High Commission of India, Georgetown, Guyana: Official name Republic of India]
 * High Commission of India, Kingston, Jamaica. Official name: Republic of India
 * University Departments:
 * University of Sydney, Subject Guides, Asian and Pacific Law, India, Official Name: Republic of India
 * Embassy of India, Minsk, Belarus, Factsheet on India. Official name: Republic of India.
 * High Commission of India, Cape Town, South Africa Quote: "Officially referred to as the Republic of India.'
 * Embassy of India, Vientiane, Laos. Factsheet. Official name: Republic of India
 * High Commission of India, Georgetown, Guyana: Official name Republic of India]
 * High Commission of India, Kingston, Jamaica. Official name: Republic of India
 * University Departments:
 * University of Sydney, Subject Guides, Asian and Pacific Law, India, Official Name: Republic of India

FORMAL NAME
Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Library of Congress Country Profile: India
 * Library of Congress Country Profile: India

Discussion

 * Support Clear case for this. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would be good for the Etymology section, but seems quite tortured for the opening sentence. It should just use one, for which I prefer "formally known". CMD (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC) This comment relates to a previous formulation, and no longer applies. CMD (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with CMD that it should be simpler. Either use "officially" (or "formally"), or use "conventional long form" per se. El_C 02:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How about, "India, officially or formally, Republic of India, is a country in South Asia." (Actually, none of the sources mention 'Conventional long form") The sources are overwhelmingly in favor of "official."  So, if you want one, it will have to be, "India, officially, Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."  Or, "India, official name, Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)  I've now changed the proposal above.  I was merely attempting to be flexible.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not 100 percent that the short form is unofficial. Certainly, the long form is, on that there is no dispute. El_C 02:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But if the government's own embassies are declaring the official name to be Republic of India, then we have a problem. I mean even if we don't have a single source that states the official name to be India, we still can't say that India is unofficial. And so far I don't see any source.  It is the same with the other country featured articles, Australia, Belarus, Chad, Cameroon, Germany, Japan, Madagascar, Rwanda (Canada is the only exception but it has legislated the official name to be Canada)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, it's used for all country articles, featured and unfeatured alike. That's what the argument was about (~15 years ago), when it was changed en mass. Canada simply does not have a long form. (It's a federation (lowercase), but usage of Canadian federation is descriptive only.)) El_C 02:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, all I can say is that the characterization of "Republic of India" to be India's official or formal name in the reliable sources predates the founding of Wikipedia: US State Department, 1997, "official", United Nations, 1997, see page 17 (document), page 34 (pdf) "formal"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose (for now) — The argument since the tail-end of the first rendition of this discussion has not been that the 'Republic of India' is not an official name for India; it has been that 'India' is also an official name for the Republic of India. So far, no sources have been offered to contradict that claim, whereas, a good amount of sources have been given to back up my claim that 'India' is an official name of the Republic of India. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a few scholarly sources, published by internationally recognized academic publishers, such as I have done, that explicitly state, "India," without any qualification, to be the official name of India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if the US State Department, or the UN, consider "Republic of India" to be the official or formal name, then they do not consider any other name, including "India," to be the official or formal name; otherwise, they would have stated those other names. Best regards.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , first things first, please ping me when you reply. Now, what about the embassies which only use India? Also, your inference is original research and nothing more.
 * I have already cited my sources, which are generally considered reliable; there is no Wikipedia policy which states that only papers published internationally recognised publishers need to be used as references here.
 * Again, whilst, the collection of sources cited by you is impressive, none of them say that India is somehow an unofficial name for this nation; please back up that claim of yours with a reliable source. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: The sources I have added do not say in passing, "Republic of India is an official (or a formal) name for India," or "other official names: Republic of India;" they say, "the official (formal) name of India is the Republic of India." In other words, had they thought there were other official or formal names, they would have stated them. A source of the kind:, is consulted internationally in all kinds of official and diplomatic contexts.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How about, "India, officially or formally also, Republic of India, is a country in South Asia?"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, that seems about right; I support this amended proposal. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me, too. Although I slightly prefer WBG's proposal as it is even simpler. El_C 17:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I feel like we are moving in a circular fashion, so, this will probably be one of the last time I write on this.
 * So, my sources (including the |Canadian and |Australian high commissions), though less reliable than yours, say that India is an official name of India. Yours say that the Republic of India is the official name of India.
 * So, again, what need is are sources that India is not an official name of India. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand now. Hopefully the new formulation will resolve the issue.  Thank you.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * None -- The Constitution of India names the nation to be India/Bharat and it's not appropriate/optimal to term it as an unofficial terminology. At the same time, many academic sources explicitly mention official name to be ROI. Government sites, embassy websites et al vary both-ways. I propose India, formally also, Republic of India, is a country ..... &#x222F; WBG converse 15:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I support your proposal too. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So far, the best formulation. I don't really care whether we use "formally" or "officially," but it should be just one of the two. El_C 17:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, then it will have to be, "India, officially also Republic of India, is a country in South Asia." Clearly there are five times the number of sources for "official," than for "formal."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the constitution of India does not anywhere state the official name of India to be "India."  On Wikipedia we need secondary sources to interpret the constitution to state this.  There is a reason why the country infobox has both a name, and an official name argument.  With the exception of one or two couuntries, no country's constitution has an official name pronouncement.  I'm pretty sure what you guys are advocating is unencyclopedic.  I'm happy to take it to a source evaluation on Wiki History or other project.  This is about as far as I go with this freewheeling OR.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is about India, but every couple of years, someone or other begins a long, belabored, disquisition about what the Constitution says. I've seen this on this page now for 12 years.  If it is not the name, it is the official language, the national language, the boundary, ... it is endless.  What is it about secondary sources that people do not understand?  The constitution of India is not a secondary source.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , no need to go on a rant on India. Anyway, my argument never centred around the Constitution of India; I don't know why you went and wrote a polemic.
 * Anyway, notwithstanding any arguments I have written hitherto, the marginal heading of the very first article of the Constitution of India (which is called so because article 393 thereof mentions that) is "Name and territory of the Union". That is a fact; no need for inferences, which are anyway solely the job of the courts, not me, you, or anyone else.
