Talk:India/Archive 50

Monsoon
I removed an image of fishing boats intended to illustrate the Indian monsoon. The image was not appropriate for illustrating this geographical event. The moored boats were not positioned to be ready for a monsoon. My edit was reverted by an editor claiming that I could not edit this article until November. I am entitled to remove any image that is used incorrectly. That is standard Wikipedia process. Edit-warring by some self-appointed monitor (Fowler) is not acceptable. Are there any Admins watching this page, please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think they were moored for? "An exceptionally clement sea breeze from Aden," in the manner of Jeeves? The author of the picture is from Maharashtra. He has a dozen featured pictures of Maharashtra and Karnataka.  Why would he make that up? The picture became a Featured Picture in 2012.  It has been the picture of the day in several Wikipedias.  It is the sole picture in the village Anjarle. Do you think the residents of the village would not have noticed such evil-doing? Are you saying rains don't happen on the Maharashtra coast in September? I wrote the Geography section.  Do you think I would not have noticed something was amiss? This is the usual problem on this page.  People arrive thinking they know India, the English language, India's weather, its landscape.  They get reverted, and then they get sore.  Australia has been an FA nearly as long as India.  I would never dream of removing its pictures no matter what I thought?  Pinging admins    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . A couple of points. First and foremost, it is not a standard Wikipedia process to remove images from articles without consensus. Rather, if that image was added by consensus, your doing that is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS a core policy on Wikipedia. Second, by what stretch of imagination can you claim that a single revert, accompanied by an explanation, is edit warring? Please tone down your rhetoric.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:RegentsPark Actually, I am afraid this image was never part of any discussion, much less a Consensus, on the India Talk Page: you will see it is not linked anywhere in the archives, except for the one time I first raised the problem of its inappropriateness on 17 February 2020 ("Photographs of a modern India?"). This is like most of the problematic images described above (Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article), which were not actually selected through Community consensus, but seem to be the result of a choice among many possible candidates, or sometimes a completely personal choice, by one single contributor. We have the right to challenge such personal choices, especially if they are problematic, as most of us seem to agree. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark, Please point me to the rule/guidline that states: "it is not a standard Wikipedia process to remove images from articles without consensus." 09:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And here is the picture: File:Parked boats at Anjarle Creek.jpg I'm sorry I am frustrated.  It seems like a bizarre pile-on is going on.  We have one editor who claims, "In the "Geography" article, the image of clustered rundown fishing boats could be advantageously replaced by some nice landscape," and I'm thinking, "Gee the working fishing boats in New England don't look less weatherbeaten."  That's what boats look like when they are taken out fishing in blue water every day.  I've been on a few. We have another who claims it is not a monsoon storm, and soon enough I find a picture of fishing boats in Indo-China anchored together for a typhoon no less. Seriously, what gives? Both are editors who have no history on this page, and we've already had three other brand new ones? I understand WP pieties about AGF etc. but is there no limit?  Everyone else can say what they want, however off the mark, and do I have to keep replying with a long list of sources?  Am I not a human being?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no monsoon in the area on the date the photo was taken. Or the next two days. The sarcasm of Fowler is not warranted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all very rich for an editor who has barely contributed to this page, who has no idea how many editors, including how many admins were watching when I was preparing the page for its Today's Featured Article appearance on Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary on October 2, 2019. The announcement was made on this talk page 10 May 2019 and the full lead was presented here in early August 2019 and you can see that 11 regulars, including four admins, were pinged. I have already indicated that some images were added to make the rotation templates of equal size in each section, and eventually, when the rotation was disallowed, only one picture had to be chosen.
 * About this editor's image-related handiwork on Wikipedia, please read and reread: Talk:Neolithic about his copying and pasting hundreds of pictures and reams of text from PLOS type journal articles on Wikipedia.
 * Please read about his sockpuppetry. He had three sockpuppets: User:Beads and reels, User:Priyadasi and User:Tillya Tepe gold; there were two more User:神风, User:Tahar Jelun are also by own admission (see here) which he wanted to be removed. In Sockpuppet investigations/पाटलिपुत्र/Archive  he never really answered the question  posed there again and again, always trying to fly just under the radar.  Sarah Welch said to him, "you have added, "artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles."   And he is now the standard-bearer of probity on Wikipedia, the Wikilawyer par excellence, the knight sans peur sans reproche and I with 3,700 edits on this talk page am suddenly the bad boy of the neighborhood?  Enough is enough.  The discussion will be in November.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please also read his xenophobic comment here in above on this page where he says, "An actual Indian," in the caption of his proposed photograph.
 * Please tell me again, {{U|पाटलिपुत्र]],  What is that supposed to mean?


 * Please read his Hindu majoritarian comment, "The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
 * Really, that is provocative for a secular multi-ethnic country whose motto is "Unity in diversity?"


 * Please read his second Hindu majoritarian comment there: "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
 * Please also read about AshLin's comment on the need for diversity here. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear {{ping|User:Fowler&fowler}} you don't like the message, so you are attacking the messenger... The reason editors keep popping up in protest is probably just because your rhetoric and stonewalling are naturally attracting thunder, and rightly so. Look, you are using this page precisely as your own personal domain: you are now claiming around that you have "been managing India for 13 years". Any honest Wikipedian would feel outraged by such statements. For my part, I've made mistakes, but I have served my time and learned my lesson, so I have recovered my right to challenge Wikipedians who do not follow the rules. You keep reverting everybody, demanding that any change ("any single word"!) should be approved first on this Talk Page, in contempt of all Wikipedia rules. You have been parading a photograph of your own teenage son in Kurta (per your own admission) in this Featured Article, and claimed community consensus without any actual approval process (Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article). And you keep making false claims: no, I am not new on this page. Like most of us, I do not like when Hindu nationalists distort a page, and this has to be resisted, but I am afraid you are at the other extreme, an overt vilifyer of Hindus and Hinduism (do I need to give the multitude of sickening diffs over the years?). This is very unhealthy and disfunctional for someone who forcibly monopolizes the contributions to this page. {{ping|User:RegentsPark}}{{ping|User:Vanamonde93}} how can you let this happen? This flies in the face of all Wikipedia rules and time-honored practices. More balance and openness, and more respect of the rules, are needed here. {{ping|User:Fowler&fowler}} I'm happy to work with you, as you are obviously intelligent and highly educated, but you need to respect the contributions of others, show more tolerance, and respect Wikipedia editorial rules. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|पाटलिपुत्र}} The message is xenophobic and Hindu majoritarian. It stands in stark contrast to the principles of Wikipedia.  Why should I work with you?  Please tell me again: What do you mean by "An actual Indian?" You have never contributed to this article.  Your history is not one of writing prose, only copying from here to there. You are now pursuing our son single-mindedly, disregarding that his pictures modeling the Kurta (see the others there illustrating the different aspects) have been in Wikipedia for 13 years.  I have written all the prose there for 13 years there, except for nonsense at the end. Where were you all this time? Now all of a sudden you with dubious history is going to save the India page of all pages? When you make a reasonable point I reply reasonably as I did in the out of Africa migration.  But this relentless pursuit of our son and the xenophobic and Hindu majoritarian pronouncements have no place on this page, and as I've told you if you persist, I will take you to ANI for a topic ban from this page.  Please stand warned.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have posted an ANI warning on his user talk page and pinged an admin, and he has instantly blanked the message, noting in the edit summary, "For those interested, Talk:India has the same kind of content, with more details)"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record I am absolutely not xenophobic: I just think it is generally preferable to try to show Indians in an article on India. I would similarly object to westerners in blackface and exotic clothes parading in an article on Africa. And what you call "Hindu majoritarian" is just a call to see India's main religion, Hinduism, being fairly represented and illustrated, even if I am not especially a fan of Hinduism. On the contrary, you are well known for your rabid anti-Hindu views (hundreds of anti-Hindu rants, the diff. of which can easily be seen everywhere on Wikipedia, in Talk Pages and at multiple ANI proceedings): frankly this is not acceptable. If I were you, I would be more careful with the rethoric, the personal attacks, and the ownership of this article. Nobody owns any article on Wikipedia. Have a good day F&f.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

{{od}} {{re|पाटलिपुत्र}} How do you know our son is not Indian? As for me, a person who you claim is "rabidly anti-Hindu," why would I go around writing articles such as the first eight sections of Indian mathematics (please read the oral and written traditions) or Raksha Bandhan? Why would I be creating image collages such as the one you see here. Please stop, otherwise I will take you to ANI. The xenophobic hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper. As for the rest of you xenophobia, it deserved to be aired more to be understood. I will be opening a news section soon. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear {{re|Charlesjsharp}} You say there was no monsoon in the area on the day the picture was taken for two days thereafter. The camera metadata says, the picture was taken at 13:36 on 2 September 2011. I can't say much about the weather in that small coastal village, but Pune city which is about 120 miles due northwest from it had had heavy rains for a few days before September 4, 2011.  See this OneIndia (Press Trust of India feed) of September 4, 2011, which says, "Pune, Sept 4: Due to heavy rains in the city over the past few days, Mutha river is flowing at a dangerous level and people living along the river are being evacuated to a safer place. An LA Times story of September 5, 2011: India's rat killers: hunting shadows that scurry from Mumbai (due north, about 130 miles) says, "Tonight, monsoon rains from the Arabian Sea are forcing its thousands of street dwellers to retreat to dank hallways and dimly lit underpasses."  Archives of sites such as Weather Underground are not reliable for such data: See its no precipitation for Puna record for September 4 or for days preceding it, directly contradicted by the OneIndia story.  If you have more reliable data, please post it here. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your posts do suggest rain inland at Pune and up the coast. But if these boats had been prepared for the monsoon, why is there a window open and fishing tackle all over the boats, with two guys sitting on one vessel? I really cannot see how this image should be chosen to illustrate the India article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fowler can you stop derailing the sections by throwing off-topic or irrelevant remarks? Keep one issue limited to one section.
 * पाटलिपुत्र and Charlesjsharp I don't have any hope that the article will see any improvement at this stage, I think this WP:FAR is warranted since this article does not deserve to be FA. Santosh L (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|Charlesjsharp}} Well, what you say is partially true. That man seems to be preparing his boat. He has just covered the winches (judging from what is fixed there in the adjacent boat) with a tarp.  The roof is covered.  The boat to the left with the open window is in the process of being prepared; the roof tarp is hanging to the side, presumably to be pulled up and stretched across.  Not everyone might be battening down as scrupulously. So, perhaps the caption could stand improvement.  It says, "Fishing boats are moored and lashed together during an approaching monsoon storm whose dark clouds can be seen overhead. The scene is a tidal creek in Anjarle, a coastal village in Maharashtra."  How about changing it to, "Fishing boats, moored and lashed together, are being prepared for a monsoon storm whose dark clouds can be seen overhead. The scene is a tidal creek in Anjarle, a coastal village in Maharashtra?"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * May be true, but is speculation. Best just to drop the image. There are dozens of images on Commons depicting Monsson skies better than this one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

