Talk:India/Archive 46

History paragraph in the lead
,, , , , , , , and anyone else I might have missed

As some of you know, India completes 15 years as an FA on September 16. I've talked to the WP:TFA people about having it appear on Wikipedia's front page on or around that date. They in turn have requested that I give them a revised and updated version by August 15. Starting with the lead, we have some room for expansion. Canada and Australia, both FAs, have leads that are 30% longer. I'd like to propose that the history section be changed in the manner shown below. The current version has a slightly jerky quality in the prose, a result of our self-enforced brevity. The new version has two changes. The prose is more relaxed, with more qualifiers and transition words. But mainly, two sentences have been added at the top, reflecting the consensus at History of India. These are now a part of the new tertiary histories of India (i.e. those that use only secondary sources, and therefore summarize their consensus, unlike monographs which employ primary sources), such as Tim Dyson's, Population history of India, Oxford, 2018. Such tertiary sources, are recommended on Wikipedia for maintaining due weight. Both Australia and Canada have history sections that go back to modern human arrivals.

(Please note that we don't have much time, so we can't get involved in extended discussions, especially about what is already there in the lead. Obviously, also, if the second version is accepted, I will make the necessary changes in the Ancient History section.)

"Current version The Indian subcontinent was home to the Indus Valley Civilisation of the bronze age. In India's iron age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta Empires; the peninsular Middle Kingdoms influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, adding to a diverse culture. North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate; south India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, the expansive Mughal Empire was followed by East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and a nationalist movement which, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolence and led to India's independence in 1947."

"Proposed version 1 Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa 65,000 years ago, and in many waves of migration thereafter. Settled life emerged on subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation.  In India's Iron Age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations gave rise to the Maurya and Gupta Empires.  Later, the Middle Kingdoms of peninsular India influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, contributing to the region's diverse culture. North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate and South India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, two centuries of Mughal rule were followed by gradually expanding East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and a by nationalist movement, which, under Mahatma Gandhi's prevailing influence, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947."

The other two sections are fine. Perhaps a short fourth paragraph on demographics, biodiversity and culture might be considered, as the lead is a comprehensive summary after all. But let us discuss that later.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, I like it; I do wonder if a few more specific dates would be useful, as there are no numbers to anchor the understanding of someone not already familiar with the timeline (this isn't a problem just with your version, but with the previous as well). Vanamonde (Talk) 13:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. The specific dates were avoided because we were under the impression that the text was already overlong.  Those can be put in.  Will come back with something.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On first read it is an improvement and flows better, one bit that jars is the sudden mention of Gandhi, I know it is important to Indians to keep mentioning Gandhi but in what was a flowing list of eras we suddenly mention an individuals name which sort of breaks the flow of the paragraph. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Misc notes:
 * History para of lede Overall I like the changes while seconding Vanamonde's suggestion to add a couple more date anchors, and (after going back and forth on this) MilborneOne's suggestion to remove MKG's name from an already lengthy last sentence. By the way, F&f, I particularly appreciate the subtle changes such as "Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta Empires" being changed to "Political consolidations gave rise to the..."; can something similar be done with "North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate" since 'fell to' leaves the impression that North India was already a well-defined political entity prior to this? Lastly: is there a way partition can be mentioned, perhaps in the last sentence?
 * Overall lede The first paragraph is a by the numbers geographic description that is hard to tinker with. The second para, especially after the proposed changes, is a well written summary of the history. However the third para is somewhat of a mess, jumping between topics and eras. Some of this is perhaps unavoidable, but it could use more attention (throwing out some ideas that are best discussed separately: start with type of governance, perhaps even mention initial INC dominance and later rise of other parties/movements; then give the GDP numbers etc and mention 1991 economic liberalization; mention the post-independence wars/regional rivalries as necessary context for nuclear state and leave out regional power cruft).
 * Overall article If we intend to meet with the August 15th spruce-up deadline, I'd suggest we don't start with a in order section review. The early sections (esp. the lede and history), because they are subject to so many disputes, seem to be in pretty decent shape. The Politics section, on the other hand, doesn't mention the 2019 elections or the general rise of the Hindu nationalism movement. And the Economy section needs significant updating; check out the citations 221 to 268 in the current version, many of which are ~10 years old and/or otherwise sub-par.
 * Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Change seems reasonable but we don't mention anything about 65,000 years ago in the body of the article....would need sources (easy to find) and a info in the body of the article.-- Moxy 🍁 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote a version 2 before I just read your cogent critique. I entirely agree.  Here is that version 2.  I may have incorporated some of your points unwittingly.  I will incorporate more later.

"Proposal version 2: Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa 65,000 years ago, and in several waves of migration thereafter. Settled life emerged  on subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation, whose urban period matured between 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE.  By 1500 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit  had spread into the subcontinent from the northwest, and the Vedas, the oldest texts of Hinduism, had begun to be composed.  By 500 BCE, social-stratification based on caste had emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arisen. Between 400 BCE and 500 CE, political consolidations gave rise to a loosely-knit Maurya Empire and  and a tighter Gupta Empire, both based in the northern Gangetic Plain.  In South India, the Middle Kingdoms cast a strong cultural influence on the kingdoms of southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, on its western coast, Judaism and Zoroastrianism found pockets of refuge, and Christianity and Islam arrived with trade, contributing to a diverse culture. Early in the second millennium, Muslim warriors from Central Asia periodically overran India's northern plains, eventually establishing the Delhi Sultanate. Later, South India was united in the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. In the Punjab, Sikhism emerged. Two centuries of cohesive Mughal rule, began in 1525 CE, and were followed by a century of gradually expanding East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule, beginning in 1858, and later by a nationalist movement, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947." Good point. A good source is Tim Dyson's Population History of India, Oxford, 2018.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I started with the lead as it is the only surefire way of drawing people in. I too am concerned about the later sections, but I'm not very knowledgeable about them, especially politics,  government, foreign relations, economy, industry, ...  Will you be able to supervise that effort?  Round up some volunteers to at least smooth out the prose and update the citations in these later sections?  The History, Geography, and Biodiversity sections are more or less fine.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'll be able to commit the time required to organize the effort but I'll certainly try to help out. Anyway, lets table the discussion about the later paras and sections for now lest that discussion distract from the topic of this section, where we should be able to converge to a consensus pretty quickly.
 * Coming back to the history para: don't mean to be Goldilocks but, in several places, I prefer the level of detail you have in Proposal 1 to that in Proposal 2. For example, Beginning in the Punjab region in 1500 BCE and spreading successively eastward into the Gangetic plain until 600 BCE,... may be too detailed and invite quibbling over the exact geography and dating years not only now but years into the future. IMO your Proposal 1 is close to ideal already and requires only a few minor tweaks but will let others weigh in before getting into the specifics of the possible (minor) changes. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, Proposal 1 is tweaked. I've done away with specific centuries; but linked the different eras:

Proposed version 1.5 Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa 65,000 years ago, and in several waves of migration thereafter. Settled life emerged on the subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation. In India's Iron Age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations gave rise to the Maurya and Gupta Empires. Later, the Middle Kingdoms of peninsular India influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, contributing to a diverse culture. In the late medieval period, Delhi Sultanate was established in northern India, and after its decline, South India was united in the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, two centuries of Mughal rule gave way to East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and by a nationalist movement, which under Mahatma Gandhi's prevailing influence, was noted for nonviolent resistance, and which led to India's independence in 1947. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC) PS I also think that as the span of the history is much wider, a mention of either Gandhi or the Partition in the lead would be probably undue. However, Gandhi's prevailing influence on Indian nationalism is acknowledged. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)  I just remembered that there is an earlier consensus, from the time of the FAR, that Gandhi be the only person mentioned by name in the lead. For comparison, see the "lead" of the Britannica India article, which is much longer, and mentions only three by name: Vasco da Gamma, Gandhi, and Nehru. I am therefore restoring Gandhi in version 1.5 until such time as we have a different consensus. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I still think the Gandhi mention jars in what is a 10,000 spread of history, nothing against mentioning him elsewhere in the lead as he is important to what became modern India, not just in this bit. MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, and my own view is the one I scratched out, except that by "lead" there I did mean the history paragraph. Let's wait to hear from the others.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Sorry for the delay in getting here. My comments (limited to version 1.5):
 * Not sure why the Indo-Aryan peoples are not mentioned.
 * Glad to see the "fell to the Delhi Sultanate" phrase gone.
 * South India was united under the Bahmani Sultanate and Vijayanagara Empire. I don't see the need for "after its decline". The Delhi Sultante was alive and well. Just that its attempted expansion into South India was short-lived.
 * About Mahatma Gandhi, I am fine either way, but prefer it be omitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, suggest removing blue links to all the religions. It is a sea of blue otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a) Indo-Aryan peoples is about the one billion present-day speakers of modern IA languages, not speakers of a branch of "Proto Indo Iranian." Also "Indo-Aryan" is not so well recognized.  This History of India page wiki-links it to List of Rigvedic tribes.  Historians bend over backwards in noting that the numbers of the migrants were not significant, but the effects were.  The effects: the oldest works of Hinduism, and Caste are mentioned. The "oldest works of Hinduism" could be piped to Vedas.  Alternatively, the sentence could be changed to "... the works of early Hinduism were composed," with "early Hinduism" linked to Vedic Hinduism. One could restate the language shift with: Indo-European languages were introduced into the subcontinent,from the northwest."  But all the pages Indo-Aryan peoples, Indo-Aryan migration theory are slightly fringe pages on Wikipedia in my opinion, in contrast to Indus Valley Civilisation.   Other encyclopedias, for example Britannica, make no mention of Aryan migration. Webster Concise Encyclopedia whose entry is twice the size of this page's lead says only: "Agriculture in India dates to the 7th millennium BCE, and an urban civilization, that of the Indus valley, was established by 2600 BCE. Buddhism and Jainism arose in the 6th century BCE in reaction to the caste-based society created by the Vedic religion and its successor, Hinduism."
 * I did change it because it was technically incorrect. North India did not fall to the Sultanate so much as falling for two centuries to the armies of Central Asian mounted archers the last of which established the Sultanate. But that distinction is not lead worthy.  Again will wait for the others.  I should warn that the more anonymous the description becomes the less of a hook it is for new readers.
 * Bahmani is not in the history section. In the grand scale of Indian history, they are less notable than Vijayanagara, which in turn is less notable than the Sultanate, but let's see what others say.  The reason that "after its decline" is there is that our history section says that the Sultanate paved they way for Vijayanagara. In most tertiary sources (encyclopedias and textbooks), the Sultanate looms larger than Vijayanagara. Perhaps, "later" can be used.
 * Noted "no to Gandhi."
 * As for religions, some readers will not know Jainism or Zoroastrianism or perhaps even Sikhism. The other religions I agree are well-known.  Let's wait for others.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A more interesting (to a unfamiliar reader) and less obscure sentence about the "Indo-Aryan" bit would be: In the Iron Age, an archaic form of Sanskrit spread into the subcontinent from the northwest; the Vedas, the oldest texts of Hinduism, were composed; social-stratification based on caste emerged; and Buddhism and Jainism arose.
 * I would be perfectly comfortable with this. It has hooks that sustain interest.  It is precise and NPOV.  It doesn't confuse the language with its speakers.  There should be explicit note in the editor about not linking "archaic form" to Vedic Sanskrit, for that would be too much information too soon; or changing "archaic form" to "ancestral language" or "linguistic progenitor" etc .... If some people object that Sanskrit is home grown, well tough luck.  This is reliably sourced.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not just Sanskrit, but Sanskrit-speaking people, who are called "Aryans" in the Indian history books. They brought horses and iron into India, cleared the forests and spread agriculture throughout the subcontinent. If not for them, there would have been no "India". I can't see how we can omit them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aryan is a culture which left no material remains, only ritual texts, orally preserved by a priestly class. Textual evidence suggests that their elite (who called themselves Arya) led kin groups organized into horse herding tribes, that they gradually spread down the Gangetic plain, which they deforested using iron implements.  That is the kind of knowledge we have about Aryans.  Then there are the theories of the Indo-European homelands in Ukraine or Anatolia, of the first domestication of the horse, the gradual spread of their language in slowly evolving fashion, their culture in slowly evolving fashion,  and of their chariots and horses to both Europe and Asia... But whether they or their cultural and linguistic heirs migrated anywhere in significant numbers, and eventually into India,  is the million dollar question.  We know from the Mughals and from the British that language, technology, culture, laws, can migrate without significant human migration.  I personally do think there was some physical migration, but the historians of India are cautious about this.   The ancient history section, which I wrote, does mention a kind of majority view among historians about a migration.  But that cautious characterization won't fit into the compressed prose of the lead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PS Peter Robb, in his History of India expresses this typically cautious view, preferring "emergence" to "migration:""The expansion of Aryan culture is supposed to have begun around 1500 BCE. It should not be thought that this Aryan emergence (though it implies some migration) necessarily meant either a sudden invasion of new peoples, or a complete break with earlier traditions. It comprises a set of cultural ideas and practices, upheld by a Sanskrit-speaking elite, or Aryans. The features of this society are recorded in the Vedas.'"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PS Peter Robb, in his History of India expresses this typically cautious view, preferring "emergence" to "migration:""The expansion of Aryan culture is supposed to have begun around 1500 BCE. It should not be thought that this Aryan emergence (though it implies some migration) necessarily meant either a sudden invasion of new peoples, or a complete break with earlier traditions. It comprises a set of cultural ideas and practices, upheld by a Sanskrit-speaking elite, or Aryans. The features of this society are recorded in the Vedas.'"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Tim Dyson, the best-known of the current crop of historical demographers of India, has this to say about the Aryans in his recent which I have referred to above: "Although the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization is no longer believed to have been due to an 'Aryan Invasion', it is widely thought that, at roughly the same time, or a few centuries later, new Indo-Aryan speaking people began to enter the subcontinent from the north-west. Detailed evidence is lacking. Nevertheless, a predecessor of the language that would eventually be called Sanskrit was probably introduced into the north-west sometime between 3,900 and 3,000 years ago. ... It seems likely that various small-scale migrations were involved in the gradual introduction of the predecessor language and associated cultural characteristics. However, there may not have been a tight relationship between movements of people on the one hand, and changes in language and culture on the other. Moreover, the process whereby a dynamic new force gradually arose—a people with a distinct ideology who eventually seem to have referred to themselves as 'Arya'—was certainly two-way. That is, it involved a blending of new features which came from outside with other features—probably including some surviving Harappan influences—that were already present. Anyhow, it would be quite a few centuries before Sanskrit was written down. And the hymns and stories of the Arya people—especially the Vedas and the later Mahabharata and Ramayana epics—are poor guides as to historical events. Of course, the emerging Arya were to have a huge impact on the history of the subcontinent. Nevertheless, little is known about their early presence. (page 15)" That is why I had mentioned not the migration but the effects.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