 * Again, my points still stand, with or without accounting for you tirade against India and Wikipedia. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 18:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it has to — it's already called the Constitution of India. El_C 18:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, it returns to my aforementioned point that it may just be a tautology — I've yet to see evidence the shortform is unofficial in some way. El_C 19:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler, I realise it might sound like we're asking you to prove a negative (sources for India being unofficial) — but that is not the case if we take into account that the title of the country's top document mentions the short form. El_C 19:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did not see this. Top documents are all primary sources.  On Wikipedia, without a secondary source-specific citation, its pronouncements are meaningless. Like I have said before, where are the sources?  Thus far, what I have seen are poor apologies of sources, breezy, conversational, journalistic accounts of a frivolous filing at the Indian Supreme Court, which elicited the response, "Do you think we have nothing else to do?" from the honorable justices.  I mean, seriously, if India is the official name, where are the sources published by the university presses that state this?  There is nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.   You have to understand my frustration.  It is doubly frustrating, as there is a deep POV behind this.  Many India-POV editors, and I certainly do not mean the current disputants, do not want Republic of India to be anywhere in the page title, though in fact, you may remember, the original name of this page was Republic of India and it was only, after four years,  in 2006, that it was redirected to India.  Some India-POV editors do not like "Republic of India," for, it punctures the balloon of the irredentist fantasy that today's India is the "India" of old, the geographical claimant to the Indus Valley, to all of Kashmir, to Baluchistan, to Burma, and sometimes even Tibet.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler, okay, I could appreciate that there's some nonsense with people not wanting the longform mentioned, at all — of course it should be mentioned/bolded. There's no disputing that. And of course it is official. There's no disputing that, either. I'm just arguing that just because (in various countries) the shortform is not designated official by tertiary sources, does not mean it's somehow unofficial. Which is why I asked whether there is evidence that it is (unofficial), or whether maybe it's just a tautology. Because, again, the country's most official document has the shortform in its very title. El_C 22:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

, please spare me this; I can’t help but feel that the snide of yours was aimed at me, in that case it was an ad hominem and useless in the context of this discussion. I have reiterated time and again that the “Republic of India” is an official name for India (and one I take pride in), much like the “Republic of Ireland” is for Ireland. At any rate, I don’t think I have even so much as implied that I have an “irredentist fantasy” about India: one can always be proud of one’s country’s past; personally, I would much rather have India progress and become a developed, liberal democracy than it conquer territories, the economic burden thereof would break the country’s backbone. I ask you to stop being sceptical and don’t see everything as a variant of tendentious editing. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think that when the US State Department, or the British Foreign Office, or Britannica, or the UN, say, "Republic of India" is the official name, or formal name, they very definitely do mean that "India" (without qualification) is not the official name, or formal name; otherwise, they would have mentioned it. Some in fact say, "Official name: Republic of India; Bharat (Hindi)" or they say, "Official name: "Republic of India, Bharat Ganarajya (Hindi)"  Clearly, if the latter set of sources, are careful to mention the Hindi version, they do mean that those are the only two official versions.  That means in particular that these sources, and there is a surfeit of them, do not consider India to be the official name.  I'm happy to take this to the Village Pump or to WP:Project History or Geography or some other appropriate one, to have some others experienced editors weight in.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS I could also ask there what "official" and "formal" mean on WP, per 's concern below. This sort of thing has come up on WP enough times that it might worth getting more input from other Wiki projects.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fowler&amp;fowler, by all means, if you think a wider discussion can be helpful — go for it. I've pretty much exhausted my tautology argument vis-a-vis the constitution having the shortform in its very title, which remains absolutely key to me. El_C 23:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to use "officially", sources notwithstanding. Mainly because I'm not sure what "officially" means in this context. Formally would be more appropriate. "India, formally Republic of India," or the current aka usage, gets my vote (or rather, !vote). --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What does formally mean? It has all the issues that officially has.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Then I'll go with the aka designation, the current one. --regentspark (comment) 20:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether we understand a word or phrase or not, it is ultimately a question of whether the reliable sources use it. No reliable source says, "also known as the Republic of India."  That is my point.  It is a form of OR. On the other hand, it is undeniable that  Britannica, Websters, US State Department, UK Foreign Office, a dozen scholarly tertiary sources, and dozens of scholarly secondary sources that I have not even have time to all, all use the word "official" for "Republic of India." That is all we ultimately care about.  Wikipedia's Constitution is reliable (preferably scholarly) tertiary and secondary sources.  A lesser number use 'formally." I have offered a flexible choice:  "India, officially or formally also Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Trust me, none of my interactions with you have led me to assign a POV to your edits. However, I do think that your sources are unreliable.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest, as there's no agreement on the officiality or otherwise of both names, nor indeed what "official" means, that the article remains as is: "India (ISO: Bhārat), also known as the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya)...". This is informative (telling me that it has at least four names, and is a republic) and referenced, which is what's required in the lede of an article. There is substantial information about these and other names at Names of India; you might want to expand that with information about "official" and "unofficial". If you wish, you could link to this at the end of the lede, as has been done at the contentiously-named British Isles article. Alternatively, rename the "Etymology" section to "Names" and add more discourse there. Bazza (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Closing my participation in this discussion. Clearly, from my point of view, the participants are paying little attention to sources, only to personal preferences, to personal opinions, or to  original research based in directly citing the Constitution of India, to interpreting the constitution's vague words, "India that is Bharat shall be a union of states," to mean that "India," unadorned, unembellished, is (also) the official name of the country.  They pay little attention not only to the academic, tertiary, diplomatic, and international sources, but also to the Government of India's own interpretation in its National Portal of India: Profile, which says, "'Country Name: Republic of India; Bharat Ganrajya; Government Type: Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic with a Parliamentary system of Government; Capital: New Delhi; Administrative Divisions: 29 States and 7 Union Territories; Independence: 15th August 1947 (From the British Colonial Rule); Constitution: The Constitution of India came into force on 26th January 1950; Legal System: The Constitution of India is the fountain source of the legal system in the Country.'" I will take this discussion to a larger WP forum (such as the Village Pump, with notices to WP History, Geography, Law, and Politics projects, as well as WT:INDIA) where more editors are available for discussion.  I will state that I am deeply disappointed that on this, Wikipedia's oldest country FA, a few editors, were able to remove "official name: Republic of India," during the absence of many editors, without examining the sources, without regard to precedence in all the other country FAs, and indeed to a 12 year history on this page, on the basis of such infirm notions, that moreover fly in the face of what Wikipedia is about.  I would urge these editors to find better sources for their views when this discussion moves to a wider forum.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh, sorry for projecting my insecurities on you, then! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support change to "India, formally the Republic of India". What does "formally" mean? That is how the Government of India presents the country to foreign governments and organisations. So, it is certainly a more formal form of the name. I am hoping that, this way, we can circumvent the tricky issue of whether "India" is official or not, and also get away from the silly-sounding "also". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What it really is is: Republic of India, informally India, is a country in South Asia." But the sources by a near unanimous margin prefer "India, officially (or official name) Republic of India, " to "formally."  As I have already mentioned, all the other country feature articles : Australia, Belarus, Chad, Cameroon, Germany, Japan, Madagascar, Rwanda have "official name."  (Canada is the only exception but it has legislated the official name to be Canada, not Commonwealth of Canada). However, since this has brought up all sorts of important issues, I am keen to hear from folk at other Wiki Projects (as I state above).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

15th year anniversary as an FA: Some proposals
India will complete 15 years as an FA on September 16, 2019. I believe it is the oldest, uninterrupted, country FA on Wikipedia. As such it has a burden of quality which it needs to maintain, and of innovation that it needs to keep setting. Here are some thoughts about both.