{{od}}No more speculation than the meaning of a window being open. Not all fishermen batten down similarly; some are sloppy—around the world. We can discuss changes in November, but not now. I have already asked you to be a judge. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And here the final nails in the coffin. 50 miles due east in Kashedi Ghat, the Goa-Mumbai expressway was closed on September 5, 2011, because of landslides following heavy torrential rains, according to this Times of India story In Ratnagiri, 120 miles down the Konkan coast from Anjarle, there were unprecedented monsoon downpours on September 2, 2011, causing landslides and whatnot.  See this India Today TV report of September 3, 2011.  So, 120 miles up the coast in Mumbai, there was an unprecedented monsoon, 50 miles east in Kashedi Ghat, 120 down the coast in Ratnagiri, and 120 miles due northeast in Pune, the same disastrous monsoon. In Goa, 250 miles south, on September 3,  "All trawlers are at the jetty. We can't go offshore because there is a warning of gusty wind," said Menino Afonso, Chairman, Mandovi Fishermen's Cooperative Society. The society has around 300 trawlers under its umbrella and all have been anchored at the Malim jetty." (See Goa News September 3, 2011) In other words, it is becoming difficult to make a special exception for this sleepy fishing village, that the monsoon somehow missed it. I consider this topic closed now. QED  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But {{u|Fowler&fowler}}, you put image your son on a "FA "article by adding it yourself. You were fully aware of what you were doing. I can't see why you should reject the concerns of and Charlesjsharp. I am yet to confirm further but don't think WP:COI would allow this either. Santosh L (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to stop flogging a dead horse. A hefty percentage of images on Wikipedia are taken by editors and include people that they know. This is nowhere near a COI issue, the image has been removed, and continually harping on it is harassment. --RegentsPark (comment) 11:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding mentioning Emerging Superpower
Greetings! I was going through the article and saw that the article missed out on an aspect that should have been mentioned in the para alongside the sentence stating India as ‘a nuclear state, ranking high in military expenditure’; Republic of India is considered one of the emerging superpowers of the world. Just a suggestion, I saw that countries such as China, Brazil etc had that mentioned in the last para of introduction. Thanks! Harshv7777 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Good find. I also support the inclusion. Santosh L (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is a misnomer. Emerging superpower is really a Great power.--Hippeus (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

India
"India is the Largest Democracy in the world" is a better statement than "India is the most populous democracy in the world". Can someone please change it. Divyansh indian (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , 'largest democracy' could mean a multitude of things, 'most populous' can only mean one thing. The article avoids ambiguous statements intentionally.  Pro lix 💬 13:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the largest democracy by area (assuming we eliminate Russia from the race) would be Canada (followed by US, Brazil, and Australia). "Most populous" is precise.--Hippeus (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As you guys have succinctly explained the usage, I'll desist pointing to the long discussions (including a dispute resolution) in which I had once marshalled evidence!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2020
Please remove the following line: "The Dravidian languages of India were supplanted in the northern regions.[28]". The lines from the referenced book says the Dravidian languages were probably used in the states of Maharashtra, Gujrat and Sindh. These are considered western parts of the subcontinent and as such a very small section of the Indian Subcontinent in this context. Athosindia (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed "in the northern regions" to "in some regions" - but that's probably not the best phrasing. I'm leaving your request open in the hopes someone more familiar with Indian geography can read pages 16 and 24 of the book and make the sentence more precise and accurate.  The book is available on Google Books at https://www.google.com/search?q="The+Dravidian+languages+of+India+were+supplanted+in+the+northern+regions"&tbm=bks .  Just scroll down to A Population History of India: From the First Modern People ... by Tim Dyson, 2018.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to northern and western regions because "some" is too fuzzy. I think northern was sufficient (because it means "regions toward the north of the subcontinent" not North India) but, hopefully, someone else will figure this out. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem I pointed out, the regions mentioned are considered western parts of the subcontinent. Please check the map, the provinces mentioned are all coastal regions and in the western part of Indian subcontinent. I would've preferred "Some", but if we need to be specific, we can mention "western regions". Also please note that the above mentioned states are in the Western Zone as per Government of India. --Athosindia
 * I guess I'm unsure what that sentence really means. The source seems to say that the language in IVC was proto-Dravidian and the IVC is certainly in the north and the west of pre-partition India. The implication is that Dravidian speakers were pushed southward, which would also support using northern rather than western (parallelism). "Some" is too fuzzy to be retained, we need to be more specific than that. If you say "western", we lose the southward movement. Which is why I went with northern and western. Perhaps we should just remove that sentence entirely but I'll since he probably wrote it in the first place. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's the other thing. The source says that the language used in IVC may have been proto-Dravidian, but it's hard to assess. So technically, it's a conjecture at this point. However what the source says with certainty is that Dravidian languages were used in provinces of Maharashtra, Gujrat and Sindh. Also, the source doesn't mention any southward movement. It just says, Dravidian languages were used in most of  the west of the subcontinent --Athosindia
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Changed text to "northwestern regions of the subcontinent (Maharashtra, Gujarat and Sindh" which better matches the text cited and does not get tripped up in the official classifications of states/provinces.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reopened the edit request as the changes have been reverted. I agree with you, that it's western and not North-western. --Athosindia
 * ❌ Please establish a WP:Consensus with whoever reverted the change. I don't want to initiate an WP:EDITWAR. Once you obtain WP:Consensus, please restart this request and I'd love to re-add the content you wanted. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hindustan
India is known as Hindustan in hindi language Eroberar (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020
2402:8100:282B:7739:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2020 (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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020
"India’s aviation industry is largely untapped with huge growth opportunities, considering that air transport is still expensive for majority of the country’s population, of which nearly 40 per cent is the upwardly mobile middle class. The industry stakeholders should engage and collaborate with policy makers to implement efficient and rational decisions that would boost India’s civil aviation industry. With the right policies and relentless focus on quality, cost and passenger interest, India would be well placed to achieve its vision of becoming the third-largest aviation market by 2020. The expenditure of Indian travellers is expected to grow up to Rs 9.5 lakh crore (US$ 136 billion) by 2021. Due to rise in demand in air travel, India will need 2,380 new commercial airplanes by 2038."
 * Please add the following in ‘Industries’ :

"The Lungi (/luŋɡi/) or Tahband is a type of sarong that originated in the Indian subcontinent, it is a traditional skirt-like lower garment wrapped around the waist, usually below the belly. Apart from India, lungis are also worn in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal."
 * Please add the following in ‘Culture’ > Clothing :

"Bengali cuisine generally involves a hot palette, using a large number of herbs, spices and roots in order to create dishes that are full of depth. However, these flavors can also be manipulated to create more delicate tastes, and it is important to note that dishes vary from region to region. The areas of West Bengal and Bangladesh are interesting for both their similar qualities, and inherent differences."
 * Please add the following in ‘Culture’ > Cuisine :

-- Gg100699 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Gg100699 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A major change such as this can not be implemented without WP:CONSENSUS. Please reactivate this request only after you've achieved one. On a personal note, your first suggestion is contra WP:NOTADVICE, while the rest may or may not fit into the article as you have not provided the location within the sections where they would be appropriate, though at first glance, they seem too detailed for this article. See WP:DETAIL. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit- semi-protected
For the lead, is it possible to add "a country located on the Indian peninsula in South Asia"?2603:8081:160A:BE2A:B1DE:5BA6:F09F:B7AE (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. In this case, IP2603+, there is no article on the Indian Peninsula and no mention of it in this article. The lead must summarize the rest of the article. As you may see by clicking the link, the Indian Peninsula is a subtopic of the Indian subcontinent, which actually is mentioned in this article. Thanks again for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 19:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear "Peninsula," from  classical Latin paeninsula < paene pene- prefix ("nearly, almost, all but) + insula island has the meaning of "A piece of land that is almost completely surrounded by water; a piece of land projecting into water, such that the greater part of its boundary is coastline." (OED, Third edition, 2005, online, subscription reqd.) Not all of India is peninsular; the Indian Himalayas, for example, are not, the Punjab is not. There is in fact a WP page Peninsular India which redirects to South India.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PS Your proposal is not entirely without precedence in terms of usage, but it is obsolete usage. It used to be said, "India is the largest peninsula," here, for example, but in which of its pages Wikipedia might accommodate the piece of interesting trivia is not clear.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2020
Add "Despite the modern reforms brought by British Rule, they were also infamous for atrocities over Indians, most notably during the Jallianwala Bagh Incident, in Amritsar, and the involvement of British Rule in the Bengal Famine during the second world war." 223.181.89.146 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OP means to say that instead of "The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly, but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root" (Para 3 Line 6), it should say "Despite the modern reforms brought by British Rule, they were also infamous for atrocities over Indians, most notably during the Jallianwala Bagh Incident, in Amritsar, and the involvement of British Rule in the Bengal Famine during the second world war.". The article makes no mention of the the barbaric colonial British atrocities. Sources - Jallianwala Bagh Massacre ; Bengal Famine KingEureka (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia articles are not considered WP:RS for other articles. Doing so represents a circular reference. Additionally, there are many articles about British repression in India and the History section of this article also makes multiple references to such repression.  [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2020
India has 29 states. There are also 7 union territories. Telangana is a state... The article need correction Pointsuccess (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2020 (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. Asartea   Trick  undefined  Treat  17:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Telangana is also a state of India. But it is not completely clear yet. There are 8 union territories. Click here to view source. Dineshswamiin (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Error check
Please check Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago this line and view Peopling of India article. "Peopling of India" shows that modern humans came to India 65000 years ago, not 55000. Thank you! Dineshswamiin (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence is well sourced in this article so it cannot the changed. Note that it says "no later than", which doesn't preclude the 65000 year date. Also note that the 65,000 years appears to be unsourced in Peopling of India.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is likely to be earlier, but there is no known fossil evidence. See .--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020
Blatant tampering being done on this page by fascists islamists on this page. Openly trying to demean non-islamic rulers/kingdoms-

"Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin.[31] Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity,[32] but also marked by the declining status of women,[33] and the incorporation of untouchability into an organised system of belief.[g][34]" While also trying to glorify violent and fascist islamic rule-

"The Mughal Empire, in 1526, ushered in two centuries of relative peace,[41] leaving a legacy of luminous architecture.[h][42"

Request these lines be taken down or removed. Lines are specifically selected from outlier sources in order to push propaganda. Bekknqz (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The material appears to be well sourced. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2020
This is some blatant next-level disinformation campaign. Do you think the rest of us here don't have access to the sources or do you think we're too dumb to comprehend?

1. A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day By Tim Dyson

p. 16-17 The term loose-knit was used to refer to the Mauryan Empire, no mention of the Gupta Empire anywhere.

And ironically, the first mention of the Gupta Empire in the book is on p. 38, where the author refers to the Gupta Empire as one of the two empires with a central authority in the subcontinent (the other one being the one led by Harsha-vardhana). The attempt to talk about the two empires them collectively is clearly aimed at bashing them.

2. A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day By Tim Dyson

p. 20 Once again, no mention of the Gupta Empire. And the page only takes about how the society changed in that period (uses the empire to denote a time period). It didn't have anything to do with Mauryas or any of their policies. And this crucial distinction has conveniently been left out to make it look as if the Mauryas were directly responsible for these social issues.