,, , , , , , ,

I have read the history sections in the leads of other country FAs, I have thought hard about what kind of narrative will reflect modern the historiography on India with due weight, be accurate and informative to a unfamiliar reader, and be lucid within the constraints of a lead. I have taken into account the different concerns. I strongly feel that we can't make the history anonymous because we are insisting on even-handedness or on a kind of brevity that strains syntax. The current version of the lead is such an anonymous history. It distorts by generalizing too much. I have now begun to work on the other sections. This is the final version I have come up with. I think it meets the criteria of the first sentence above. If you'd like I can source each sentence to a couple of modern scholarly textbooks on the history of India. Except for its first two sentence, whose expanded version I have yet to add to the history section, it summarizes this articles history. Let me know what you think. Yes, it is longer but no longer than some other country FAs' leads.

"Proposal version 3: By 55,000 years ago, Modern humans had arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa, where they had earlier evolved. Settled life emerged  on subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river alluvium 9,000 years ago, and evolved gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation, whose urban period matured between 2500 BCE and 1900 BCE.  By 1500 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit  had spread into the subcontinent from the northwest, and the Vedas, the oldest texts of Hinduism, had begun to be composed.  By 500 BCE, social-stratification based on caste had emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arisen. Between 400 BCE and 500 CE, political consolidations gave rise to a loosely-knit Maurya Empire and  and a more tightly knit Gupta Empire, both based in the Gangetic Plain.  In South India, the Middle Kingdoms cast a strong cultural influence on the kingdoms of southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, on its western coast, Judaism and Zoroastrianism found pockets of refuge, and Christianity and Islam arrived with trade, contributing to a diverse culture. Early in the second millennium, Muslim warriors from Central Asia periodically overran India's northern plains, eventually establishing the Delhi Sultanate. Later, South India was united in the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire. In the Punjab, Sikhism emerged. Two centuries of cohesive Mughal rule, began in 1525 CE, and were followed by a century of gradually expanding East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule, beginning in 1858, and later by a nationalist movement, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and which led to India's independence in 1947."

The current version, incidentally, is: "Current version The Indian subcontinent was home to the Indus Valley Civilisation of the bronze age. In India's iron age, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism were composed, social stratification based on caste emerged, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta Empires; the peninsular Middle Kingdoms influenced the cultures of Southeast Asia. In India's medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, adding to a diverse culture. North India fell to the Delhi Sultanate; south India was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the early modern era, the expansive Mughal Empire was followed by East India Company rule. India's modern age was marked by British Crown rule and a nationalist movement which, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolence and led to India's independence in 1947." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The remaining sections
I quickly, skimmed the remaining sections of the article. History, Geography, Biodiversity are OK. The politics, government economy, industry, etc sections, don't seem to have any major writing errors. The problems begin the "Languages of India" and "Religion in India" subsection in Demographics. These two are three or four line stub sections. The final section Culture is the one with the most issues. In many instances, the lead of the mother article is much better written and more comprehensive. Examples are:


 * Languages stub subsection. Compare with lead of Languages of India, which can easily be trimmed and made DUE
 * Religions stub subsection. Compare with lead of Religion in India, which too can be trimmed etc

In fact, once expanded, these subsection can become independent sections, without the overall constraint of being inside Demographics.

And now the disaster, the result of tinkering since the FAR:

The Culture section is mostly a compendium of sutra-lile lists, of repetitions that roll out the ancient and medieval credentials again and again in different contexts.. In contrast, many of the parent articles have much better written leads. Therefore, in my view, the overall "Culture" section head should be removed, and the subsections either promoted to full sections if they have enough meat, or clumped together into full sections.


 * India and India subsections. Compare with lead of Architecture of India and with the Art, architecture, and literature section that passed the FAR
 * The India, India subsections (each the result of good intentions that remained intentions) should either:
 * be merged as they were at the time of the FAR in 2011, into a Society section (which should be a full section)
 * or Cuisine be expanded into a full section using the lead of Indian cuisine and clothing merged into Society.
 * India subsection: TV should be removed altogether. There is nothing there. Motion pictures could be expanded using Cinema of India.  Alternatively, this subsection could be merged into the Performing arts subsection that passed the FAR
 * Sports is probably OK. It could be made a full section.