 * Quality: The second half of the article, section 5 onward, is in shambles. It is poorly written, with far too much empty prose, far too much superfluous detail, far too many small sections, and in them far too many lists, each with far too many citations. An example is the first paragraph of the Motion Pictures and TV section: "The Indian film industry produces the world's most-watched cinema. Established regional cinematic traditions exist in the Assamese, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Punjabi, Gujarati, Marathi, Odia, Tamil, and Telugu languages. South Indian cinema attracts more than 75% of national film revenue."
 * Lists: If you not able to qualitatively describe something, accompanied perhaps with vignettes here and there, then you don't have anything to add in an FA. No one who is not already thoroughly familiar with the Indian movie scene will bother with reading the sentence.
 * Qualitative information: Consider the sentence, "The President of India is the supreme commander of the nation's armed forces."  The article has already stated in so many words that the president is a figurehead one.  If a figurehead is the supreme commander, then what are we saying?  What we really want to say is: "India's civilian government controls its armed forces," or words to that effect.  That is the qualitative content, which is informative.
 * Small subsections:  There are far too many small sub-sections in the article, especially in the last section.  We need to reduce and reorganize them, giving them new titles with larger scope.
 * Prose The issues listed above need to be dealt first. Later, we could give the article to the League of copy editors to improve the prose.
 * Innovation: It has been eight years since the was improved in any major way. The world has changed.  I believe the India page should reflect the change.  I am proposing that the following topics have more space for them in the article:
 * Environment
 * Nutrition and Health
 * Human rights
 * How they will be organized will depend on what we have to say. But, again, if you are proposing adding lists, or "commander-in-chief" variety of information, then don't bother.  That means in order to add anything, you will need to have a good understanding of the issues at hand.
 * Somewhere along the way, we could ask the FA people to reserve September 16 for TFA (Today's Featured Article), but since it has already appeared a few times before, they might not agree to accept, unless major improvements accompany the article. I know everyone is strapped for time; I certainly am.  This sort of enterprise will require some commitment.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , yep, the article does need some work; I am more than happy to help you in this endeavour; just tell me what can I do insofar as the law, government, politics, and items related thereto are concerned. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is, at 55kB of readable prose, getting towards the long end of the WP:SIZE rules of thumb. I agree on the need to condense subsections and reduce cruft, which may help leave space for proposed expansions.
 * On the subject of reducing subsections, I don't feel either of the economics subsections ("Industries" and "Socio-economic challenges") stands on their own, as both seem so entwined with the information elsewhere in that section that it is odd to split them off. The languages and religion subsections are small, although they may be places to expand rather than merge with the larger section.
 * I also agree a big issue is the Culture section. I feel it seems to be mostly a list of bits of culture and cultural items, rather than information about the culture. The information currently in the "Society" subsection looks like it should be the leading text for that section. As for the rest, whether it is in subsections or in the main body, I think it should veer away from excessive detail and individual works/events and focus on more overarching themes.
 * An additional area that could be expanded is "Administrative Divisions". The federal system and the various states play important roles in shaping India, intersecting with politics, culture, language, and more. I would be interested to here others' thoughts on whether the current short paragraph is appropriately weighted in this article. CMD (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello  I just realized it was you who had removed some sentences from the biodiversity section, and recently.  True, the sentences were not sourced, but they have been in the article since 2007, or thereabouts, being both vignettes that are interspersed in the more abstract prose.  This mixing in of vignettes and more general statements has been the governing principle of the writing of this page.  The vignettes are meant to be distinct from lists, and without them, the prose becomes too dry for the reader to comprehend, or at least that was the idea.  If you don't mind, allow me to restore them with sources, with some alteration that will make it less listy, and we can see how they fare.  If they appear out of place, or merely lists, we can remove them again.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see what you mean, but the statements in question seem quite out of place. I can't read the sources, but from the text I don't see how the chosen vignettes tell the reader much about biodiversity. CMD (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Good point. Let me think about it. It needs more relevant vignettes. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the somewhat bloated second paragraph of the lead, mainly by removing various comment adverbs and inessentials. Hopefully this version is better.  It is one and a half line shorter, on my screen.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now also rephrased many of the POV formulations of the third paragraph of the lead; I've added per capita GDP for NPOV balance. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

History section
The history section of the article does not say anything about the Bahmani sultanate, the successor Deccan sultanates, and the Marathas.These powers played significant part in the medieval and early modern history of Central and southern India. Please comment.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bahmani Sultanate and its successors were splinters of the Delhi Sultanate, and eventually got absorbed into the Mughal Empire (even for only a short time). So I don't think they need to be specifically mentioned. The Maratha empire is, on the other hand, quite important as a symbol of "Hindu resurgence" and for containing the roots of modern Hindu nationalism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Kautilya3, The Bahmani and the Deccan sultanates ruled the Deccan for three hundred years, which was certainly longer than the period of Vijayanagara empire.I agree with you on the inclusion of the Maratha rulers.They dominated India for a greater part of the 18th century.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bahmani was in some sense a northern counterpart of Vijayanagara, both building on the military technology of the Delhi sultanate, one Muslim, the other Shaivite, the latter of greater influence, especially in South India. They could be finessed in.  I'll suggest something below.  The Marathas are mentioned, along with Sikhs and Rajputs: "Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience. Expanding commerce during Mughal rule gave rise to new Indian commercial and political elites along the coasts of southern and eastern India. As the empire disintegrated, many among these elites were able to seek and control their own affairs."  In my view, that is a good enough qualitative description,  which is approach favored in this history.  If you give them more prominence, then you have to mention all the regional kingdoms or confederacies, (or so-called empires) of the 18th century) and we have nothing but a meaningless list drafted by a committee of advocates.  After all, Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan's Mysore is not mentioned.  That modern Hindu nationalism is worked up about the Marathas is no reason to give them more prominence in overall Indian history, only in modern Indian intellectual history.  Modern Hindu nationalism is also worked up about Vivekananda, Bhagat Singh, and Subhas Bose,  but they typically gain scant mention in a compressed Indian history.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We could change the last two sentences of Medieval India to: "The sultanate's raiding and weakening of the regional kingdoms of South India paved the way for the Muslim Bahmni sultanate in the northern Deccan and the Shaivite Vijayanagara Empire in the southern, both building on the military technology of the Delhi sultanate, and the latter coming to influence South Indian society for long afterwards."