(slightly off topic) And what exactly was the point of mentioning this in the intro though? If you wanted to talk about the declining status of women then why not include how the rigorized version of the purdah system introduced by islamic rulers degraded the status of women and widened the gender divide? There are plenty of sources on this. Dr. Alice Evans has various sources on this in her blog (has a book coming up too). Do explain why these particular lines were allowed in the intro, because it's very clear that these were aimed at degrading these kingdoms (adding the word "creativity" is a very poor attempt at sugarcoating it). Gupta Empire is considered to be the golden age (something intro worthy) of Indian history, but of course, no mention of it anywhere.

3. A History of India By Professor of Asian History Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund

p. 93 Faxian visited during the reign of Chandragupta II (Gupta Empire), has nothing to do with the Mauryas.

4. India Before Europe by Catherine B. Asher, Cynthia Talbot

p. 152 It was AKBAR who ushered in a period of relative peace. Replacing "Akbar" with "Mughals" only shows malicious intent. What's exactly the harm in being specific that it was Akbar and not some other Mughal ruler? Also, the previous page clearly says: "Akbar's policy of toleration remained largely intact through the reigns of the next two Mughal emperors, although over time the empire took on increasingly conservative attitudes toward religion." Why was such an important and relevant (yet brief) point left out in exchange for substituting 'Akbar' with 'Mughals'?

5. "luminous architecture"? The book doesn't use these words anywhere. Unnecessary paraphrasing to over-emphasize.

Not gonna let fascist propaganda take over Wikipedia. Everyone here has access to all these sources and you can't blatantly dismiss stuff by simply labelling it "well sourced", even though half the things aren't even in the sources to begin with. I know I'm supposed to suggest appropriate changes too, but I'll let you handle them accordingly. Bekknqz (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2020 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020
Driving Left to Right

The driving side in india is on Right side. Sameer Rolekar (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources that support the change. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is an article from The Telegraph that states that India drives on the left. https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/left-switch-for-one-road/cid/1515162 Perhaps someone can post a citation from the licensing division that definitively shows what side of the road drivers in India drive. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2020
2401:4900:43A0:3D39:0:54:6FA3:6401 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: empty edit request Maka [1][&#x200B;failed verification&#x200B;] 04:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong map of India
The map of India on this page is hugely incorrect and should be deleted until such time as a correct map approved by (or at least acceptable to) the Survey of India is available. Furthermore, the current map does not show the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory or the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute. It seems like a cartoon map where somebody has used straight lines anywhere there is a controversy. Today the Govt of India has complained to the WMF about a wrong map of India and threatened people with imprisonment, so its high time we the EN:WP community get this properly resolved. Aghore (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary: Some news stories have been ranting that the Indian govt may imprison people or block access to Wikipedia because they don't like some map on some obscure page. The Aksai Chin region isn't colored as disputed there, and should be corrected. It looks like the map on this article does color the region as disputed, so I have no idea why this is even being raised on this page. There's no way the current map here should be deleted. *If* someone were to identify an actual problem with the map here, we should keep the current map until someone supplies a better replacement. Alsee (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yaa

You are absolutely right Praful7789 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "Today the Govt of India has complained to the WMF about a wrong map of India and threatened people with imprisonment". Please provide a link, so that others can understand the complaint and threat to which you refer.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LeadSongDog here's the Hindustantimes article... oh and I just found MSN picked up the story. Alsee (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2020
Change population in 2011 from ‘1,211 million’ to the more standard ‘1.211 billion’ in paragraph 4 of the introduction Prince Of Iso (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 06:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pictures
Is there a way to make the pictures a normal size. Many pictures seems out of scale.--104.249.226.19 (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is: . The MOS:SANDWICH issue (and lengthy captions including uncited text) was raised some time ago, and has yet to be addressed. A particular problem is the “Early modern India” section, where the sandwiching is extreme (two words sandwiched between images). I suggest it can be addressed by deleting the coin images, which are decorative and do not aid in understanding. The extremely large picture of a tiger is not aiding understanding of the topic, as most people know what a tiger looks like ... it could be separated from the multiple image template for better sizing. The number of maps are not aiding understanding as there are so many that the effect is one of clutter rather than helpful content. The visual aid of how the map has changed over time is made less effective, and might be better covered in one of the sub-articles, reducing the number of maps in this article slightly. The multiple image with the fishing boats means we get a large image of boats, with tiny images of maps which are then indecipherable.  Separating these, and deciding which are most useful to keep, would help.  I am listing sample issues only. Image captions are not succinct, and are sometimes used to contain lengthy that is not found anywhere in the article (sample: Health workers about to begin another day of immunisation against infectious diseases in 2006. Eight years later, and three years after India's last case of polio, the World Health Organization declared India to be polio-free).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All good points and uncontroversial. Please fix them SandyG in the manner outlined.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for several more days ... perhaps others will get to these issues first. And I don't know which maps are the most relevant to keep here, versus which are better serving our readers in a sub-article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Why pictures so different here compared to other countries? Is this why there is a star on the page to indicate it needs to be changed? --104.192.232.10 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2021
223.223.132.237 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC) the india map is not accurate and both pok and china are integral part of india as in lastest official map
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see question #6 in the FAQ here: Talk:India/FAQ.  Seagull123  Φ  18:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2021
अनुवाद => (Translation) - Please do not pollute/misrepresent hindi language.

Change (Hindi: Bhārat) to (हिंदी में भारत) Change (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) to (हिंदी में भारत गणराज्य) 2601:647:4001:6A70:6CA4:3A82:24C8:E14E (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Names of India in its official languages for further information and Indic transliteration for the relevant Wikipedia policy. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2021
I would like to change the GDP estimates from 2020 to 2021. Hence, I would like to update India's GDP nominal to 2.83 trillion and it's PPP to 9.6 trillion Krao212 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skingo12 (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Heres the source Krao212 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2021
Pls add the id of India that is hindistan in the TDVIA Nonameonlyusername (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2021 (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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2021
Include the Maurya and Mughal empires above the section titled "independence from British". SherKhaan (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done, neither of those empires became independent from the British. CMD (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021
Note g has a misplaced quotation mark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#cite_note-41 If the note is a quote, then quotation marks should surround it on both sides, without a space in between. If it's not a quote, the quotation mark should be removed. 80.6.233.101 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and good catch! Closed the quotation. Thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Notability of Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai
Greetings,

Your valuable comments on notability are requested at Draft talk:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Pixel size
Something very wrong with the pixel size for many images here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.90.87 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you explain more; what is problem with pixel size?  Dinesh  (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Set image size is out of control. Has been mentioned many time to no avail. Not sure why the article continues to have such a bad accessibility problems after all this time. -- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 16:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2021
The area under control in map Ved-win (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I want changes in the area under control in the map Source:india.gov.in Ved-win (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not done, please see the FAQ at the top of this page. CMD (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

article supports Hindu fascism and distorts history
1) Jainism is older then Hinduism, The Rig Veda (the oldest vedic text) mentions Jain rituals which Hinduism does not do. 2) Hinduism stems from the Aryan invasion which involved the caste system as Northwest lighter skin Aryans blended racial and ethnic privileges into the culture to rule a subdued majority, none of the original Vedic books mention anything about caste. 3) Many worshipped Hindu Gods like Shiva and Ganesh and Vishnu and Parvati are not mentioned at all in the Rig Veda, these Gods all are documented some time after the Aryan Invasion.

Hindu fascists attempts to distort and steal history to call themselves the original religion of India and predate Hinduism thousands of years before its conception, however common sense will subdue their falsifications, Temples are not built by hunter gathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This sounds extremely political, I hope someone appropriate looks into this IP's edit history, The person has made multiple revisionist and incendiary comments that are inappropriate for a wiki talk page, Especially considering this talk page concerns a country with a population of over a billion people, Wikipedia is considered a reliable and helpful source of information only for its strict source verification and citation principles, This is not a medium to push your ethno-centric political opinions. -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 5:35, 06 January 2021 (UTC)

Please remain neutral and help maintain the neutrality of wiki. Your paragraph shows how poorly informed you are. Vilok Coontoor (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok neo jainist Vedas Are written in different Yugas Vedas can be even dated back to millions of years get out of this site neo jainist b word 950CMR (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Well known academics like Joshua jonathan doesn't believe in bull crap things such as Aryan invasion theory here's why! Neo jainist Janemjaya and parikshit are historical persons and they had overpowered advanced technology more powerful than us they would have killed Aryans if they tried to invade India many scholars Says that Vedic civilization is younger than Tamil civilization when there are cleary Vedic influences in ancient lanka people like you is the reason why India is inferior to Japan and usa 950CMR (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Plus archeologists found harappan murtis doing yogic poses and the pashupati seal is Cleary rudra and they also found a harrapan murti doing the namaste sign 950CMR (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for people like you get outta here do some actual research before talking anything about any culture 950CMR (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's see how do you counter this let's see what sources and cite will you give? To back up your claim because i have sources 950CMR (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2021
During Mughals there was no relative for hindus, so I believe it should be removed 223.186.97.67 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2021 (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. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 07:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2021 (2)
During mughal rule lot of temples and hindus were killed. You can still find the same ruins used to build qutub minar. I strongly request to remove the line "relative peace during mughal rule" 223.186.97.67 (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable sources contradict the narrative currently in the article, per WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2021
"to have sought enlightenment," there is an error, where the comma is supposed to have a period ザアンノウンエディター (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Good eye. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Gender neutral
"No ruler of this period was able to create an empire and consistently control lands much beyond his core region." Would it be fine/accurate if I changed his to their, or are the only rulers of Medieval India male? (Question has been answered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ザアンノウンエディター (talk • contribs)


 * Even if they were all male, IMO it makes sense to just use "their", so I went ahead and changed it. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just asking
Can I update information or data according to https://www.statista.com? I doubt on it.  Dinesh  (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know this source or site. What is it that you would like to update?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems reliable. LearnIndology (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Numerical data. For example:- I've used it before. It can be very useful as a source. Especially, I want to update the value of Gini coefficient. This is as of 2013. Here is a Source  Dinesh  (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Countries by area
 * Countries by apple production
 * Countries by GDP

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2021
The IMF has published its latest estimates in April 2021. The source is: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report?c=534,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2019&ey=2026&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 GDP (PPP)	2021 estimate • Total Increase $10.207 trillion • Per capita Increase $7,332

GDP (nominal)	2021 estimate • Total Increase $3.049 trillion • Per capita Increase $2,190 Shamikinwiki (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅  Dinesh  (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Marking as answered. Uses x (talk • contribs) 11:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Society section statement on caste
The section contains a statement on caste that seems out of place. At the workplace in urban India, and in international or leading Indian companies, caste-related identification has pretty much lost its importance. This is the only statement on relevance of caste in the country today but is limited strictly to workplaces in urban India and major companies. Even assuming that the statement is correct it is too narrow for an article that should have a more national nature. We should remove it at least, or replace it with a wider statement on the subject from the summary of the main article Caste system in India. It may also be WP:UNDUE or needs to be WP:BALANCED given that the opposite it true for government jobs in the country at least in terms of statistics. See Caste_system_in_India.