Once I have some feedback, could I, in the coming days, if this is acceptable, be allowed to experiment with these various proposals to see how they fit in the overall content layout? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision
,, , , , , , ,

Here is the revision I have done thus far. I will keep recording the changes here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

 * From this old version to this updated version. I have used the latest OED etymology.  I have made the description NPOV, by which I mean, made the text address etymological issues and no others.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

History

 * To this old version of Ancient History, I have added a sentence about the arrival of Homo sapiens using three modern sources. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Biodiversity
I have updated, and partially rewritten this section. It has changed from this version, which was more or less in the same state as the one and I had written in 2007, to this version.

I have also added four pictures to the rotation in this section, which somehow had four pictures less than all the other rotations. Ideally we would have a detailed discussion and vote, but these are excellent picture, three of the four are Wikipedia featured pictures, and they directly illustrate the text. I hope this is agreeable for now. We can have a vote etc after the TFA. The pictures are:

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

About States and UTs in India
India has 28 States and 9 Union Territories now against mentioned 29 states and 7 Union Territories before. https://www.news18.com/photogallery/india/bifurcation-of-jammu-kashmir-how-the-map-of-india-has-changed-since-2258621-1.html Regards, Manan Garg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manangarg2111 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Another proof with more details
 * https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/special-status-ends-jk-now-a-union-territory-with-assembly-ladakh-a-separate-ut/articleshow/70531880.cms
 * Hope it gets updated soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash Sonbhurra (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We'll need to change the map and renumber the list beside it, when this happens. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet. We need to wait till the bill passes in the Lok Sabha; is given assent by the president; and, then the actual "appointed day" for the creation of the union territories is specified by GoI in the Official Gazette. Instead of prematurely changing the number of states and UTs in this and numerous other articles, we would be better off using the available days to update (offline or in user/project-space) Political map of India EN.svg and related maps perhaps based on the Ladakh/J&K boundary shown in Ladakh locator map.svg. Pinging to see if they can help. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * From yesterday (i.e. 5th August 2019) India has 28 states and 9 UTs. Aarav290812 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion right above on why the article hasn't been changed yet. Abecedare (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, after reading that pdf, guess you are right. I'm sorry for getting over-excited on the matter. Well anyways, it's already passed in Rajya Sabha and now in Lok Sabha as well and also signed by the President, I'm not so good on politics but the only thing that is left is... that appointed day you mentioned, right? Looks like we've to wait more, but it's OK. Thanks for explaining. Yash Sonbhurra (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Kashmir Discussion
Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.-Nizil (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Final proposal
,, , , , , , , , , and anyone else I might have missed I have rewritten the "history" paragraph of the lead. It is now no longer a history paragraph, but two paragraphs about India's history, diversity, and resources. It has hooks of interest and reality. I have sourced the statements to the latest tertiary sources. I believe I have been fair to all points of view. The paragraphs are long, but they are much more accurate and inviting than compressed or broad, anonymous, and facile listings of standard history. I would like to hear what you think. Best regards Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC) PS New copy edits: text added in response to other editors' critiques will appear in green; removed text will appear with a line running through. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)  Sorry, this is too much work. I am writing different versions. The earlier ones will appear in this page's history. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC) PPS I have also now copied the other material from the lead to enable me to see how it all stands in context, and to further edit it until it is more representative and more encyclopedic. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC) PPPS The POV in the second and third paragraphs (especially the latter) will swing for a while yet, before they come to accurately reflect a modern consensus. Precision at this level of compression is very tricky business. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , and anyone else I might have missed. I have written my final version of the lead.  It is long but not much longer than Germany (another FA).  It is non-traditional. The history section is not just history, but also demography, culture, religions, languages, .....  It eschews perfunctory statements about this and that high, low, or medium level of development, this or that membership in PQRST alliance, and so forth.  As I've mentioned before, precision at this level of compression is tricky.  All points of view cannot be accommodated, but I've been fair overall.  Please give your feedback  I will now spruce up the history and demography sections.  I have already partially rewritten the biodiversity section. I've also reorganized the later sections.  I have to submit the page at WP:TFA on August 15 for consideration for September 16, this page's 15th anniversary as an FA.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , ,  Attached below is the very final version of the lead which I will add to the India page tomorrow at the same time.  As I've explained above, it is longer than the previous lead, but about the same size as FA Japan and shorter than FA Germany.  It takes a different tack than a typical country lead by eschewing details that appear in the infobox, concentrating instead on things that help explain India, both past and present, to an unfamiliar reader, but without resorting to cliches or jargon.  Johnbod and Vanamonde93 have already offered critiques, which I have incorporated.  If you have comments, please offer them in the discussion section below.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Version final-draft-f of the lead
India (official name: the Republic of India; – "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; Hindi:Bharat Ganarajya"; – "Official name: Republic of India"; – "Officially, Republic of India"; – "Official name: Republic of India"; – "India (Republic of India; Bharat Ganarajya)" Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal on the southeast, it shares land borders with Pakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the north; and Bangladesh and Myanmar to the east. In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; its Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand and Indonesia.

Modern humans had arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa by 55,000 years ago. Their long occupation, initially in varying forms of isolation as hunter-gatherers, has made India second only to Africa in human genetic diversity. Settled life emerged on the subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river basin 9,000 years ago, evolving gradually into the Indus valley civilisation of the third millennium BCE. By 1500 BCE, an old form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, appearing as the poetic language of the Vedas, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India. Quote: "Although the collapse of the Indus valley civilization is no longer believed to have been due to an ‘Aryan invasion’ it is widely thought that, at roughly the same time, or perhaps a few centuries later, new Indo-Aryan-speaking people and influences began to enter the subcontinent from the north-west. Detailed evidence is lacking. Nevertheless, a predecessor of the language that would eventually be called Sanskrit was probably introduced into the north-west sometime between 3,900 and 3,000 years ago. This language was related to one then spoken in eastern Iran; and both of these languages belonged to the Indo-European language family. ... It seems likely that various small-scale migrations were involved in the gradual introduction of the predecessor language and associated cultural characteristics. However, there may not have been a tight relationship between movements of people on the one hand, and changes in language and culture on the other. Moreover, the process whereby a dynamic new force gradually arose—a people with a distinct ideology who eventually seem to have referred to themselves as ‘Arya’—was certainly two-way. That is, it involved a blending of new features which came from outside with other features—probably including some surviving Harappan influences—that were already present. Anyhow, it would be quite a few centuries before Sanskrit was written down. And the hymns and stories of the Arya people—especially the Vedas and the later Mahabharata and Ramayana epics—are poor guides as to historical events. Of course, the emerging Arya were to have a huge impact on the history of the subcontinent. Nevertheless, little is known about their early presence." The Dravidian languages of India were supplanted in the north.  By 400 BCE,  stratification and exclusion by  caste had emerged within Hinduism, and Buddhism and Jainism arisen, both proclaiming social orders independent of heredity. Political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta empires,    their collective time span suffused with wide-ranging creativity,    but also with diminishing rights of women.   The Middle kingdoms of south India exported Dravidian-languages scripts and religious cultures to the kingdoms of southeast Asia.