 * But then others will complain that this diminishes Vijayanagara, among these will likely be Asher and Talbot, whose organization of contents, we have followed, and who devote the focus of one chapter on Vijayanagara, "Chapter 3: Southern India in the age of Vijayanagara." The Marathas fall mainly under: "Chapter 8: Challenging central authority 1650–1750"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Explain your changes here. It has nothing to do with the discussion above. You made large changes to an established lead with any consensus. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC))
 * The streamlining and reduction of the lead was not a response to this but to much earlier post about cruft and size in Talk:India.  Seriously, please do not waste my time.  You are clueless here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Fowler&amp;fowler, I think saying that "both building on the military technology of the Delhi sultanate" gives too much emphasis on the influence the Delhi sultanate exerted on their southern neighbors.In reality,the Bahamanis and the Deccan sultanates relied heavily on  administrators and soldiers directly from the Middle East and East Africa respectively. Also under the southern sultanates, a distinct Deccani culture emerged. I hope the above and the cited source are useful in modifying the content.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I like the current (Fowler's) version. The previous version repeats the word "millennium", is wordier ("early", "later", "much of", etc., all unnecessary), and generally says the same thing in a succinct fashion. --regentspark (comment) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit of nit picking. Is In the next two millennia, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. this accurate? Hindu texts puts the date of the oldest ones at around 800 BCE, the earliest agreed on dates for Jainism are around 8th to 6th centuries BCE, and the Buddha arrived only in the 5th century BCE. Do we have enough confidence in "two millennia" to say it in the lead? --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably best to change bronze age (whose time span in India some doofus has dated 3300 to 1300 BCE) to "third millenium BCE." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed "In the next two millennia" to "In India's iron age This is short and sweet.  Note: even the Mauryas are sometimes considered iron age, so Buddhism and Jainism fit in.  Is this OK?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure. Thanks f&f. --regentspark (comment) 23:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not been on Wikipedia very long, and am not well versed in the History or culture of India. Having said that, I think the "History" section of this article has too many compound sentences and run-on sentences. I did not want to impose my thinking on the article itself, but just wanted to see if anyone else thought the sections were confusing to an average reader.NobelSavage (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Compound sentences (i.e two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction or semicolon (etc)) are legal on Wikipedia. I agree though that a surfeit does not constitute very readable prose.  Run-on sentences will need to be replaced, if they exist.  Could you give examples?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

BIMSTEC should be added in 'Membership'. India is a part of it.
BIMSTEC should be added in the Membership section. In the very first overview section, there's a heading called Membership where the name of all organisations are written off, in which India is a member. India is also a member of BIMSTEC. I request the authorised authority or personnel who have right to edit this page, to please add it. ~¶iyush¶ercev 00:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyush India HINDU (talk • contribs)

Islamophobia
In recent years there is growing violence against Muslim community specially Kashmiri muslims are subjected to in human behaviour at colleges and universities. Ruling party is accused by Muslims for its extremist hindu terror ideology behaving with mental illness of Islamophobic which is being condemned worldwide. We should cover this in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.161.157 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have BBC reference on this https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Furdu%2Fregional-47594053&sandbox=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.161.157 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But this article is a general one about India, the country. For detailed information about specific Indian topics, try the many article linked to from this one, such as Religious violence in India. Bazza (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case I invite you to edit the page of Pakistan so that the violence against Hindus is mentioned there too. Like the 1971 genocide where 2.4 million bengali Hindus lost their lives. Manish2542 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Next time you get the urge to invite someone to edit another page on this talk page, please read Wikipedia talk page guidelines whose first sentences are: "The purpose of an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Next time you get the urge to lecture someone on not using talk pages as platforms for their personal views on a subject, do make sure to lecture the person who started the discussion with personal views on the ruling party, its so-called hindu terror ideology and views on what we should think of "islamophobYia". Manish2542 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * had already adequately answered the IPs question. It does not belong here, he said, as this article is a general article about India which does not have room for the IPs more detailed concerns. The IP is clearly wanting to post something about India, not Pakistan.  There is adequate literature on India's own human rights violations, not least of which is the UN's first  report on human rights violations in Kashmir, more than four-fifths of which is about Indian violations:"'The main focus of the report is the human rights situation in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir from July 2016 - when large and unprecedented demonstrations erupted after Indian security forces killed the leader of an armed group - to April 2018. Indian security forces used excessive force that led to unlawful killings and a very high number of injuries, the report says, ... One of the most dangerous weapons used against protesters in 2016 – and which is still being employed by security forces – was the pellet-firing shotgun. According to official figures, 17 people were killed by shotgun pellets between July 2016 and August 2017, and 6,221 people were injured by the metal pellets between 2016 and March 2017. Civil society organizations believe that many of them have been partially or completely blinded."  And it is not like there is no mistreatment of minorities in India, whether or not there is that in Pakistan. The US State Department, in its 2017 freedom of religions report in India says, "'Authorities often did not prosecute violence by vigilantes against persons, mostly Muslims, suspected of slaughtering or illegally transporting cows or trading in or consuming beef. Members of civil society and religious minorities stated that under the current government, religious minority communities felt increasingly vulnerable due to Hindu nationalist groups engaging in violence against non-Hindu individuals and their places of worship."  Human Rights Watch begins its report for the year 2018 with: "'In 2018, the government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) harassed and at times prosecuted activists, lawyers, human rights defenders, and journalists for criticizing authorities. Draconian sedition and counterterrorism laws were used to chill free expression. Foreign funding regulations were used to target nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) critical of government actions or policies. The government failed to prevent or credibly investigate growing mob attacks on religious minorities, marginalized communities, and critics of the government—often carried out by groups claiming to support the government. At the same time, some senior BJP leaders publicly supported perpetrators of such crimes, made inflammatory speeches against minority communities, and promoted Hindu supremacy and ultra-nationalism, which encouraged further violence.'" Amnesty International begins its 2017/2018 report on India with: "'Religious minority groups, particularly Muslims, faced increasing demonization by hardline Hindu groups, pro-government media and some state officials. Adivasi communities continued to be displaced by industrial projects, and hate crimes against Dalits remained widespread. Authorities were openly critical of human rights defenders and organizations, contributing to a climate of hostility against them. Mob violence intensified, including by vigilante cow protection groups. Press freedom and free speech in universities came under attack. India failed to respect its human rights commitments made before the UN Human Rights Council. The Supreme Court and High Courts delivered several progressive judgments, but some rulings undermined human rights. Impunity for human rights abuses persisted.'"  In other words, there is plenty evidence in third-party reliable sources of both India's human rights violations and mistreatment of minorities.  Please restrict your remarks to ones which are about improving this page; otherwise, I will be forced to redact your comments here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Because it's the only possible way to manage some insane and anti-nationalist poeple by Army. There's not any 'way around' for this problem. For those you have said 'mistreatment' and 'HR violation' are often seen creating discomfort by spreading radical Islamic ideology, picking Guns and ammunition against government and military, attempting to disband nation and crushing the Hindu minorities in their areas. This problem can't be sorted by just luring them to governmental welfare initiatives and requesting them to join mainstream. They can only be controlled by the military and security forces. This shouldn't be seen as rights violation or suppression of minorities. This the only way to save a nation and to create discipline among the people who are often seen as creating havoc and crushing human rights. For these problems, every country will do the same to cope and it's a general handling and internationally devised. Any country will do the same for these problems and should not be taken as particular for 'Human Rights Violation', because these rights suit on human not and they are not humans by behaviour. Also it's not wrong if you mistreat 'some' inorder to protect 'many'. Also government do support Hindus, but this doesn't mean they want to eleminate Muslims. Please be unbaised and stop using Wikipedia talk page for these shitty propagandas. ~¶iyush¶ercev 01:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyush India HINDU (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2019
indiagovt.online Solutionbyyouth (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No. First, "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." Secondly, that looks like an unusually crappy website that just happens to have a domain name that might deceive the gullible. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Prepositions. Also, Maritime border/s?!!