In terms of accuracy of statement I checked both sources cited. Engaging With India is a free book available on the author's website so it was easy to get. It is the book that makes the cited claim but gives no references itself to data that the author bases the claim on (important as the author Wolfgang Messner does not appear to be a specialist in the subject). Also the claim is also on pages 24-25 and not on pages 27-28 as cited (new edition perhaps but ISBN is matching). This is not the case with the book Working With India which does give citations for most of its claims but does not make the claim mentioned here. This needs to be remedied by at least putting in a more accurate citation. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Possible wording for an extension of the comment:
 * But caste remains a factor in the private sphere, e.g., in the choice of marriage partners, and significantly for political mobilisation. Occasional instances of caste-based violence, particularly against Dalits, are also common.
 * But you would need to look for sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll look for sources in the main articles for those points. I can see that the text on marriage partners is a bit lacking (only noting improvements but not necessarily absolute rates) in the main article. I'll update that as well. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Marriage - 5.8% rate of intercaste marriages as per Census 2011, 95% women reporting same caste as husband
 * Caste based violence (mostly SC/ST act atrocities) - NCRB data, NCRB data focused on urban centers -- Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We should also add a statement on government jobs so that the article represents workplace relevance of caste more fully. I propose the following -
 * Caste representation in government jobs is skewed, with SC/ST members overrepresented in group D (primarily safai karamchari) jobs, slightly overrepresented in group C jobs, and underrepresented in group A and B jobs. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I also found an independent study that at least partially refutes the current statement. We should include it for proper balance. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you make all your contributions to the Caste system in India first. Once the issues are ironed out, then we can think of summarising them here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the main article and it contains all the points that you suggested in your statement. I think we can go ahead and add it to this article. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * if we have consensus on this should I put in an edit request for the following statements to be added? Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

However caste representation in government jobs is skewed, with SC/ST members overrepresented in group D (primarily safai karamchari) jobs, slightly overrepresented in group C jobs, and underrepresented in group A and B jobs. Caste also remains a factor in the private sphere, e.g., in the choice of marriage partners, and significantly for political mobilisation. Occasional instances of caste-based violence, particularly against Dalits, are also common.


 * Thanks . We can't use technical terms "group A/B/C"  or "SC/ST". My copy-edited text is below, open for comments from all editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal
Based on some good work carried out by, I am proposing the following extension (in green) for the caste paragraph. Please add your comments below: "Traditional Indian society is sometimes defined by social hierarchy. The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found in the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes". India declared untouchability to be illegal in 1947 and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives. At the workplace in urban India, and in international or leading Indian companies, caste-related identification has pretty much lost its importance. However the effects of social engineering are still limited. The former untouchables, now called scheduled castes and tribes are overrepresented in lower level jobs performing menial tasks. Caste also remains a factor in the private sphere, e.g., in the choice of marriage partners, and significantly for political mobilisation. Occasional instances of caste-based violence, particularly against Dalits, are also common."

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments
Thank you for the initial suggestion of the wording. I think the proposed text works well. I'll go invite comments from the main India project as well, seeing how we haven't received much feedback in over a week. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why are we using news articles in a domain flooded with very high quality scholarship? I just removed a very poor piece of information, which you have included in the proposed reframe. OUP has published a short introduction on caste. Please read and use it. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, occasional instances .... are common is poor. Instances can either be occasional or common. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a more scholarly (if a bit older) reference to the last point on caste violence. We can also update the language to something like - Caste based discrimination still takes place despite legislation with groups like the Dalits facing inter-caste violence, bonded labour, and discrimination of all kinds. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

India's Hindu society is the paradigmatic ethnographic example of caste, a form of social stratification characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of a style of life which often includes an occupation, ritual status in a hierarchy, and customary social interaction and exclusion based on cultural notions of purity and pollution. In the Indo-Aryan speaking regions of India, both caste among Hindus and an associated subordination of women, go back well into the mid-first-millennium BCE and have proved difficult to root out. Quote: "Accordingly, as tribal societies were encountered by the expanding Indo-Aryan societies, so the evolving caste system provided a framework within which—invariably at a low level—tribal people could be placed. For example, by the time of the Mauryan Empire (c.320–230 bce) the caste system was quite well established and the Aranyachará (i.e. forest people) were grouped with the most despised castes. ... The evolution of Indo-Aryan society in the centuries before c.200 bce not only saw increased segregation with respect to caste, it also seems to have seen increased differentiation with respect to gender. ... Therefore, by the time of the Mauryan Empire the position of women in mainstream Indo-Aryan society seems to have deteriorated. Customs such as child marriage and dowry were becoming entrenched; and a young women’s purpose in life was to provide sons for the male lineage into which she married. To quote the Arthashāstra: ‘wives are there for having sons’. Practices such as female infanticide and the neglect of young girls were possibly also developing at this time, especially among higher caste people. Further, due to the increasingly hierarchical nature of the society, marriage was possibly becoming an even more crucial institution for childbearing and the formalization of relationships between groups. In turn, this may have contributed to the growth of increasingly instrumental attitudes towards women and girls (who moved home at marriage). It is important to note that, in all likelihood, these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent—such as those in the south, and tribal communities inhabiting the forested hill and plateau areas of central and eastern India. That said, these deleterious features have continued to blight Indo-Aryan speaking areas of the subcontinent until the present day."
 * Oppose Your proposal is better than what is there, but not good enough. All the ifs, buts, maybes, and moreovers can come later, but we need a bold blunt summary at first (not pussyfooting around "Hindu" and "ancient"; and what is "Indian subcontinent?") Here is a bold, blunt, and accurate summary in two sentences (sourced to heavyweights of Indian sociology (Madan, Beteille, and Dasgupta) and historical demography (Dyson):
 * Quote: "caste [Port., casta=basket], ranked groups based on heredity within rigid systems of social stratification, especially those that constitute Hindu India. Some scholars, in fact, deny that true caste systems are found outside India. The caste is a closed group whose members are severely restricted in their choice of occupation and degree of social participation. Marriage outside the caste is prohibited. Social status is determined by the caste of one's birth and may only rarely be transcended."
 * Quote: "caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the "caste system" is uniquely developed in Hindu societies."
 * Quote: "Caste: What makes Indian society unique is the phenomenon of caste. Economic, religious, and linguistic differentiations, even race-based discrimination, are known elsewhere, but nowhere else does one see caste but in India."
 * Quote: "Caste: Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form although analogous forms exist among Muslims, Christians. Sikhs and other religious groups in South Asia. It is an ancient institution, having existed for at least 2,000 years among the Hindus who developed not only elaborate caste practices hut also a complex theory to explain and justify those practices (Dumont 1970). The theory has now lost much of its force although many of the practices continue."
 * Quote:"Castes A pure caste system is rooted in the religious order and may be thought of as a hierarchy of hereditary, endogamous, occupational groups with positions fixed and mobility barred by ritual distances between each caste. Empirically, the classical Hindu system of India approximated most closely to pure caste. The system existed for some 3,000 years and continues today despite many attempts to get rid of some of its restrictions. It is essentially connected with Hinduism."
 * ) Quote: "caste, n. 2a. spec. One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; ... This is now the leading sense, which influences all others."

The first sentence may need to be paraphrased a little. I have taken it from the first sentence in Caste (where the words are the result of a long-wearing process for a longstanding consensus). I have added generous quotes. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think there's a few too many qualifiers in there, and, as TB points out, it should use scholarly sources, which are available. I like the basis of F&F's suggestion, but I think it's veering too far in the opposite direction; we touch on caste in the history section; the material in "society" needs to comment on the present situation explicitly. In that regard, a news story saying the influence of caste in the workplace strikes me as out of place; there's considerable scholarship showing that the "lower" castes are consistently under-represented in the cushy sectors of the workforce. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are all good points . Btw, I did not mean my two sentences to represent the be-all and end-all of caste in the society section, only a lead-in.  Most people reading it will not have trudged through the history section.
 * I'm writing off the top of my head, but the general points are not hard to find. Caste has certainly undergone a transformation in the 20th-century, and especially after 1947.
 * (a) OBCs (other backward classes), the vast traditionally non-elite group constituting half of India's population has advanced both politically and in the workplace. From the turn of the 20th century, OBC groups such as Kayasthas, Yadavas (the former Ahirs and Gwalas&mdash;herders and milkmen), Kurmis and Kunbis (tillers), Keoris (market gardeners), Jats, have all pursued caste upliftment, in North India attempting to appropriate elite status (usually Kshatriya) in various forms   Other formerly non-elite groups such as the Marathas and Rajputs had made that transformation earlier (in the 17th and eighth centuries CE, respectively). At the highest levels from the time of Charan Singh, a Jat, becoming prime minister and down to Modi, OBCs have thrown up political leaders (especially in Bihar). Where that should be summarized (very briefly) is not clear.  Perhaps there could be a separate sub-section on Caste, given its importance in Indian society.  I guess what I am attempting to say is: an average reader is not helped by Haiku-like generalities without illustrating vignettes, or some other descriptive or narrative hook. If we are going to say something about Caste on this page, it should be something meaningful, not a few throwaway sentences.
 * (b) The Dalits (the former wretched-of-the-earth of Indian society) have made more limited inroads: in urban India, they populate the underclass of menial jobs (of street sweepers, sewage workers, and the like); in rural India, they remain vulnerable, subject very commonly to exclusion and less commonly to violence. There are fewer popularly-elected Dalit leaders, Mayawati being the most prominent
 * (c) The elite caste-groups have surrendered some privileges, but have remained in the lead in exploiting new economic opportunities. This needs to be fleshed out in a more precise fashion.
 * (d) Caste remains very important in marriage (endogamy): a 2014 survey suggests that more than nine out of 10 marriages in Hindu India are arranged within caste (despite 70 years of Bollywood selling socially-equalizing romances).
 * These are the sorts of things that need to be stated using recent tertiary sources. All that is needed is typing: this in Google books and using the first few references, especially the most general ones.  I have the sense that most people writing text here are not aware that this page uses high-level scholarly sources, and prefers tertiary ones, e.g. widely used text-books published by academic publishers, and generally not even research monographs or journal articles, though those can certainly be used to fine hone a point).  It is the only way to avoid WP:UNDUE or, more precisely, it has proved to be the only way of avoiding UNDUE in my experience of editing this page for 14 years.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Slight change in description for the hopscotch picture under "Sports and Recreation"
Under "sports and recreation", there is picture of girls playing hopscotch. The description for that picture states that it is from a town called "Juara", and the link for it takes one to the article for a town in Brazil. The actual name of the town is "Jaora". I recommend that this gets changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whakayis (talk • contribs) 09:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, using article title. CMD (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

FA criteria
Hi folks. I think this article needs a bit of work to meet the FA criteria again.
 * 1) The article is currently over 10 000 words long, which should ideally be trimmed back to 8000.
 * 2) The clothing section is too long. I cannot imagine that the history of clothing is due in article like this  f.i. Until the beginning of the first millennium CE, the ordinary dress of people in India was entirely unstitched. This entire section seems to have been added after the last featured article review. One paragraph max should suffice.
 * 3) Similarly, the cuisine section is too long and focuses too much on history.
 * 4) The section on performing arts may need a little bit of trimming. The first paragraph is too long to read comfortably.
 * 5) It fails the comprehensive criterion with respect to climate change. With some areas risking to become uninhabitable, at least one paragraph should be added. I can work on that, but I will wait until the articles trimmed bit, so that it will be easier to determine due weight.