In India's early medieval era, Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians and Muslims settled on its southern coast, diversifying the local cultures. Muslim armies from Central Asia intermittently overran India's northern plains, eventually establishing the Delhi sultanate. The Vijayanagara Empire created a long-lasting elite Hindu culture in south India. In the Punjab, Sikhism emerged, rejecting institutionalized religion. The Mughal empire, founded in 1525, ushered in two centuries of relative peace, leaving a legacy of luminous architecture. Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed, turning India into a colonial economy. British Crown rule began in 1858. Although the rights promised to Indians were granted reluctantly, ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root. A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947.

India is a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system, and administered in 29 states and seven union territories. It is a pluralistic, multilingual and multi-ethnic society. India's population grew from 361 million in 1951 to 1 billion 211 million in 2011.

During the same time, its nominal per capita income, increased from $64 annually to $2,041, its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%. From being a comparatively destitute country in 1951, India has become a fast-growing major economy, a global hub for software services, with an expanding middle class. It has substantially reduced its rates of poverty, though at the same time increasing economic inequality. . India is is a nuclear weapons state, which ranks high in military expenditure. It has an advanced space program which includes several moon missions. Indian movies, music, and spiritual teachings play an increasing role in global culture. Yet India battles gender inequality, child malnutrition, and rising levels of air pollution. Four regions from India are included among the world's 34 threatened biodiversity hotspots. India's forest cover comprises 21.4% of its land area. Among these forests, and elsewhere, are the protected habitats that support the high diversity of India's wildlife.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Right, so you've written a summary history of India mentioning 5 religions, but not Hinduism or Islam. That'll go down well! Heroic effort, though. Phrases I think need a polish:
 * "...the Dravidian languages, which were once spoken widely in the subcontinent." - They still are "spoken widely"!
 * "in each India witnessing a cultural flowering, but in their interim also avowals of patriarchy, with long-term implications for its society." - what's an "avowal of patriarchy", why only in the interim?
 * "its elites employing India's human capital more comprehensively," - reads a bit oddly somehow.
 * "India's natural resources were exploited more searchingly for export" - same. The point about the EIC surely, is that their far cheaper transport to European markets vastly increased the scope for exports.

Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks for your comments. The problem with heroic efforts is that well before their completion sleep sets in. I thought I had mentioned the Vedas, and Hinduism, off he bat, but if you didn't see it, then I need to write it again, more directly.  It is past my bed time, so I will fix them properly tomorrow, but for now I'll merely scratch some words out, and add others here and there within parenthesis to indicate addition to fix the glaring errors
 * I surely meant disavowal, but ... of what I don't remember now. And the interim part was added for a reason I'm blanking on now.  The others I have quickly fixed with vinegar and brown paper for now.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Very odd to mention behavior and language in the first sentence as  these are normal traits for modern humans...... simply wordy for no reason. The second sentence is also misleading implying that one migrating language has evolved into 300 this is clearly not the case. The section should start off with the Toba catastrophe theory.- Moxy 🍁 13:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Granted it is not a lucid beginning. I was attempting to clarify that it was not just anatomically modern humans but behaviorally modern ones.  But, this morning, as I look at it with clearer eyes, it does seem ponderous.
 * That one, two, ... or a small handful of languages spoken by intermittent African founder groups evolved into many, of course, is the case. (See Dyson's A Population History of India, OUP, 2018: "Anyhow, by 9,500 years ago the last glacial period was completely over. ... There must have been many hunter-gatherer communities, of different sizes. Most of them would have had their own language (or dialect). And, the various languages would ultimately have evolved from those spoken by the first successful modern entrants and groups of people who had entered the subcontinent later. (page 3)" and "the exceptional genetic diversity of the region’s people corresponds to the fact that there are a multitude of different castes and tribes, and that many different languages are spoken. It also accords with what was discussed in Chapter 1 concerning the likely nature of the subcontinent’s hunter-gatherer prehistory. For many thousands of years many small groups seem to have existed in relative isolation from each other. (page 28)"
 * I was also attempting to give an idea of the staggering enormity of linguistic diversity in India (next only to Papua and New Guinea) but perhaps the lead is not the place for it explication. The modern African origin consensus, is a consensus of human genetics results, it doesn't say anything about volcanic explosions.  The Toba catastrophe is a theory, with some credible evidence, but not yet a part of any consensus among tertiary sources on India from which (and which alone) I have scrupulously quoted.  Anyway, I am rewording it. Please read the footnotes.  It is work in progress, so there will be many versions, as I respond to feedback. Also pinging   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)  PS: The second paragraph especially is like jello, barely ten minutes in the fridge.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Draft 3 or C Much better. No doubt you will remove all the spaces between punctuation & refs. I've tweaked a little bit. "In India's medieval era, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived from the west, further altering India's local cultures and environments,..." - environments seems odd here - what did the Jews do to that. Looking at the History of the Jews in India, at least 3 of the 6 older groups/types of Jews in India are essentially refugee groups like the Parsees. I'd be tempted to move the lot to that bit.  "Gradually expanding East India Company rule followed" - work British in? "Gradually expanding rule by the British East India Company followed" is rather more comfortable grammatically. Might one add the French? Can't think of anything else at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, . My writing, when I'm in the throes of extreme summarizing, seems like in the ancient Sutra genre, pushing "ellipsis beyond the tolerance of natural language."  So  thanks for pointing out the errors.  I would not have noticed them until much later.  The Jews:  I'll have to delve more into their history.  (The Wikipedia page I'm not sure I trust entirely) For now I've left them in the larger group.  Yes, I too wasn't entirely sure about the environments bit, but left it in because it is what the author of An Environmental History of India is saying.  I think he has some more complex point to make than I'm able to discern right now.  It may have to do with new plants (potatoes, tomatoes,  red- green- and all other peppers, ... Columbian exchange etc). But in the absence of higher wisdom, I've scratched it out.  Thanks again, and Good night.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts as always. Some minor comments, on the biodiversity bit, with which I'm familiar; the items typically highlighted in the literature are a) the overlap with four biodiversity hotspots, and b) the extend of deforestation. I would highlight the first fact, rather than the categories of forest (which, from a biological perspective, isn't very relevant; it's the biomes that matter; those are found in each density category, AFAIK). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Much better. I've boldly trimmed the descriptions of those terms; as they are linked, I believed them to be better suited to the body; but if you don't like it, feel free to revert. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93: Thanks. If you don't mind I will put a "however" or some adjunct before the inequality bit ...  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. My issue is that most sources I have read that examine inequality at all connect it to the economic liberalization, whereas the way I see it, the "however" almost makes the opposite implication. Hence my preference for the plainer statement. Perhaps we should hear from one of the others. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I've rewritten again after your feedback. The economic liberalization bit had been grandfathered in from previous incarnations. India's economy is more than just the history of his post-liberalization surge. I've done away with it and made the statements more neutral, providing better perspective. Tell me what you think. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, this addresses my concerns with the economics section. Pretty well. I still think the biodiversity hotspots deserve mention; this is a literature with which I'm quite familiar; but otherwise, I'm very satisfied. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your feedback by making further edits. Let me know if they work.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thank you. I imagine you will get consensus for this lead here, but if it's in any doubt it has my strong support. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