 * I feel like Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast... should have the ons changed to ins; and In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity ... should be On the Indian .... Any experts in the house? Or is it, on the house?
 * ...its Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia -- It seems unlikely that two islands would share one maritime border with two different countries. I suggest its Andaman and Nicobar Islands territory shares maritime borders with Thailand and Indonesia to start. Or may be the Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands shares its maritime border with Thailand as well as Indonesia. Perhaps even the Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands shares its maritime border with Thailand in the northeast and Indonesia in the southeast or whichever direction they are in. Again, I think experts on India as well as the English language better take a look and clarify for technical accuracy, whatever it's trying to say.
 * Just a mild suggestion/query from a passerby, please don't bite my head off  Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 11:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * } Bounded To bound on the north means to abut on the northern boundary. In such interpretation you cannot use "in."  OED does use "on."  E.g.   Balkan peninsula  n. (also with capital initial in the second element) a large peninsula in south-eastern Europe bounded by the Adriatic and Ionian Seas on the west, by the Aegean and Mediterranean seas on the south and south-east, and by the Black Sea on the east.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Another example: OED (bound (v)): 3. intr. to bound on: to abut upon, adjoin. 1792   T. Jefferson Corr. 164   They bound on us between two and three thousand miles. 1858   H. Beveridge Comprehensive Hist. India III. 269   Territories..bounding with those of British India on the west.
 * As for the Andamans, you may have a point. Let's wait for others to respond.  It could be changed to "shares maritime borders with."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , agreed. Since its a featured article, we don't want to do anything half-assed, nor do we want to leave a potential inaccuracy/oversight unchecked if it can be helped. I am convinced about the Bounded by ... on ... part. If I'd found anything like that on my own search, I wouldn't have even brought it up. I think I don't know how to make that kind of a search. Let's wait for others' input on the "Islands" thing.
 * What about the In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity ... part? I feel like having an "in" "In" there implies that India also is in the Indian ocean which is not true, is it? Of course, the rest of the bunch are in the Indian ocean. Confuses the hell out of me, this kind of thing. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 16:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there were no premium on space, one could write: "In addition (or Moreover), in the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of (i.e. in the neighbourhood of, near or close to) etc etc ..."  However, on Wikipedia non-essential comment adverbs such as "Moreover" or "In addition" are generally frowned upon. "In" does not imply "also."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic groups
Why an image of a Coal miner? Got to be a better image to display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:561:D622:FD6D:4FBB:8A9B:37D6 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not ethnic groups, only a section of the demographics of India. What they need are focused captions illustrating the text. What, by the way, is a "better image?"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Any educational image would be better then some guy.... like File:India population density map en.svg.-- Moxy 🍁 22:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is already a non-rotating educational image File:Indien Bevölkerungspyramide.png. From past discussions, people don't want more educational images, at least not more non-rotating ones.  Perhaps one more could be added to the eight rotating ones.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL a talk that decided best to have random images over educational images. Pls don't add any more to the rotation.....the point being made is that it's the rotation that is the problem.-- Moxy 🍁 23:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've long understood that that is your point. I meant one more educational one could be added in the rotation section, swapping a people image for a graphical representation.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"also known as"
I have now examined the reliable, tertiary sources and satisfied myself that an overwhelming number of them consider "Republic of India" to be the official, formal, or conventional long name. These sources nowhere use "also." The implication is that a overwhelming majority of these sources do not consider "India" (without qualification) to be an official-, formal-, or conventional long form. Some such as the Government of India, do not consider "India" to be even a name, only informal usage for the country's name, which is "Republic of India." I have added both an weasel-inline tag for "also" and a citation needed tag requesting reliable UNDUE tertiary sources, reflecting due weight (not anecdotal accounts in Indian newspapers of frivolous filings in Indian courts, nor direct interpretation of the Constitution of India) that attest to this. Pointing to a previous consensus, which itself was not based in sources, and in contrast to all the other country featured articles, is of little value. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is meant by "undue" in this context? That word usually indicates that the significance of something is being unduly inflated by the amount of text or number of sources devoted to it. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * :) Sorry. Typo of the worst kind which changes the meaning into its opposite.  I have corrected the statement.  I mean sources that do not reflect a minority point of view.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * F&f, if you have reliable sources for Republic of India being the official name of the country, why don't you just rewrite the lead? --regentspark (comment) 00:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RP, okay, I'll give it a shot. Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is what your looking for?...see last paragraph. ......and first here -- Moxy 🍁 01:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Both are in the list I had compiled in a section above. But in the new citations I have just added to the lead, I've stayed away from using cultural and historical references for something geographical. (The Britannica reference, for example,  is a rehash of various older Britannica articles on India, re-edited by newer experts; this is what an academic involved with Britannica told me.)  Similarly, the Sources of the Indian tradition volume is a compendium of various primary sources, with short intros by the editors.  Bout would be open to objections that they might not be definitive for official names.  Thanks again.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PS For similar reasons I have stayed away from using the US Dept of State, UNESCO, UK Foreign Office, and indeed the Government of India's National Portal itself. These are not peer reviewed.  They simply state their interpretation of the official name.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not much more can be said if you reject University professors and the government's own website.  Ever hear of Blind men and an elephant fable? -- Moxy 🍁 03:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * :) I had memorized JG Saxe's poem as a child. But I've also read Dorothy Burlingham's To be blind in a sighed world. Old parables go only so far.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the change to "official name" from the former "officially", partly solves the previous problem. I can live with this version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2019
Please add afghanistan among India's neighbours. 2401:4900:1730:620B:1C4C:2367:153C:D437 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although not all that visible....it's here...pls see note [f].-- Moxy 🍁 18:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Update the list of Indian States and Union Territories under the 'Administrative divisions' section. Blackfox9890 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon official ratification. El_C 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2019
India has the world's oldest civilization! 103.66.79.133 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Update counts of states and union territories. Add J&K and Ladak as union territory and remove J&K from state. Karike.vinod (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon official ratification. El_C 07:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2019
Change Number of states from 29 to 28 and union territories from seven to 9 Tanay S Deori (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not accepted. Please read 's remarks above.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2019
Jammu and Kashmir is now a Union Territory while Ladakh becomes a Union Territory without Legislature effective 5th August 2019. Aneetd (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not accepted. Please read Abecedare's remarks above.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

knowledge " transmitted" or stolen during islamic periods
There should be a prominent paragraph about the loots by muslims during muslim conquests and how aryabhatta and pingala contributed to mathematics and computers early in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingala#Combinatorics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0#India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.226.233 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the compressed history of an article such as this, these scholars cannot be mentioned by name, as there are others as well. The flowering in Indian mathematics is mentioned in the last sentence of the ancient history section.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove inappropriate images
In the Economy Section, we can see a bunch of totally inappropriate and irrelevant images.