Further easy to fix issues include overcitation (In Tamil literature, the Sangam literature (c. 600 BCE – 300 BCE) consisting of 2,381 poems, composed by 473 poets, is the earliest work. + 4 cites.), centring of captions, duplicate links and WP:SANDWICHING. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would add to that too many image captions which contain a large amount information which should be in the main text, both to comply with MOS:CAPTION and to fulfil Wikipedia's accessibility obligations and commitment. For an example, see, subsequently by the page's owner,  (making, again, the image caption the only specific information about health in the entire article). Bazza (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not offer any help. Neither of you know anything about this topic. The page was revised over a couple of months, in preparation for its second TFA on 2 October 2019, with input from dozens of old-India hands, experienced FA-writers, and at least half a dozen administrators, and in plain view of many more watchers.  I'm on vacation until mid-February 2021.  Bazza has been attempting frivolous nitpicking now and then.  That caption, btw, is very relevant; Bazza forgot to read the CDC caption for the photograph.  Our caption is a corrected version of the CDC caption.  The picture was taken in 2006.  The CDC web maestro made the error of assuming that the picture was taken after India's receipt of the polio-free status.  You'll have to do a lot better than make vague insinuations, the both of you.  I don't see the first poster offering his her considerable trimming expertise at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, all much larger, and all ultimately inconsequential in the scale of things contrasted with a civilization such as India whose neolithic age began in 6,500 BCE, Bronze with the Indus Valley Civilization in 3,300 BCE, Iron Age with the Indo-Aryan migration (see Sanskrit), the Mughal Empire, the Company rule in India, and the British Raj.  Please don't waste my time.  If you are burning with a desire to apply yourself to chopping, trimming, whittling, please bring Barack, Hillary, and Mitt down to 8,000 words and see how far you get on those talk pages.  Please also read WP:Main article fixation a few times.  All the best,   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Corrected  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an inappropriate response. Even if you disagree, focus on content, and at least solve the easy to solve issues. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't know somebody's gender, why not use the singular they?
 * If you don't know somebody's gender, why not use the singular they?