D draft
Looks good - nothing worth saying from me - well done! Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strewth! It adds 51k crude bytes, taking the article to 272k. Obviously that's the long quotes - I think some trimming would be best. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotes were just for you guys. I have already begun to remove them in the lead of India.  Eventually, as the citations are incorporated into the article body, there won't be any citations or footnotes in the lead.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2409:4043:50D:FE51:0:0:19AD:A0A1 (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You've given no explanation, and the coordinates in the article appear to be correct. If you think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Gandhi's 150th and TFA
,, , , , , , , , , and anyone else I might have missed: Gandhi's 150th birthday falls on October 2. That seems more notable than this page's 15th anniversary as an FA, which falls on September 16. So, I've again sounded out the WP:TFA people about featuring this page as today's featured article on October 2, instead of September 16. (Mahatma Gandhi is not an FA.) Read their replies here. I have to nominate it around August 21. If it is accepted, we'll have about a month to further improve it. I have revised some sections (including the lead, Biodiversity), and will next work on incorporating the new citations of the lead into the history section, as well as updating it. I will also update Geography ... and probably Demography (as Tim Dyson's book is still fresh in my brain). But all the other sections beginning with Politics and Government (as Abecedare as already stated) need work. Any help you guys can render will be great. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I am in the position to weigh in since I have been able to follow the recent changes only intermittently (liked what I saw, overall!) and haven't contributed to the updates... but fwiw, I second the Oct 2 target as more feasible and significantly more significant than the Sep 16th one. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove out of Africa THEORY
The out of Africa is a THEORY and it is not universally accepted as the theory that explains migration to the Indian subcontinent. There have been bones found in Europe that have an earlier dating than bones found in Africa. Remove this part: (it is not necessary for every country to have a reference to the flawed Out of Africa theory)