Could someone explain, why does it contain pictures of a goat and kids having their meal? Wikipedia is supposed to have neutral articles but it seems that some people are changing the status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyqc17 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page archives for discussions leading to the consensus for these images.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, why are the images inappropriate? India is the largest milk producer in the world, 80% of whose milk is sourced from small, hand-milked herds, in family farms.  As for the children, the Midday Meal Scheme is a major initiative in India to combat malnutrition and stunting among children.  India still has 40% of the stunted children in the world. (See here).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note: "'Nearly 80 per cent of India’s milk production is contributed by small and marginal farmers, with an average herd size of one to two milching animals. Indian yield is still much lower than that in the US, New Zealand and Germany. These countries certainly have an advantage on the cattle breed, and also benefit from extensive mechanisation and larger herd size. In India, there is high dependence on family labour and limitations to deploying mechanised milching systems, given the small herd size holding. (See here)'"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I just realized you were talking about the picture of feeder ship anchored in Diamond Harbour, Kolkata, which is about international trade.  It is true that it has a goat in the foreground, but it is a much awarded Flickr picture.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
We have had a request to change some images ato the help desk.....BUT the reader not aware we have that horrible rotation of images.....this still needs to be fixed. Why on some days is there good images and others pure junk. Images spam selection needs to go.....just saw section above same IP I would guess (off by one number) at the desk.-- Moxy 🍁 22:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the full list of images in the article: User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India A few images are indeed of less than stellar quality, but many need focused captions illustrating the text they accompany.    But organizing something on this page is not easy.  Whenever we've had a call for contributions, people propose images that are not so much paragons of quality, as paragons of furthering the POV they would like to see in this article.  One solution to avoid poor quality images, originally proposed by User:Nichalp, the nominator of this page's first successful FA run in 2004, is to restrict the images to Featured Pictures.  I've tried to do something along these lines in:User:Fowler&fowler/Improved Images in FA India .  Some sections in this proposed page do indeed have spectacular images (They are still lacking the captions though; other sections have less FP representation, and will need pictures from elsewhere).  The rotation which seems to be your objection is a non-issue on this page (from past discussions).  If editors not satisfied with 72 images, what are the chances they will be satisfied with 12?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 72 images that crazy.....dump the rotation and use just the best images that go along with prose text over adding images that need text for explanation. No way this passed FA with the images in rotation.....as its simply not what we do. Other then imagea the article is great. -- Moxy 🍁 23:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * India, which became an FA in 2004, is the oldest country FA on Wikipedia. At the time of its last FAR, in July 2011, the rotation was well in place (it shows up as a redlink now, because the template was changed). Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The image rotation on the India article is probably one of the best examples of consensus formation on Wikipedia. Images were selected and discussed over a long period of time, with many editors participating. If you're unhappy with the format, I suggest you open a discussion section on this talk page, explaining clearly why you think the current format is against policy (your brief note above does not do that), and we can take it from there. But please don't tag bomb. --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How many readers will have to bring up the same thing  before its clear the rotation to please  a few editors is not appropriate for our readers. Why one day do we have subpar images not mentioned in prose and  another day we have a relevant image with educational value.Image use policy.-- Moxy 🍁 05:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In most cases, this is an easy fix. It has little to do with rotation, only with a larger number of images which need to be so fixed. See pictures in the gallery. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  06:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ,,  As you will have seen the captions of the eight rotating pictures in the Demographics section are now complete.  I believe these visual and textual vignettes offer a sampling of India's demographics that no table or map can.  I will now work on the other sections.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for pointing out the inadequacy of the earlier captions.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Official(ly) named
The current introduction to the subject reads India (ISO: Bhārat), official name, the Republic of India,... There's an unnecessary comma and an isolated adjective+noun (official name). Rewording this to the following will improve the parsing of this first sentence: India (ISO: Bhārat), officially named the Republic of India,... was made to improve this, but reverted with a request to discuss first; hence this comment. Bazza (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bazza! "Officially named" seems good to me; I was totally unaware of the dispute about whether "Republic of India" is an official or formal name! As for the commas, it seems like you, me, and (judging from their edit summary) Fowler&amp;fowler all agree (although, F&f, I have to ask, if you thought the comma change was correct and uncontroversial, why revert it in the first place?).—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No no "officially named" is a can of worms. "Named by an official or officials," "named by an official process," are both acceptable interpretations, but what is meant is "its name in official or formal contexts is Republic of India" The problem with "officially" (alone) is that it does not reference "name" sufficiently.  Indeed it is open to the interpretation "officially named." More pertinently, the sources (see here) prefer "official name." (There are a handful of "offically"s, but most are "official name:")  Sorry about the extra comma, a typo, which on account of being in a hurry I did not remove at the time of my AGF revert.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now changed the extra comma to a colon (in consonance with the colons before and after in the ISO). I hope this is acceptable.  Thanks for pointing out the error.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be contradicting yourself: you need to explain better what is wrong with "officially named", as standalone "official name" is grammatically wrong. If you are saying that "Named by an official or officials," and "named by an official process," are acceptable, then that is what "officially named" means, at least in my (British) version of English. The current version, with the colon, is also grammatically wrong; you need to include parentheses if you're going with that version (official name: Republic of India). There's opportunity then to rationalise all with India (ISO: Bhārat; official name: the Republic of India, ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) is a country... (references and comma omitted), but I'd go for the officially named version. Bazza (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IThe parenthetical version seems to be the cleanest. "Officially known as" would be the grammatically most appropriate but that would open a can of worms.--regentspark (comment) 15:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying that it does not mean "named by an official process etc," but rather the appositive, "India, (its name) in official or formal contexts (being) the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. By "acceptable interpretations" I meant: "are acceptable (semantic) interpretations of the expression 'officially named,'" but what we want here is something akin to "India's name in official or formal contexts is the Republic of India."  I should have been clearer. Apologies.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the others are on board, we could change it to: "India, in official or formal contexts, the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, we are changing the adverb "officially" to the prepositional phrase "in ... contexts." Both are adjuncts.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "India's name in official or formal contexts is the Republic of India." === "India, officially (the) Republic of India,...". See France, Germany, Myanmar, Angola, Thailand, Seychelles for a some of the articles which clearly state their respective countries official names alongside their common ones. Bazza (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We had a long enervating discussion on all this last month. We are all aware of these other country articles.  India is the oldest country featured article on Wikipedia, soon, in August, to celebrate 15 years.  It has its own standards to keep, as long as these are not wildly out of line.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Officially," unqualified, in the opinion of some here, is open to the (mis)interpretation, "officially named."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Look I'm trying to be flexible. Another option is: "India, its official name being the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If something has an official name, then it has been "named officially", or is "officially named". All you're doing is replacing one or two words which are completely adequate to describe the official name of the country with eight or more. The article is no more special than any other, by the way: even newly featured articles can be improved. It does not have its own standards: the only ones which count are Wikipedia's which, amongst a load of other stuff, state that an article's lede should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view and should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. There's too much WP:OWN here, and I have no more to offer other than to point out that you have left the article's first sentence grammatically incorrect. Bazza (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, India apparently has not been officially named "Republic of India," or at least there is some doubt about that. The evidence is mixed. The originalists, who choose to interpret India's constitution, consider it to have been officially named only "India." However, the secondary sources, the international organizations, the other world governments, consider the "Republic of India" to be the country's name in official or formal contexts. "Official" here is the context of use, not the process of naming. That is the nub of the issue here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As for ownership, please read WP:OWN. Essentially, on this much argued page, you cannot simply change the phrasing, especially in the lead,  because you have personally interpreted something to be ungrammatical.  You need to ask on the talk page first, like everyone else does.  As for the grammatical error, it is a minor one, well within the tolerance of natural language.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Like Bazza, I interpret "officially named" to mean "officially addressed as", without any particular implication that the name was given in a single discrete act. But what about "officially called" or "officially known as"? Those seem to stay even further away from that implication, although regentspark said that "officially known as" would be too controversial so perhaps there are other issues I'm not aware of.