 * Accessibility should be fixed and some minor trimming is necessary. Lets see some solid wording proposals and simply fix the mass image problem step by step so the article does not further deter readers.-- Moxy 🍁 17:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * : I didn't forget. I don't nit-pick. I do try and make sure people are aware of WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Before you give me orders on what I must or must not do or read, you might want to check WP:BOLD, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA. The captions still contain content which should be in the article text. Bazza (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you have against the captions. I like the detail, the reader can quickly get the gist of the subject without having to hunt for an explanation in the text.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The captions should describe what's in the image, in as much detail as is needed to do that clearly. Many, though, have extra information which is not pertinent to the picture being described, and should be placed in the main text. For an example, see : the original caption was Health workers about to begin another day of immunisation against infectious diseases in 2006. Eight years later, and three years after India's last case of polio, the World Health Organization declared India to be polio-free. (with an appropriate reference). The first sentence of the caption is fine. It might have been expanded to say how many such people are in that role, or what proportion are female, or who employs them, etc. The second sentence, though, refers to something away from the context of the picture's content, and should be in the article text in a section related to health or similar (the picture is in the section on Economy); or placed in another suitable article if this one is too large. Bazza (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally on WP captions are too short, often much too short and uninformative. The ones here are on the long side, but probably it is the contrast with the usual over-short ones that makes them stand out. They are certainly informative.  I notice that this image and the tea plantation one above use the "multiple image" template (generally, a curse of Indian articles) but are only a single image. Would anyone object if Bazza put normal format and de-centred the caption text on such cases? Certainly not me. The length of the caption text I think needs more consensus. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that image should be in the health section but the caption looks ok to me. It links the image (immunizations) with the eradication of polio (presumably due to immunization). I scrolled down a bit and saw the St. Thomas church picture with the, imo pertinent, addition about the first arrival of Christians in India and that makes sense too. I like brevity in general but we don't want to toss the baby out. Of course, the immunization caption could convey the same information with greater brevity - e.g., Immunization workers in 2006. In 2009, the World Health Organization declared India to be polio-free.[316] - but the prosaic element is lost. We do want our prose to be engaging, even in image captions. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not written the following sections or subsections: 5, 6, 7, 7.1, 7.2 (?), 8 (?), 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.6. Of these, 9.1 and 9.2 are the most easily rewritten, especially with the expert knowledge of I would greatly welcome that if he has the time. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I could have a go. In fact there is nothing at all on Indian art, as opposed to architecture. The literature section, where I have very little expertise at all, doesn't mention the novel, or literature in English.  Performance arts (likewise on expertise) seems a bit of a link list on classical dance, short on traditional music and cinema, let alone tv.  So I can't see any changes I make reducing the overall size.  Compared to these sections, costumes & cusine do look rather long. On a quick look, the clothing section seems to have material that Clothing in India lacks, so some could be distributed there, or to Culture of India, which is a right old mess (with avge 1900 views a day, eek).  Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say,, if you don't mind, please hold off on the Clothing and Cuisine sections, and expand the Art and Architecture. Don't worry about overall size as long as Barack is ahead.  The problem with C&C is that they are pretty much both majorly fashioned in India by the Muslims, something noted in the India page, but entirely absent in the parent pages by virtue of the Hindu nationalist POV promoters, deliberate or unwitting, having had a field day. I'll fix that problem later when I have some time.  If you know the long battles I have had to fight in the leads of Shalwar kameez or Pilaf to give the Muslims their due share,  you'll see that NPOV in India is not an easy thing to achieve and to maintain. Cuisine of India and Culture of India are both examples of POV promotion; indeed History of India is.  There has never been even the remotest connection (in the 13 years that I have watched this page) between the History of India page and the history sections of this page.  You are welcome to have a go fixing those pages and watch all the banned editors, their sockpuppets, come out of the woodwork in a New York minute.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I prefer longer captions. I was happy with some early edits by an editor whose name I am forgetting but whom I thanked because he had done away with nonessentials (of prose and content). However, when in the throes of a mad rush we push ellipses to the limits of natural language, we do a disservice to people who are unfamiliar with the subject topic, who are looking for the occasional respite from the world of bare facts.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That was me still not a bloke . I agree that most captions are fine in terms of length. It would be lovely if Bazza could put normal formatting for the images to improve accessibility so; I cannot think of objections for that small change.
 * The bigger problem with images of the grave sandwiching, especially in the history section. To me, those pretty old maps don't convey enough information to justify including all of them. They do not lend themselves to Wikipedia, where more stylised maps do manage to convey information when printed small. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize it was you as the names were different. You could have simply said you are female.  It is important to acknowledge that in an enterprise that is pretty much all male. Please see my many posts at WT:FAC about gender and diversity.  Anyway, the problem with the maps is that no one makes maps like those any more, showing both the physical aspects, mountains and rivers, and the old kingdoms.  We could ask the resident genius  to have a go at those maps, but generally in my experience when you get WP editors to do the same the POV warriors challenge them.  You will eventually disappear and the rest of us will be left to battle them.  See the Kashmir-related pages in which, by a long-fought consensus, it is the CIA map with physical aspects that is agreed to by the South Asia editors instead of a fairly similar map drawn by a graphics editor.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize it was you as the names were different. You could have simply said you are female.  It is important to acknowledge that in an enterprise that is pretty much all male. Please see my many posts at WT:FAC about gender and diversity.  Anyway, the problem with the maps is that no one makes maps like those any more, showing both the physical aspects, mountains and rivers, and the old kingdoms.  We could ask the resident genius  to have a go at those maps, but generally in my experience when you get WP editors to do the same the POV warriors challenge them.  You will eventually disappear and the rest of us will be left to battle them.  See the Kashmir-related pages in which, by a long-fought consensus, it is the CIA map with physical aspects that is agreed to by the South Asia editors instead of a fairly similar map drawn by a graphics editor.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we replace them. My goal is to reduce sandwiching to comply with the manual of style. I would like to propose we have fewer of them in this top-level article. I'm aware of sensitivities around POV, and hope we can avoid them by focusing just on FA criteria. Femke Nijsse (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculous statement by : "You could have simply said you are female. It is important to acknowledge that in an enterprise that is pretty much all male." I find that very offensive. You are implying that the onus is on us (yes, I am also female) to state that we are female in order to avoid being called "he/his" because you say it's an all male environment. We all know about the serious gender gap in Wikipedia (about 80% male editors) and people like you don't make it any easier for females to feel welcome here! It's a simply rule: if you don't know the gender of another Wikipedian, use they/them or use "he or she". That's really not too much to ask and would show that you are welcoming anyone to edit and don't make assumptions that "the normal Wikipedia editor is male". Furthermore, I find your opening statements also offensive "Please do not offer any help. Neither of you know anything about this topic.". What's that supposed to mean? Are you now determining who is allowed and who isn't allowed to work on this article? That's not how Wikipedia works! Nobody owns a Wikipedia article, no matter how much work you have put into it and no matter how much of a topic expert you are. - Apart from that I agree with the comments made by Femke Nijsse. In particular, the article needs some information on climate change which is currently not mentioned at all. Even the word "climate" hardly features (it appears exactly twice). Most country articles have a sub-heading on Climate under Geography. The sub-article Climate of India does have a section on climate change. So some content (2-3 sentences) could be lifted from there and included in the main article, with a link to Climate of India. At the moment, it is too far down in the substructure of trees (India -> Geography of India -> Climate of India -> Climate change).EMsmile (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised to realize there is no education section (that I can see). That's usual in country articles, & there's plenty to say about Education in India (where the images really need sorting out btw). I see there was a decent-looking draft in archive 47, and lots of discussion. What happened? Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * indeed--i added a short section. Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! These identified gaps in comprehensiveness make the summary style elsewhere in the article more acute. I think one paragraph (max two) for clothing is due. Could I have more input on that? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am on vacation. I have gone on vacation before.  The minute I have done, various ostensible do-gooders (and I don't mean Johnbod or Rjensen) have appeared out of the blue,  paying scant attention to the precedent for discussions on this page.  They've never so much as made a one-word edit on the page, never posted on the talk page.
 * People typically make posts on this page for the simple change of one sentence and the discussion lasts for weeks. See, for example, the sentences: "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and unprecedented migration." It took from 9 June to 22 June to come to a consensus on the wording.  Besides, the people who were participating there had already done so before, had shown some inkling of knowledge about India.
 * What do we have now? One editor, Femke, who knows nothing about India from what she has thus far unburdened on us, another Emsmile shunting commonplace pieties about my post being offensive, deeming "climate change" to constitute essential content for an FA. As for climate itself, have you read the Geography section Emsmile?  Have you? What is the last paragraph there, comprising four sentences? Chopped liver?   It is the usual story, experts in Wikilawyering, but ignoramuses about India, are making pronouncements, but they don't dare make those pronouncements at Barack Obama (14K words), Hillary Clinton (13.5K words), Mitt Romney (13K words), Taylor Swift (13K words), and the big doozy, Climate change (13K words).  Even at British Empire, (10.8K words> India 10.5K words) FAR'd for two months, Femke has made her first post only two days ago.
 * As for education, yes an editor did present a text but it does not meet the standards of this page. It has too much of the government's line.  It says nothing about the early failed education policy in India (see my reference to Myron Weiner's book in that discussion) which paid short shrift to primary education (at the expense of university education), the kind of emphasis on primary education which enabled Sri Lanka, South Korea, and even Scotland much earlier, to escape the poverty and illiteracy in which India had found itself mired, and partially redeemed only in Manmohan Singh's tenure from 2005 to 2014.. As I respect Rjensen, I won't change what he has added, but it needs much more.
 * I am not at all sure that Femke and Emsmile have appeared here in good faith. They are disregarding the precedent of discussion here.  The consensus here is hard-won, achieved by people with some knowledge, not by drive-bys spouting pieties.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Removed intermperate remarks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS and  The text and discussion for Education is Talk:India/Archive_47.  Rjensen if you could reduce it by a third and add Johnbod's superb picture, it would be great.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PPS OK, I'm out of here now.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have an interest in history of education but the scholarship for India is surprisingly weak--and very polemical. The literacy data is pretty dramatic, however. I added some more info. Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to add this without incurring the wrath of the page's self-appointed censor, but as well as nothing on education and climate change, there's nothing on health either. I do not dare suggest anything myself, but a sentence or two somewhere appropriate with links to Health in India (which is not in a good shape) would rectify this omission. Bazza (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a constructive suggestion. Why don't you add a sentence from each of the half a dozen odd sections in Health in India and propose a paragraph. Regardless of the sources used in Health in India, see if you can cite your sentences to scholarly sources, usually available in a google search of the form:    "India" "communicable disease" OR "maternal mortality" OR "undernutrition" OR "malnutrition" OR "noncommunicable disease" inpublisher:"university press" | inpublisher:"MIT" | inpublisher:"Academic Press" | inpublisher:"Springer" | inpublisher:"Routledge" | inpublisher:"Macmillan" | inpublisher:"Elsevier" | inpublisher:"Wiley" | inpublisher:"Sage" | inpublisher:"Blackwell" | inpublisher:"Pergamon" (See here) and similarly for other health issues.  All the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not every subsection present on other country articles is going to be due for this article. There is, at any rate, some information in the "Socio-economic challenges" subsection, near the caption that caused disputes above. CMD (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's rare, thankfully, to come across an openly hostile Wikipedian like you, User:Fowler&amp;fowler. I want to reiterate what Bazza said above: "Before you give me orders on what I must or must not do or read, you might want to check WP:BOLD, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA." You do not own this article, no matter how much time you have put into it in the past. I have the same rights as any other Wikipedian to do my bit to improve an article. Whether I am new to India-related topics or an expert is not your place to judge. Just for the record, I have not made any edits to the India article myself, neither do I plan to do so in the near future. I have merely come to this talk page to have a discussion on specific aspects that could be improved. This is what the talk page is for. I'll start a new sub-section now about a content issue. It would be nice if you could stop with those personal attacks. Maybe you really need a holiday to calm yourself down and remember what Wikipedia actually is all about: a collaborative editing environment to share the sum of all human knowledge.EMsmile (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are as you forgot to sign your post. Why don't you make a post at FAR, asking SandyG, DrKay, Casliber, and Ealdgyth, to FAR this article.  Be sure to add that the main author is away until mid-February, that he knows nothing about gender equality or diversity on Wikipedia, that you have never made an edit on India and don't plan to but are offering your services as an authority—sans peur et sans reproche—on FAC criteria.
 * Otherwise, present a sentence here that you would like to add (or subtract) along with supporting scholarly sources, and offering reasons for its presence on this page. Scroll upstairs to see how others make a proposal to add a sentence. We all need to play by the same rules.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether the "main author is away until mid-February" or not is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia waits for nobody. You have no more ownership about this article than anyone else. Yes, I will make those suggestions about improvements here on the talk page and that's exactly what I have started below in the section about climate change topics. I am not going to involve myself in FA discussions, I just want to seek consensus about adding climate change related sentences in there. Anyway, I am not going to waste my breath with you any longer. Enjoy your holiday! EMsmile (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Small note @EMsmile: before we submit articles to FAR, we do try to time it well with the main editors, as we're trying to keep as many stars as possible. @FF; notifying articles is step 1 of the FAR process, and I came to this article partially because I've joined the effort to identify FAs that may benefit from a review. In terms of rules: it is common practice to allow editors to float ideas on talk page, waiting for some feedback and then making a more formal and properly sourced proposal. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But you forgot to mention anything about an FAR in your post, by virtue of which you have added this page to the FAR talk page notice given page.  Please see an FAR notice on this talk page and its resolution eight months later.  Why are you sticking around to hurry the process?  There is no hurry.  This page has 4,000 watchers and receives 30K to 40K views a day.  It will take time.  When I get back in mid-February, I'll take another good  look.  Meanwhile, the longstanding precedent on proposing a text change (on the talk page) stands.  There are plenty others who will reply in due course if someone chooses to propose an edit.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry, which my previous post made clear. I should have mentioned FAR in my first post, but I refrained from that to take the time pressure off. I will develop a proposal wrt climate change below, slowly, and allowing for feedback from other regulars. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion about adding a sentence or two about climate change to this article
I'll re-iterate the point that I made above about the content of the article: In particular, the article needs some information on climate change which is currently not mentioned at all. Even the word "climate" hardly features (it appears exactly twice). Most country articles have a sub-heading on Climate under Geography. The sub-article Climate of India does have a section on climate change. So some content (2-3 sentences) could be lifted from there and included in the main article about India, with a link to Climate of India. At the moment, it is too far down in the substructure of trees (India -> Geography of India -> Climate of India -> Climate change). The 2-3 sentence could say something about where India ranks in terms of CO2 emissions, what the government plans to do and what the impacts of climate change are on livelihoods in India so far. It could be lifted and summarised from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_India#Climate_change. I look forward to any comments or reactions and hope they can be free of personal attacks, thank you. EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Climate of India is in a poor state, and I would certainly not want to copy from that article. I have on a few occasions deleted climate denial from it, but the sourcing remains poor. Extreme heat needs to be addressed (f.i. using https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/365/2018/). Changes in the monsoon are important, but possibly too uncertain to be mentioned in this article (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025809). What sources were you thinking for the other statements? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a much more constructive suggestion . Why don't you and  write a paragraph of eight to ten sentences on it, and add it to the article either as a subsection of Geography or as an independent section? Btw, I don't disagree that the Cuisine and Clothing sections need to be shortened, but that is an easy fix.  The bigger problems in the article are Politics, Economy, Culture, Society, Art, Architecture,  and Sport.  Femkemilene should have been clearer in her initial post that she was giving a talk page notice for an FAR.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)  Corrected.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's often easier, or at least more beneficial, to improve the relevant parts of the specialized article first - here Climate of India, then boil it down for the top-level article. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Might as well do that first. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, it is probably better to write a section on Climate and environment, from my point of view, that is. But before you do any of that, we may need input from the many editors who generally edit this page about what is the appropriate topic to add.  This typically takes time.  I can't guarantee that people will respond as no one knows you.  There are of course articles Climate of India and Environment of India. If you try to improve those first, be aware that no one is going to be watching your edits there.  So any summary of your edits from there will not get an automatic pass here.  They will need to be discussed and vetted sentence by sentence in the usual fashion here.  The usual system on this page has always been: fix the highest level, i.e.  the section first; then use it to write the lead of the parent article of that section; and finally use the lead to expand the parent article. The system goes back to 2007.  Please also note that DUE generally requires on India by a longstanding convention that the sentences be sourced in the first instance to tertiary sources (i.e. widely used undergraduate or first-year graduate-level textbooks published by academic presses; review articles in companions (Oxford Companion to ...) or guides (Cambridge Guide to ...) or handbooks (Blackwell Handbook of ...)  (other encyclopedias are generally discouraged); in the second instance to monographs and review of the literature in journal articles; in the third instance to journal articles; and in the fourth instance to well-written newspaper articles in well-known internationally known newspapers and magazines. I think the first thing we need here is a discussion and consensus with a critical mass of input from others (of which I am highly doubtful in my absence.  Call it arrogance, call it knowing the history of this page, but those are the facts.)  Editors work very hard to get one sentence in.  There is no reason that you, or anyone editing in response to your post now, should be cut any slack.  It is not fair to others.  In fact, I don't even know if you have any right to come galloping in and leave a FAR talk page notice here given your likely level of ignorance about India. That typically is best decided by people who do the hard work of editing and maintaining this page.  The last FAR was done in precisely such fashion. I am generally getting irritated and I'm sure many others are who in a New York minute could clean the clock of your India-related knowledge.  Do you even know the regular editors here?  There are some 30 or 40, some log in once a month.    Be aware that this page receives 30 to 40K views a day and has 4,600 watchers.  That is a lot more than Earth or even any other country FA.  I'd be a lot happier if someone such as  or  or  or  or  or  or  or  or  or  or  or one of the FAR coords actually made this post.   I'd say come back in the summer of 2021 and we'll try to fix this if we haven't fixed it already ourselves by then.  In the middle of a pandemic, with people stressed or absent as it is, what is your grand game plan here?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * F&f, as someone who has always defended you at FAC, I am asking you to tone this down, and asking other regular editors here to cap off these unconstructive comments. As you know, I believe your expertise is needed at FAC, but this kind of behavior leads others to disagree. This article is in remarkably good shape for a Geography article (they tend to deteriorate quickly, so I commend all the editors involved here), but Femke's points are not without merit. I will outline some of the things I see that could be addressed once the temperature is lower in here. This isn't how we should treat people, so I hope someone here will close off the unproductive discussion so we can focus on issues that could be addressed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It can't be done now. It is best for her to return in the Spring or Summer of 2021.  The regulars aren't here.  She doesn't have the knowledge.  People won't even respond to her.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article made a TFA appearance on 2 October 2019. It took three months to revise the article for that.  We can't let anyone walk off the street and post notices willy-nilly.  There's something to be said for expertise, for hard work.  She's never posted before at this talk page, never edited an India-related article, never participated at WT:INDIA.  It is not fair to the people who do the hard work.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will develop the proposal in the next coming weeks. I'll leave it to talk until it reaches a clear consensus (which may be before the deadline you pose). I will use the essay on identifying reliable sources for science, which may be slightly different compared sourcing for less sciency aspects of this article. I'm not responding to personal attacks. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the entanglement of climate change with other issues, it may be better to integrate relevant climate change facts throughout other sections of the article. There's no direct link for example between the Indian government's emission policy and the impact of climate change on people in India. Both however link into existing parts of the article. Furthermore, actions relating to climate change, such as burning coal, have other impacts such as air pollution that are hugely significant for India. CMD (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That's what I've been arguing elsewhere too. I think that also makes it easier to determine whether points are actually due in such a high-level article, as the information will be directly mentioned next to similar points. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC) I hear you, , and , and will return to what I am supposed to be doing. My crankiness, as you know, is well-known, but it is benign at its core. Thanks for your posts. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Allow me to come back to this discussion from December. In the meantime, I have worked on many of the 52 articles in the series Climate change in country X and have checked how climate change is mentioned in the respective country articles themselves. In most of the country articles there is usually at least one sentence or two. For example, see in the article about Japan. Many of the articles have a section on "environment" under the geography section which I think is a good compromise solution. The India article does not have a section on environment yet. It does mention air pollution in the lead but not once in the main body. I think that is a major omission. For your interest we now have an article called Climate change in India (not yet the greatest article but working on getting it updated and expanded), which could be wiki-linked. The sentence about climate change could mention something about CO2 emissions per capita, where it ranks worldwide, what India's stance is with regards to the Paris agreement and how climate change is affecting the water resources for example. This could all be fitted into one sentence and be wikilinked to Climate change in India. Please have a think about this. And I do agree with CMD that mentioning relevant aspects in several places of the article would be good but I think that would be even harder to reach agreement on. Having that one overview sentence at the end of the "geography" section would be a start. It would also mean that if a reader searches for "climate change" in the article they will find at least one snippet of information. EMsmile (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see this post. Why don't you add your subsection on Climate Change, once  has added her section on Climate.  I think you should do it now (in whatever shape your articles are in) as Johnbod and Rjensen have already done for the Education and Visual Art sections.  Upon reflection, I think "Climate" should be an independent section, not a portion of Geography.  Once it is in place, we can debate its issues and improve it, so that it is ready for the FAR which&mdash;as I've stated somewhere above&mdash;I'll nominate this article for late this spring or early this summer. I'm waiting for the experienced admins to return; at least one will, at the end of this month.  Thanks for the epic amount of work!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've bitten off a bit more than I can chew in terms of Wikipedia commitments (rereviving the WP:Core contest :), and prepping my first FAC), so I'm not going to be able to do much here, as this article requires a rigorous reading of sources to determine what is due. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, Fowler&amp;fowler . Would it be possible/appropriate that I add a sentence about climate change in India already in the near future, without waiting for a new section on climate from User:Femkemilene? (interesting about that WP:Core contest - looks great!) Or actually, it might be best if I suggest the sentence here on the talk page first and not directly in the article. And perhaps start a new section for it here on the talk page, as this section is now quite old and might get archived soon. That way, we could start off with a clean slate. :-) EMsmile (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Art
As requested, for comments. There should be a single row gallery beneath (NOT a multiple image) which I can do later. "Architecture" will I hope be shorter, & literature should have its own section. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