By 55,000 years ago, the first modern humans, or Homo sapiens., had arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa, where they had earlier evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.142.149 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the Recent African origin of modern humans indicates that it is flawed, in fact it is widely accepted, you will need pretty strong referencing to overturn this, perhaps better start at the Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans first with your evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the claim that is isn't universally accepted is total bunk. At least part of the blame for this nonsense lies with the popular media, especially but not exclusively the south Asian media, whose inaccurate reporting of fossil findings in Europe and Asia paints a very misleading picture of what the science has to say. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The point we are trying to make is that not every country's wiki page references to origins in Africa as you suggest it should be. It is not widely accepted as there have been publicized scientific evidence found of earlier hominids in Europe and also that there was intermixing happening with other hominids like the Neanderthals.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/10/world/early-human-skulls-greece-scn/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genetics https://nypost.com/2017/05/23/this-fossilized-tooth-might-prove-humans-came-from-europe-not-africa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.96.86 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We do not want to create this fake impression that South Asians are equals to Blacks or Negroes in Africa, there is a genetic difference between them and that is why they have evolved to be different races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.96.86 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry this is not the right place, you need to make your case at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans, if that article changes then it can be reflected here. Also note the comments from Vanamonde which indicates you perhaps need to do more research before making a case to change the Recent African origin of modern humans article. I think we can close this now. MilborneOne (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To the IP: We are all Africans under the skin, whether now identifying as black, white, brown, yellow, red, ... It is the great leveller.  There is poetic justice in the scientific truth for present-day Africans, who have long been the butt of shameful statements like yours.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is exactly your bias that you state here "that we all are africans" that makes the point to remove the out of africa theory from the India page. It is shameful that clear bias like yours is now making contributions to the India wiki article the reason that many are leaving for alternative sources. Wikipedia is not here for the liberal left bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.54.9 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that you are pushing a fringe theory about human racial history. If you post angry rants here again without solid secondary sources to support your suggested changes, I intend to remove your posts per WP:NOTFORUM. This isn't a place to air your grievances against liberals or Africans or anyone else. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ... [F]ake impression that South Asians are equals to Blacks or Negroes in Africa ... -- Isn't that racist, and isn't there a policy that covers racist comments? Perhaps, WP:CRD#2 applies? I'm hoping! Usedtobecool  ✉ ✨ 16:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's bigoted, certainly, but I'm not going to remove it here, because I think individuals reading this page are better served by reading the entire "argument". If the IP posts more of the same, I will remove it. That said, if another admin wishes to revdel, I will not stand in their way. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For the record, I read the entirety of the links posted by the IP address above. There's nothing in any of them contradicting the fact of human origin in Africa. The nypost article (aside from being a tabloid source, and unreliable) has a badly written headline that seems to support the IPs point; but the substance of the article, and the linked scholarly source, simply say that an ancient precursor of our lineage may have originated in Eastern Europe; our species and its immediate ancestors were very much African, and even the nypost accepts this: "However, the findings in no way call into question that our species, Homo sapiens, first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago and later migrated to other parts of the world, the researchers said." The Neanderthal genetics article (which is a Wikipedia article, and again, is not a reliable source) only says what we already know; Neanderthals branched off the human lineage considerably earlier, and spread into Eurasia some time before anatomically modern humans. Finally, the CNN article covers the discovery of a modern human fossil in Europe a little earlier than previous estimates of when humans reached there. The difference is a few thousand years, and such date adjustments happen frequently; it makes no difference to the overall picture, which is on the timescale of hundreds of thousands of years. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition Cradle of civilization
Hi could please add the word Cradle of civilization in the top lead section of second para because India is one of the oldest civilization. And also you check the article "Cradle of civilization" you might get valuable information about ancient India. Articles like China, Greece or Egypt has added this word or at least linked it. Thanks--Aakanksha55 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments. Unfortunately, the ancient India section of that (Cradles) page is so full of errors that Wiki-linking it in our highly trafficked page would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers.  There are plenty links in our lead itself and later in the history section.  Thanks again.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2019
India now has 28 states and 9 union territories. So, "change number of states from 29 to 28" and "change number of union territories 7 to 9" 183.87.118.70 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source that supports these numbers. --regentspark (comment) 21:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"ประเทศอินเดีย" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ประเทศอินเดีย. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 05:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Featured article?
This article no longer meets Featured article criteria. Apart from the formatting errors in the citations: citations with bare URL, citations lacking title, citations using unnamed parameter, and reference errors (the named reference Mooney2011 is invoked but never defined), there are unsourced passages needing footnotes. The article should be written in summary style but there are two lengthy sections on clothing and cuisine that should be brief summaries, and these sections are even tagged as being expanded. One of these sections consists of lengthy quotes from sources, which is inappropriate. Per MOS:QUOTE, an encyclopedic writing style should not use too many or too long quotes, and doing so may be a copyright infringement. I can see work on these sections is ongoing and the citation problems do not on a brief scan look severe, so hopefully these faults can be repaired. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is in the process of revision for TFA on October 2. Please bear with its temporary dishevelled state.  Please also read the long discussions in the sections above, with dozens participating, to understand how we got here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Border dispute with China
The lead says that India "has disputes over Kashmir with its neighbors, Pakistan and China, unresolved since the mid-20th century." It cites a Britannica Encyclopedia article to back up this claim, but India views Aksai Chin (the territory occupied by China) as a part of Ladakh which is a distinct area and not part of the Kashmir region. Although China also occupies the Shaksgam Tract, it is not viewed as part of the Kashmir region by Pak and China (as a result of the controversial Sino-Pakistan Agreement), so this statement is kind of controversial/misleading. Bharatiya 29  15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ladakh is very much a part of the Kashmir region, the lead of whose Wikipedia page, Kashmir, addresses this clearly.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New page on ableism in India
Hello! My name is Sanchu and I am in the Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course at Rice University. I am considering writing a page on ableism in India, and this page would be a parent article for that. You can reference my user page for more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sraghuvir. Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions! Sraghuvir (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Sraghuvir
 * Hello Sanchu. I would encourage you to contribute.  However, before you create a new page, you might want to first create a section Ableism of the Ableism page.  Once that is fleshed out—that is, is spilling over, is outgrowing a normal section size—you could create a new page, Ableism in India and make Ableism its parent page.  Also, post your thoughts and plan at Talk:Disability in India,  Social issues, Talk:Disability rights movement, so that we do not have WP:Content forking, i.e. replication of content that is also appearing elsewhere on Wikipedia. The India page, which is the flagship page of highly summarized content related to India, doesn't have to be a parent page in order for a line or two about ableism in India to appear here.  But that, at the end of the day, depends on how your planned page turns out. So, summing up, make sure content-forking is not an issue, and then start working on your section first of the Ableism page, and when the section has become too large, your article Ableism in India.  All the best  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Help request
Was a request to add 2 images ....one is File:Mahajanapadas (c. 500 BCE).png....the other image request for Buddha is already here just hidden today in the odd rotation of images.-- Moxy 🍁 02:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who made the request and where? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How odd only got the ping today......dont recall if it was the teahouse of help desk. ....but it was just one of many image request they had most were for Buddha images to be added all over.-- Moxy 🍁 22:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And I just saw this. Well Mahajanapadas are problematic.  They have been requested before.  The problem is that the "record" of them is the religious/mythological text—consisting of hymns—of the Rig Veda, and, later,  other Vedas, orally transmitted in Iron Age India (1200 BCE to 500 BCE).  Historians, such as Romila Thapar, have read between the lines in these texts to posit political- and social systems etc. of that time.  But when it comes to drawing maps, identifying which present-day site corresponds to which in a hymn, there's a lot of shooting in the dark.  The other request, File:Gandhara Buddha (tnm).jpeg, which as you noted was in the article, has other issues.  It is an example of Greco-Buddhist Art which once flourished in what today is northwest Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan, circa 200 BCE to 300 CE, or thereabouts.  Its inclusion in the India page on the grounds that Indian culture once prevailed in these regions is problematic.  They properly belong to the Pakistan page.  I have replaced it with the famous statue of the Buddha in Sarnath, the site of his first sermon.  The image is displayed here.  Best  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Name
Some sources read the official name to be Bhārat Juktarashtra. It should talk about it.--Manfariel (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * New discussions go at the end of the talk page. Please mention what you wish to be changed or added in the format of "please change X to Y" or "please add Y" and cite a reliable source for the same. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2019
The population figure needs to be updated. The government projections for 2019 is 1,353,904,751 with the source being UIDAI's figures: https://uidai.gov.in/images/state-wise-aadhaar-saturation.pdf RLpaul (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a projection. Until the next census, the 2011 census suffices as reliable. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2019
Please change the map of India displayed as it does not Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshwadeep Islands 2401:4900:30C3:3891:DD37:40BC:2778:FBCB (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They do display, but in the normal view, their relative size is too small for easy spotting. If you magnify the image, you will see them, subject, of course, to the usual computer graphics approximations.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"Seven national parties"
Several months ago, another party was given the status of a "national party". Source. The politics section should be updated to reflect that there are now 8, not 7 national parties, with a more recent and better citation. Regards, TryKid (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2019
Pawan Sharma 14:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawankshonline (talk • contribs)
 * 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. NiciVampireHeart 14:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2019
National Language is Hindi. Also please hide other regional languages Bengalurumaga (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * India has no national language, only the official language of the Union (i.e. the Federal Government) which is Hindi, and the associate official language, which is English. Please read the references in the infobox.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2019
Please change the name and number of States and Union Territories As Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are new States and Union Territories AdityaUnnao (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ This had been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and similar concerns addressed at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir. Please check. Tamra vidhir  (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Britannica b.
While proofreading, I noticed reference 372: Encyclopædia Britannica b. I was going to remove the b. as a typo. But then I noticed reference 427: Rediff 2008 b. reference 430: British Broadcasting Corporation 2010 b. and reference 432: British Broadcasting Corporation 2010 a. So do the a. and b. have some secret meaning known only to bibliography experts, or are they all typos? Art LaPella (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead: first geography, then population
I propose we change the order of the sentences in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH to geography first, population second. In a thousand years (or a million), the geographical description will be the same (the political geography may well change, but not the land masses and oceans) but the population will likely not be the same. This could be accomplished by moving sentence three ("Bounded by the Indian Ocean...") before sentence two ("It is the second-most populous...). Also, in the same vein: to the north are not just Bhutan, Nepal and so on, but the highest mountain range in the world, not even mentioned in a four-paragraph, 38,500 byte lead. Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, the ground seems to have shifted somewhat beneath my feet. My previous edit here caused an edit conflict, and I ignored the fact that there were also edits going on at the article, while I was composing my message. If the article is changing that fast, maybe I should wait till the dust settles, first. Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mathglot! Just to clarify, it seems like you're proposing a different change than I was — you're (if I'm reading correctly) suggesting swapping the ordering of the lead sentences to put the border ones first, whereas I was editing within the superlatives sentence to put population before size. I'll start a separate discussion on my proposal below, and it might be helpful if you could rename this section to avoid confusion. Sdkb (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Could we change background colour of some image boxes
In this article, some of the image boxes seem to have a white (or off-white, sorry I don't know the exact colour) background. This blends well with the page and is soothing to read. On the other hand, some of the images boxes have a Champagne (color) background which makes it stand-out but also makes it unconformable to read. Is there any particular reason for keeping both? How about converting all to the default background?--DreamLinker (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let me get back to you about this in 24 hours.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To state, I liked the image arrangement on this article and copied the same into the Durga Puja article. That article is presently being worked on. Will keep a tab on this discussion. Thank you for bringing this up DreamLinker. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)