 * And, Fowler&amp;fowler, if we are concerning ourselves with minor issues of official nomenclature (and I'm not necessarily saying we shouldn't), it doesn't seem so unreasonable to concern ourselves with minor issues of grammar and style 😁—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even, if, for argument's sake, I were to agree that you both are using "name" to mean "specify, by using a given name" (as in "So-and-so was named "The Boss" by his hit men." or "So-and-so was named the Most Improved Player for six seasons in a row.") and not "to give a specified name," (as in Alexander Pope, "I reared this flower, ... then thron'd in glass, and named it Caroline.") "officially" has many meanings. Webster's Unabridged has 1: "with official authorization :  2:  in an official capacity  3:  professedly, publicly, ostensibly  The OED has something similar.  Which sense of "officially" do you mean?  Only 2, or perhaps 3, in the sense of "publicly," has the implication of "in official contexts," and neither is definitive.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the text above saying ?? What is the problem here? Wording problems, images problems, etc need to be addressed not just pushed aside...article losing its FA status slowly because improvements are cock blocked all the time. -- Moxy 🍁 21:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing is being pushed aside Moxy. Seems to me that a discussion is in progress and a consensus will emerge. It is incumbent on us to get things right and the official name of a country is not a trivial fact that can be just assumed., we've had many discussions on whether or not Republic of India is an actual official name or merely a de facto one. That is the primary reason for the way it is currently represented. Perhaps the simplest solution is to place the Official name parameter in parentheses. --regentspark (comment) 22:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest "India (ISO: Bhārat, official name, the Republic of India)". The Ganarajya stuff, I don't find particularly crucial. It is in the infobox anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , , Per RegentsPark's suggestion, and in partial acceptance of Kautilya3's suggestion, I have changed the lead sentence to "India (official name: the Republic of India; Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) is a country in South Asia."
 * I have done away with ISO; it is entirely opaque, not to mention very confusing to all but the most informed readers. Also, whatever are the subliminal politics behind having the ISO's, the plain fact is that India has two official languages: Hindi the main official language of the union, and English the associate official language. I have also done away with "Bharat" as most tertiary sources that mention the Hindi name, mention only Bharat Ganarajya, and also because it begins to veer towards directly interpreting the constitution of India.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: [a] is a footnote with these sources: "Official name: Republic of India.";  "Official name: Republic of India; Bharat Ganarajya (Hindi)";  "Official name: Republic of India; Bharat.";  "Official name: English: Republic of India";  "Official name: Republic of India";  "Officially, Republic of India";  "Official name: Republic of India";   "Official name: Republic of India"}}  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec....the 2 talks were about using "officially" vs "official name" omg did not think the argument was over what to use ,,but rather if its was Official ....So my 2cents.... Should match all our other FA's that  end up with  normal English  during the FA reviews  Belarus (/bɛləˈruːs/; Belarusian: Беларусь, IPA: [bʲɛlaˈrusʲ]), officially the Republic of Belarus (Belarusian: Рэспубліка Беларусь, Russian: Республика Беларусь......Cameroon (/kæməˈruːn/ \; French: Cameroun), officially the Republic of Cameroon (French: République du Cameroun...Chad (/tʃæd/ \); Arabic: تشاد‎ Tshād, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈtʃaːd]; French: Tchad, pronounced [tʃa(d)]), officially the Republic of Chad (Arabic: جمهورية تشاد‎ Jumhūriyyat Tshād; French: République du Tchad lit. "Republic of the Chad")... Germany (German: Deutschland, German pronunciation: [ˈdɔʏtʃlant]), officially the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland,...Rwanda (/ruˈɑːndə, -ˈæn-/; Kinyarwanda: U Rwanda [u.ɾɡwaː.nda], officially the Republic of Rwanda (Kinyarwanda: Repubulika y'u Rwanda; Swahili: Jamhuri ya Rwanda; French: République du Rwanda)......Nauru (/nɑːˈuːruː/ nah-OO-roo[5] or /ˈnaʊruː/ NOW-roo;[6] Nauruan: Naoero), officially the Republic of Nauru (Nauruan: Repubrikin Naoero) and formerly known as Pleasant Island,...etc.... "Official name" sounds as odd as "Legal name" just restore the same format that has been used since the last FA review and s per the majority here. -- Moxy 🍁 22:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost all the scholarly sources use "official name," and not "officially," for the obvious reason that the latter term is imprecise.  Ask the other pages why they use "officially," when the overwhelming number of sources for them as well use "official name."  Please also stop speaking for Wikipedia or assuming that the mantle of normal English has descended on you.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the community that has talked about this before (and is why the majority of articles use this format) as others mention above. Note your source above by Merriam-Webster's English Dictionary.....that is the only source  that says this fact  in a sentence ...every other source is in point form Official name:insert name here. So yes the grammatical norm in a sentence would be...Officially  "insert name of country here".  We are not writing the lead  in point form...whole sentences. Nothing  imprecise here just point form vs full sentence. -- Moxy 🍁 23:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the current version edited by Fowler. It is clear, grammatically correct, and doesn't sound odd at all. --regentspark (comment) 01:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Where and when has the community talked about it before ? Note: the construction, "India, officially, the Republic of India, ..." is a kind of point form too.  "Officially," an adverb, typically, does not modify a noun or a noun phrase.  It is point form for 1: "India, officially founded as the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia," or 2. "India, in formal parlance addressed as the Republic of India, is country ..." (See my cite of Webster's Unabridged above.)  Which one is meant?  As I was explaining to some others earlier, we certainly don't want 1, as it is disputed.   (You could argue that "official name' could also imply 1., but if someone objects so, we can point to the overwhelming support in the sources. End of story.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * honestly, I don't think the arguments you are advancing here are relevent. I do agree that it's an important question whether "Republic of India" is the official name or an official name alongside "India" or not official at all, and I'm glad you brought reliable sources into the most recent discussion to show that "Republic of India" is considered to be the official name.