India has a very ancient tradition of art, which has exchanged many influences with the rest of Eurasia, especially in the first millenium, when Buddhist art spread with Indian religions to Central, East and South-East Asia, the last also greatly influenced by Hindu art. Thousands of seals from the Indus Valley Civilization have been found, usually carved with animals, but a few with human figures. The Pashupati seal is the best known. After this there is a long period with virtually nothing surviving, after which almost all surviving ancient Indian art is in various forms of religious sculpture in durable materials, or coins. There there was probably originally far more in wood, which is lost. In north India Mauryan art is the first imperial movement, and the Lion Capital of Sarnath from about 250 BCE is now India's national symbol. Over the following centuries a distinct Indian style of sculpting the human figure developed, with less interest in articulating precise anatomy than ancient Greek sculpture but showing smoothly-flowing forms expressing prana ("breath" or life-force). This is often complicated by the need to give figures multiple arms or heads, or represent different genders on the left and right of figures, as with the Ardhanarishvara form of Shiva and Parvati.

Most of the earliest large sculpture is Buddhist, either excavated from Buddhist stupas such as Sanchi, Sarnath and Amaravati, or is rock-cut reliefs at sites such as Ajanta, Karla and Ellora. Hindu and Jain sites appear rather later. In spite of this complex mixture of religious traditions, generally, the prevailing artistic style at any time and place has been shared by the major religious groups, and sculptors probably usually served all communities. Gupta art, at its peak between about 300 CE and 500 CE, is often regarded as a classical period whose influence lingered for many centuries after; it saw a new dominance of Hindu sculpture, as at the Elephanta Caves. Across the north, this became rather stiff and formulaic after about 800 CE, though rich with finely carved detail in the surrounds of statues. But in the South, under the Pallava and Chola dynasties, sculpture in both stone and bronze had a sustained period of great achievement; the large bronzes with Shiva as Nataraja have become an iconic symbol of India.

Ancient painting has only survived at a few sites, of which the crowded scenes of court life in the Ajanta Caves are by far the most important, but it was evidently highly developed, and is mentioned as a courtly accomplishment in Gupta times. Painted manuscripts of religious texts survive from Eastern India about the 10th century onwards, most of the earliest being Buddhist and later Jain. No doubt the style of these was used in larger paintings. The Persian-derived Deccan painting, starting just before the Mughal miniature, between them give the first large body of secular painting, with an emphasis on portraits, and the recording of princely pleasures and wars. The style spread to Hindu courts, especially among the Rajputs, and developed a variety of styles, with the smaller courts often the most innovative, with figures such as Nihâl Chand and Nainsukh. As a market developed among European residents, it was supplied by Company painting by Indian artists with considerable Western influence. In the 19th century, cheap Kalighat paintings of gods and everyday life, done on paper, were urban folk art from Calcutta, which later saw the Bengal School of Art, reflecting the art colleges founded by the British, the first movement in modern Indian painting.

Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurton, T. Richard, Hindu Art, 1994, British Museum Press, ISBN 0 7141 1442 1
 * Craven, Roy C., Indian Art: A Concise History, 1987, Thames & Hudson (Praeger in USA), ISBN 0500201463
 * Harle, J.C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press Pelican History of Art, ISBN 0300062176
 * Michell, George (2000), Hindu Art and Architecture, 2000, Thames & Hudson, ISBN 0500203377
 * Rowland, Benjamin, The Art and Architecture of India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, 1967 (3rd edn.), Pelican History of Art, Penguin, ISBN 0140561021

Comments

 * Comments of Fowler&fowler: Great job .  Here are some general points.  Let's not worry about the size for now, as the sections that are being expanded should remain on the talk page for the kind of significant time required for a consensus on this page.  I'd say at least a month, perhaps more.  For the same reason, the India section should not have been added to the article itself, only presented here, for comments, etc.  So, I would not worry about the lengths of the proposed Architecture or Literature sections just yet.  I think once we have all the sections written or updated, we'll need to make a decision about the overall length and about apportioning section lengths.


 * As for this proposed text, I'm not going to second guess an expert like Johnbod, but I am reticent about including a few things: (a) Gandhara, Greco-Buddhist Art originally from Taxila or Takht-i-Bahi, or environs; and art from the Indus Valley Civilization are the province of Pakistan's histories (regardless of whether the word "Pakistan" had been coined then or not, and regardless of the use of "India" in art histories). There is a longstanding consensus in South Asia-related pages of including in a South Asian country's various histories only those aspects that significantly belong to the region of the present-day country.  Supra-regional histories can be included, but the present-day country of significance needs to be mentioned by name (as we do, for example,  in the mention of Pakistan in the sentences about Mehrgarh and Indus Valley Civilization in the ancient history section).  A mention by name of the "Pashupati seal," coined by John Marshall, with assumed or interpreted connections to Shiva and Hinduism, is problematic, especially for this article.  For the same reason, we cannot include an image of the "Pashupati seal" (nor of any IVC seal excavated in what is today Pakistan) in this section, nor of the "Dancing girl of Mohenjo-daro," even though they sit by an accident of history, and nationalist appropriation thereafter, in India's national museum. In my view, therefore, the article should properly begin with, "There is a long period with virtually nothing surviving ..."


 * The rest is written nicely in Johnbod's excellent style. The Lion Capital of Ashoka should be piped as "Lion Capital of Sarnath" or "Lion Capital of Ashoka at Sarnath," for its artistic significance is in good measure connected to the nearby marble quarries that supplied the highly polishable stone. Finally, if an image of the Sarnath Lion Capital is to be included, it should not be the one taken during the period when photography was banned in the museum.  There may be agreement about such inclusions in WP's image-related discussions, but such an inclusion on this page will require a consensus here (in my view). That's about it from me.  As I'm on vacation, I won't reply here until next weekend.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS I forgot to add. The sources used are excellent!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've now added a mini-gallery. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Beautiful !  I love the sculptures, especially the boy Krishna slaying the horse demon (it is interesting to me because Krishna, a non-Indo-European avatar, is slaying the horse, an Indo-European import ... I suspect the mythology makes a distinction between the horse "ashva" of the Ramayana, the symbol of Indo-Aryan dominance, and this demon ...) Not so sure about the Elephanta,  mainly because of the tourists fringing the bottom.  Can they be beheaded? Or can another image be found?  The Mughal painting is spectacular in its detail.  Free associating now ... Various shades of gray are shown on the faces of the courtiers. Khurram (then a prince and later Shah Jahan) seems to be "touching the feet" of his father.  Had Muslims adopted this Hindu custom, or is this a Hindu painter's touch?  I can't read the Persian inscription below very clearly, but I do see "Shah Jahan," Kurram's regnal or ceremonial name later.  Sure enough, when I checked, the painting is dated 1635, i.e. after Khurram had succeeded Jahangir as emperor.   Anyway, I better stop.  :)  Great work!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I note too Krishna's baby fat and the fluid folds of cloth draping him Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I chose that Elephanta image (not in fact sharp when fully magnified) because the tourist heads give the scale, which is obviously very large, but unclear to a viewer who doesn't know, without a referent. Not sure about the foot touching - might this be Central Asian/Persian also? It's from an MS of the Padshahnama, Shah Jahan's official chronicle/biography; there's another "greeting Daddy" scene from the same MS at the top there. Somewhat ironic and sad given what happened to Shah Jahan himself in the end. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm wondering if the original Flickr image might not be a better referent. The fuller-bodied tourists show scale better; their mix of bearings, the fronts, and backs, have the effect of anonymizing the faces; also the pillar on the right and the flanking relief panels give a feel for the cave. The caption could mention the site being popular with tourists.  But that's me.  I'll wait for others to weigh in, especially  who has had a long association with this page and has been a judge in various photography competitions.  Thanks again Johnbod for the wonderful work.  I eagerly await the other sections.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS Sorry Johnbod, I should have mentioned this earlier. There are imperatives of diversity (of region and religion, especially) on this page.  Also, in the past, as far as is possible, WP Featured Pictures have been preferred. I just realized: the images proposed here are mostly of northern India (with the exception of the Cholas). If two or three are to be discarded, I would probably vote for the Mathura buxom women sculpture, the Kangra swooning women painting, and maybe the Elephanta, but keeping Cholas (a Featured picture), Krishna slaying the demon, and the Mughal.  Please also see India related FPs on my user talk page User_talk:Fowler%26fowler  It does have an FP of the massive Jain sculpture of Shravanbegola (spelling?) in Karnataka with a wonderful referent.  There are more pictures there of architecture.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Mumbai isn't exactly north India, & the Tamil Nadu Chola bronze is the main image. "The massive Jain sculpture" image is currently used to illustrate architecture, which it doesn't do. The FP's, like the architecture pics already in the article, overweight Mughal architecture - each group has only one image of a Hindu temple at present. I don't worry too much about FPs for art (nor do we typically have many) - museum releases like the Chola bronze & the two miniatures are generally at least as good & are taken professionally in studio conditions that visitor images can never match. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize it illustrated the architecture, having read only the section title which has "Art." OK I understand. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's what we have in the article by way of religion and region:
 * File:1500-1200 BCE Rigveda, manuscript page sample i, Mandala 1, Hymn 1 (Sukta 1), Adhyaya 1, lines 1.1.1 to 1.1.9, Sanskrit, Devanagari.jpg (Hinduism, not art, though; north India, region unknown)
 * File:Battle at Lanka, Ramayana, Udaipur, 1649-53.jpg (Hinduism, Udaipur, Rajasthan, western India) FP
 * File:Cave 26, Ajanta.jpg (Buddhist, sculpture, architecture; Ajanta, western India). FP
 * File:Gopuram Corner View of Thanjavur Brihadeeswara Temple..JPG (Hinduism, South India, architecture)
 * File:Qutb minar ruins.jpg (Delhi sultanate, north India, architecture)
 * File:Agra Fort DistantTaj.JPG (Taj mahal from Agra fort; Mughal, architecture)
 * File:Interior of San Thome Basilica.jpg (Christian, South India, interior architecture, Christian); FP
 * File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg (Sikh; North India; architecture/culture) FP
 * File:Gomateswara, Shravanabelagola.jpg (Jain, Central-South India (Karnataka)) FP
 * How about replacing the Kangra (Krishna fluting whose whimsical aspects I like, but whose dubious background scene I don't) with a different Kangra such as File:Indischer Maler von 1780 001.jpg, a beautiful, whimsical, Rama, the blue-skinned, with a splinter in the foot; Lakshman attending; Sita fanning; Hanuman quenching, and the buck just felled, writhing?
 * And replacing the Mathura women (which I am not too enthused by) with a painting by the founder of the Bengal renaissance, say File:Abanindranath Tagore - Journey's End - Google Art Project.jpg (at the National Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi). That way we'll have 3 sculptures and 3 paintings, also more regional balance.
 * As for Elephanta, it's your call. If the Jain Shravanabelagola FP is not architecture, then is it art/sculpture?  If so, it can't really be in the proposed architecture section.  Is it to be discarded or moved to this section?  If the latter, is it a better picture than the Elephanta?
 * Finally do we need a folk art picture or do those go into culture/society? If they are appropriate here, can you find any from Assam or the Andamans (traditionally left out)?
 * Sorry for appearing to give you a hard time, but I've been put through the wringer before in image discussions here; just trying to point out the pitfalls. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On these points:
 * The Kangra you suggest is a pretty washed-out scan from a book (as usual with Yorck Project images). The one I chose is nice and bright, which not many of our miniature images are. Alternatives might be the one I'm illustrating. I wanted a gopi image to contrast with the all-male Mughal miniature, and show Indian landscape/jungle style, which is very distinctive. The Tagore image doesn't read well as a thumb, & generally I think the Bengal School are rather less illustrative of distinctly Indian art for a mainly unfamiliar audience (which by no means excludes many Indian people). Rather unfairly, they tend to look like a cross between Victorian painting and Bollywood posters.
 * The Jain image, showing the bottom sixth of a standing statue, is a great image, but really more illustrative of religious devotion rather than art.
 * If we went for folk art, Commons has precious little from Assam, which mostly seems not-too-different from other Eastern Indian styles, and nothing at all from the Andamans (to be honest I don't think there ever was much). Nor is there anything much to link to.  Kalighat painting has many possibilities, but I doubt there's room.
 * I think we need a properly ancient image, probably Buddhist. The Bhutesvara Yakshis are important, I think well-known in India, and have a decent article on them to link to, which I think is important.
 * Generally, I think Indian art attracts less controversy than many (most?) other areas of Indian-related editing.
 * Ok, now proposing this mini-gallery, putting in the two alternatives proposed above:


 * Great work, as usual, Johnbod. Sorry, I did not see that Elephanta with the railing, nor the proposed replacement for the Kangra. I like the new Elephanta.  The new Kangra, I'm not sure.  I think I like your original better. Sorry about the flip-flop.


 * So, that leaves us with the three yakshis. I'm still unenthused about it. The nudity, to my inexpert mind, seems too crudely stylized (as if the male sculptors—as yet uncertain about their art form—were working off models who were affecting poses), in contrast to female nudity in most Indian sculptures, north or south, even Khajuraho. And the connection with Buddhism—a religion whose art is more commonly associated with depictions of the Buddha, of stories from his life, or past lives, showing austerity, enlightenment, monasticism—is more tenuous. If early Buddhist is what is being considered, why not something from the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Sanchi, ca. 2nd-century BCE?  Say, File:Ornamental Pillar leading to Sanchi Dome ( N-MP-220).jpg (see the female form there); if Buddhist from Mathura, circa the turn of the first millennium is to be featured, why not File:Inscribed Seated Buddha Image in Abhaya Mudra - Kushan Period - Katra Keshav Dev - ACCN A-1 - Government Museum - Mathura 2013-02-24 5972.JPG?


 * I'm not sure about the limit of six for the total number of pictures: one main and five in the gallery. I tend to put three or four in each row of a gallery; a gallery of five will make for uneven rows.  Why not add a modern, an Amrita Sher-Gil, M. F. Hussain, or Jamini Roy? Say Sher-Gil's File:Amrita Sger-Gil Bride's Toilet.jpg (if copyright is not an issue) or Roy's File:Manasa, the Snake Goddess (6124609239).jpg?  I would prefer Roy because it would also add some regional balance, from Bengal in eastern India. Inviting  to please comment and unburden me a little during my time off.  :)  Thanks again Johnbod.  Great work!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, after this time I think I should stick the section in. But further comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "Bhuteswara" is UNDUE. The others are OK; four images are enough.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Removing it would leave 4 Hindu religous images and zero Buddhist, which I don't think at all appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issues with adding Buddhist images. We have an FP from Ajanta in the Ancient History section.  Before that, we had another FP, a fresco, from Ajanta.  But Bhuteswara is not representative.  Yakshinis, in any case, Buddhism inherited from the prevailing cultic traditions in India, as did Hinduism.  Even so, there are earlier ones in Sanchi and Bharhut in Madhya Pradesh.  Granted Sanchi would be better captured in the architecture section, but there is: File:Railing - 2nd Century BCE - Red Sand Stone - Bharhut Stupa - Madhya Pradesh - Indian Museum - Kolkata 2012-11-16 1852.JPG (in the Calcutta museum setting; btw, I prefer the pictures with their museum background) or File:CunninghamBharhut.jpg (outdoors), or even File:Bharhut yavan.jpg (in which the yakshinis are subordinate to the Yavana).  (My favorite from Bharhut, though from a later period, is File:Bharhut later.jpg.  If we are insisting on the Mathura school of Kushan Buddhist art, there is File:Inscribed Seated Buddha Image in Abhaya Mudra - Kushan Period - Katra Keshav Dev - ACCN A-1 - Government Museum - Mathura 2013-02-24 5972.JPG.  If we want something eastward, there is the Buddha at the Sarnath museum (that used to be on the India page) and could return again: File:Buddha in Sarnath Museum (Dhammajak Mutra).jpg.  For something southward, but not from deep Southward, there is Amaravati: File:British Museum Asia 14.jpg.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In some instances, I prefer the original British prints, even if they are old, because they give a feel for the actual surrounding; contrast those with the deracinated and tinkered restorations user:Pat has been relentlessly spamming on WP.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Other comments on images in the article

 * I am quite concerned about the extreme amount of MOS:SANDWICHing (there are multiple places where my screen has only two to four words stuck between images), but have been and am willing to hold off 'til February for comment. Some of the captions also have issues in that they are so long and in some cases contain text that should be cited. Overall, I think the images are oversized and taking over the article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I presume this is a general comment on the article, Sandy. I don't get bad sandwiching myself (even with a 400px default setting), but some of the captions are certainly more wordy than they need to be (though a unusually large number have citations). For example, instead of:
 * "A Chital (Axis axis) stag attempts to browse in the Nagarhole National Park in a region covered by a moderately dense[k] forest.[187]"
 * "A Chital (Axis axis) stag browsing in moderately dense[k] forest in Nagarhole National Park.[187]

- does the same job. Do we need the tiger's name? I think my captions in the art section are sufficient terse, apart from the Mughal one, which can be trimmed. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sandwich and important prose mini text in images is a problem on any platform outside desktop PC's.-- Moxy 🍁 17:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your rather scary examples seem to show that any images create problems, of which the captions are just a small part - don't these Android screens have fullscreen options, or smaller text? Either their main text is far too big, or the caption text far too small, or both at the same time! Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . -What we have here is a combination of bad displaying... gallery after gallery set at 440 pixs but with different sized images within them that are  full of prose text that should be in the article.  Its why our recommendations have evolved over time ..MOS:IMGSIZE" As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 220px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide" ....MOS:ACCIM Don't use galleries excessively because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers....MOS:CAPTION Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments...establishes the picture's relevance to the article.  Should drop the  galleries and move prose text that needs sources because of the extent of the content to the article as per MOS:ACCIM   WP:GALLERY -- Moxy 🍁 18:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are NO GALLERIES currently in the article! It would be rather better if there were. Let's use the proper terms! What we have are multiple images; most seem to be fixed at 220px, with only a couple at 440px, both of which you have used in your examples. Personally I much prefer the mini-gallery format.  Note that the top half of the "Android phone" multiple image example you use hasn't been in the article for a year or so. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple image template is consolidated as a gallery Template:Multiple image.-- Moxy 🍁 18:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No it isn't! Or only by you (what does "consolidated as a gallery" mean anyway?). It's most unhelpful to confuse the vocabulary. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Definition of picture gallery = a collection of pictures ..the  template creates a box containing between two and ten images, arranged either vertically or horizontally and with captions for the entire box or per image.. [unsigned]
 * No, that's just YOUR definition. Everybody else thinks a "gallery" uses one of the forms of the "gallery" templates and a "multiple image" uses one of the forms of the "multiple image" templates. Please remember this or confusion will inevitably result! Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You free to ignore the "Gallery" warring on the template as per Template documentation ...but would be nice if accessibility was of concern here as seen above (easy fix). Let you guys work this out with the hope the article looks normal and is readable by all on all platforms not just the one your using.-- Moxy 🍁 19:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * >>>"A Chital (Axis axis) stag attempts to browse in the Nagarhole National Park in a region covered by a moderately dense[k] forest.[187]" was a response to Moxy's admonition of long ago that pictures must illustrate the text; their captions must be cited. In this instance, the picture is not about the stag, but about moderately dense forests in India.  Nagarahole is one region in South India with such a forest.  The "attempt" is meant to show that this is not the kind of browsing (cropping of fresh shoots ) that borders on grazing. It is more like taking a stab, with the body outstretched, at the limits of what is available.  A stag in the rain forest in Assam would have no such need. The governing philosophy on this page has long been: the captions of pictures are breakwaters in a storm of text; they are meant to hold a reader's interest with a relevant vignette if possible. The terser the caption or the more it pushes at the limits of natural language, the less it serves that purpose of holding a reader's interest.
 * The same with the name of the tigress in >>> "India has the majority of the world's wild tigers, nearly 3,000 in 2019,[180] Shown here is Maya, a Bengal tigress of the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra." She's a bit of a celebrity. A reader could Google the name and discover that she had the fourth litter of five in June 2020, countering in her own small way the threat to wild tigers' populations. Of course, that is not to say that verbosity should not be removed and Johnbod's point is well taken.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)