 * Should try for normal sizes images....as of now article full of small images that dont conform to accessibility rules.--11:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support normal mage sizes as well.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is a normal image size in a multiple image template?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I meant is that I prefer using single images wherever possible.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reasons we don't use multiple image template very often or sparingly is  because the recommended smallest size is 220 (default thumbnail size) WP:THUMBSIZE maps at 150 are not legible.-- Moxy 🍁 02:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do we use them at all? Why is the total_width argument there? This seems to be a question of personal choice.  Editors can click on the image. For many I'm sure 220 is not wide enough, given the number of outsized images on WP pages.  Both Canada and Australia have multiple image formats here and there.  I can't see the Queen's pearls without the encyclopedic width of 220.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Canada and Australia have one with closeup headshots.....for maps there sized so they can be seen.....why have an image you can only see if clicked on? Problem here is image overuse with walls of standalone text MOS:TEXTASIMAGES over educational value that compliments prose text Image use policy.-- Moxy 🍁 04:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They have plenty issues: please explain to me why a picture of mostly unidentifiable men, piling up on each other in Canada is the illustration that complements the text about Canada hosting the Winter Olympics (2010).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * About the post above my previous one, I disagree. The point of the maps is to give a reader a general idea of how big Ashoka's empire was, or where the Gupta's empire was based, what Ganges Basin even means. If they are more interested, they can click a second time.   It doesn't waste a reader's time with vanilla images of people who are already known, already over-exposed, whose images readers have seen for fifty years.  All country pages have their different styles.  I'm sure I can further pick apart both Canada and Australia, but you don't see me making posts on their talk pages about the inappropriateness of the Benjamin West painting (1771), with its half-naked, weather-impervious, Rodin-anticipating,  native American illustrating the history of a battle fought in Quebec in September, eleven years earlier, or of the languages map (most of which are of the US and Mexico).  I don't see a consensus here for a change. I have increased the font size in the images to normal.  There is a reason why the champaign background has been chosen for many images.  It is because it matches the overall color presentation of the images, so that the borders don't stand out, but are still visible.  (The Gandhi-Nehru image has an error, as champagne does not match the color presentation.  I will change it to the default background.)  There has been a discussion going on about the page for three months.  It has been slated for a TFA appearance on October 2 for over a month. It has just had a GOCE edit by one of their most respected editors.  Only now, a week before,  you guys have objections, based on little evidence other than, "I prefer something else."  Pinging the editors who were involved in the earlier discussion:, ,  I've already stated here many times before that we can have a discussion on the images, if there is demand for it, after the TFA.  Seriously, I'm tired.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See the first picture in India. View it from a distance.  I believe has a good choice of a background pastel color that matches the color presentation of the three pictures. I attempting to do this for most pictures.  In some cases, the color doesn't match as well or needs to be made lighter, more pastel, and I just haven't found the right shade yet, but that is the idea.  The Gandhi-Nehru picture color was a mistake, and I apologize again for it.  The pictures in India need to be pastel-ized more, but I haven't found the right shades yet.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the image posted by Moxy above, I don't see anything wrong with it. India is a large, complex country with a long history. The "poster" image posted by Moxy is an illustrative snapshot of that history and, looking at the 4 images in the poster, the reader will get a good idea of the stage of development, the importance of Buddhism, etc. in that period. If this were a paper encyclopedia, then perhaps the size of the images would be an issue (though, of course, they would be on a full page plate so perhaps even that wouldn't be an issue). But, this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Readers can deploy their clicking skills (surely finely honed by now) for a closer look at the images. I don't see the problem here. --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We reviewing FA articles we try our best to make accessibility available for all even those with disabilities who have clicking problems (as I do). We try to make all images and text legible without having to further click. We normaly try not to have stand-alone images with text that are not readable for the blind by screen reader software. That said most here seem to really like lots and lots of pictures...so not much can be said if most think the MOS on presentation and accessibility don't apply here. All the best....will still try to help with the sources but done trying to explain why we have certain rules.-- Moxy 🍁 14:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Section break
I tried a version without any background colour for images and I think it reads better and easier on the eyes. I also changed the caption size of default (though I did not change the font setting). Based on what I notice, I think the following would be good
 * 1) . Use default background colour for image boxes
 * 2) . Use default font/size for image captions (blends well with the article text)
 * 3) . Image size can be adjusted/customised per image.
 * 4) . For multiple images, my preference in general is to avoid grouping images if possible. However, in this article, I see that it is useful to present some of the images as a group (An example I kind of like is a map and an image representing a certain era in history). I guess this can be debated per image.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with all points but the half sized images need to be fixed as they are simply not readable on mobile devices (that is 60% + of our readers).-- Moxy 🍁 16:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)