 * However, in this discussion, you seem to be arguing that there is an important substantive difference between "official name" (which is acceptable to you) and "officially named" or "offically" (which are not). I do not think so, and you have not provided any sources to suggest that this is more than your individual interpretation. Even among the reliable sources you provided in the last discussion, some actually use "offically" or "officially became".
 * So, I prefer "India, officially/officially known as/officially named the Republic of India,..." and I do not think it would be misleading, or original research, or something else of that kind. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with the first sentence as you've currently written it (I just think you're unnecessarily avoiding better style), so I'm willing if not thrilled to leave it as it.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the parenthetical "official name" either, probably no one here is. And you may have misunderstood my argument. My personal preference is for, The point I was making is that "officially" (alone) can have two interpretations, ie. 1 ("officially founded as") or 2 ("officially addressed as"). "Officially named," as well, can be interpreted as 1. We don't want 1 (as it is apparently disputed), so "officially" (alone) or "officially named" is problematic. I wasn't aware of this problem for 12 years, until people changed the first sentence with an RfC. Whichever way people agree on 2 is acceptable to me. I should point out that this page is among the top two or three most viewed- and most tampered with country pages. If there isn't a (literal) close fit between the sources and the language we use, people will keep tinkering ... Essentially, I (and RP and others) have settled for the current parenthetical version because we see it as the most stable, its lack of cadence notwithstanding. I sympathize with your point, as "official name," as well—as I point out just before the arbitrary break—can be interpreted as 1., but for it we have the evidence of the predominance of sources. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "India, in official parlance, the Republic of India, is a ..." or
 * "India, in formal register, the Republic of India, is a ...," which is similar to "India, in formal lexicon, the Republic of India, ..."
 * even "India, on official occasions, the Republic of India, is a ..."
 * There is also the longer, and the only grammatically complete version, "India, whose official name is the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I like this version. So what if it is slightly longer.  People waste words in all sorts of places.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and others, what do you say to: "India, whose official name is the Republic of India in English, and Bharat Ganarajya in Hindi, is a country in South Asia?" It has no parentheses and is grammatically complete.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. This loses the subtle balance of the earlier wording, where we are eschewing any implication that "India" is an unofficial name. If can produce any knowledgeable sources that explain why India isn't an official name, then we can revisit the issue. But, otherwise, let us keep the above consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with Kautilya on this. Let's stick to the consensus unless some actual sources are forthcoming. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"India": unofficial or official name?
I guess I'm still getting familiar with all the past discussions! Reading the May discussion, it seemed like the consensus was that the overwhelming majority of sources treat "Republic of India" as the official name, not an official name alongside "India", and I assumed that the wording before I edited ("India, official name, the Republic of India") reflected that. However, based on the state of the article after the discussion ended, it seems like the consensus was actually "India, also known as the Republic of India". I thought you two were objecting to changing "official name" to "officially named" (which I think have unquestionably identical meanings—sorry Fowler!). But instead you are objecting to both, since they imply that India is not an official name. Do I have that right?

Based on the sources collected by Fowler&fowler, I think that I disagree with that and that it's time for a new discussion with a hopefully clearer resolution. But I want to consider a bit more before I make up my mind 😁—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I misspelled your name in my first ping, sorry!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries.
 * The problem is that we have no information that "India" is not an official name. Neither was there any kind of a formal naming event. Before independence, India was called "India" ("Indian Empire" when combined with the princely states), and that continued even after independence. The Indian Constitution calls it "India". So it would be pretty hard to make any kind of argument that "India" is not an official name.
 * After the passage of the Constitution, the government started putting "Republic of India" on its letterhead and the passports etc. But there was no conscious name change, if that is what we expect. The Indian government at present does not seem to know what the precise position is. Somebody filed a public information petition asking about it, but the Government hasn't replied to it. It has been several years.
 * It doesn't matter to me a great deal, but I think there will be a lot of people who will be upset if they are told that "India" isn't an official name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To give you an idea of the diversity of opinion here, I, personally, do think that the Republic of India has been the country's official name since 1950, reflected in the use of the expression in reliable sources, at international events, and by other world governments, and furthermore that India (alone) is not the official name. In fact, until 2006 or thereabouts the name of this page was Republic of India, and I believe it was with that name it became an FA in 2004 (see the lead on that day in user:Nichalp's edit here.  The Government of India's own National Portal (if you scroll down to the Government section) has only one name, and it is RoI. In other words, in my view the correct lead sentence should be: The Republic of India, in informal parlance, India, is a country in South Asia."  Also, in the evidence that I have compiled at Talk:India/Archive_45, where you will also see that as recently as May 2019, I was quite comfortable with using "officially," the official name is overwhelmingly Republic of India.  However, taking into account the views of others, and mulling more about the meanings and implications of the adverb "officially," I am keen that we be precise.  As I have indicated, "India, officially, the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia." is an abbreviated, grammatically incomplete construction employed in encyclopedias (similar to Britannica's "India, country that occupies the greater part of South Asia.")  An adverb after all cannot modify a noun.  In my view "officially" is problematic because it can mean either 1. "officially founded as"  or 2. "officially addressed as."  And 2. itsef can mean 2a "addressed with official authorization" or 2b. "addressed in formal parlance."  Only 2b seems to be undisputed.  So, in my view, some phrasing of 2b is best.  However, I am also keen to find a consensus, and mindful of the views of both RegentsPark and Kautilya3, am happy with the present version.  We can't really complain about grammar, as "India/Australia, officially the Republic of India/Commonwealth of Australia, ...." is grammatically incomplete, as I've already indicated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Another reason that I am uncomfortable with "India" being an official name is that a country, by its own legislation, cannot appropriate a historical name, which has other modern-day claimants. The only reason that India was called India after 14 August 1947 is that the British at the time of the decolonization of the British Indian Empire (informally India), named the two successor dominions "Dominion of India" and the "Dominion of Pakistan," informally India and Pakistan.  Had they chosen, Hindustan and Pakistan, there is little chance that present-day India could have legislated its name to be "India."  (The Republic of Macedonia is a recent example.)  So, can we accept that an official name, "Dominion of India" up until 1949, could have been changed to "India" in 1950, and not "Republic of India," solely by virtue of a country's internal legislation?  In other words, the naming of a country, is not entirely an internal process. It is dependent on international acceptance.  The international community has not accepted "India" as the official name as far as the sources go.  See the United States' take in 2006 here. It is the same problem with directly interpreting the Indian Independence Act 1947.  The United Nations had interpreted the official names to be "Dominion of India" and "Dominion of Pakistan." (See Page 102, section 5, here.  The burden, therefore on us is not to show that India is not an official name, but rather to show that it is an official name, but by using the usual reliable secondary and tertiary sources we rely on, not by interpreting primary sources.  That latter evidence, in my view, is nonexistent. Canada, on the other hand, has no such problem.  See here or here or here. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2019
Can someone fix a double "The the" typo in the Demographics section on the picture of the coal miner. DavidDelaune (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for noticing.  If you have time, please sweep your sharp eye on the Biodiversity section!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)