Talk:India/Archive 51

Arbitrary header #1
No, presenting the Rig Veda as recording the dawning of Hinduism in India diff has not been "widely vetted." We've disscussed this before, see Talk:India/Archive 48 and Talk:India/Archive 49; I've left it to the discretion of F&f to correct this; now they're referring, ironically, to WP:OWN to keep this misinformation. The Rig Veda records the religion of the Rig Vedic people; what we call "Hinduism" today only started to take shape, according to to scholars, at least a thousand years later. See Origins of Hinduism and Hindu synthesis. The proper expression would be:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. The fact that Hinduism formed and adopted many of the Vedic traditions, starting around the 5th century BCE, doesn't make it a "1500 BCE dawn" for Hinduism. At this rate, we could say that Islam dawned in 2000 BCE with Abraham... It is fairly basic stuff, rather properly represented in History of Hinduism, Historical Vedic religion etc... I think we should just say "recording the dawn of the Vedic religion" to avoid misunderstandings and confusion. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This had been already discussed on Talk:India/Archive 49 and enough sources were provided about it. I don't see a point in rehashing the discussion by throwing vague handwaves but lack of rebuttal against those sources. There was no organized religion called "Vedic religion" or "vedic tradition" and whatever it was has been treated as "Hinduism". Edit warring won't change this. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this a serious response? Read again, read very carefully, what is said in response to those sources and citations at "Dawn"("rebuttal against those sources"):
 * Dawn: All three sources used in the article refer to "Aryan culture," not to Hinduism. Calling Vedic culture/religion Hinduism is an interpretation of the sources. Vedic religion is not Hinduism. :
 * "... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradictio in terminis since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion – at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism."


 * And from Ludden, quoted at Talk:India/Archive 49:
 * Read also Origins of Hinduism and Hindu synthesis. If you're unwilling to read, or refer to, the full discussion, then there is indeed no "point in rehashing the discussion." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Read also Origins of Hinduism and Hindu synthesis. If you're unwilling to read, or refer to, the full discussion, then there is indeed no "point in rehashing the discussion." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We've been through this before; Joshua Jonathan is on record, per Aman Kumar Goel helpful link, agreeing to "early dawning." He left it thereafter to my judgment. I apologize for not wrapping it up then. So, apologies "Early" or "first" is fine, and people do use it (see below), but not needed. "dawning(s)" (noun) has a specific figurative meaning. " Oxford English Dictionary: 2. figurative. The first gleam or appearance, earliest beginning (of something compared to light). a1631   J. Donne Βιαθανατος (1647) Pref.   A man as..illustrious, in the full glory and Noone of Learning, as others were in the dawning, and Morning. 1697   J. Dryden tr. Virgil Georgics i, in tr. Virgil Wks. 51   In this early Dawning of the Year. View more context for this quotation 1781   E. Gibbon Decline & Fall III. liii. 314   In the ninth century, we trace the first dawnings of the restoration of science. 1843   W. H. Prescott Hist. Conquest Mexico I. i. iv. 92   The dawnings of a literary culture. 1856   B. Brodie Psychol. Inq. (ed. 3) I. v. 198   That principle of intelligence, the dawning of which we observe in the lower animals. The Rg Ved records the dawning of Hinduism&mdash;the first gleam of Hinduism's religious culture, its earliest beginning. If it is not, then are we also to say that animals are not intelligent? (See Brodie's quote from the OED) There is no need to add "early" or "first." I apologize again for not clarifying it then. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  09:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS Please also note: this is the lead. It is a summary written for the layperson.  We cannot send a reader new to the subject stumbling into the vagaries of the Indo-European cultures of Central Asia of the third and fourth millennium BCE.  These are only infirmly comprehended today, even after a century or more of scholarly attention.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * F&f, it's your interpretation. We summarize and present what WP:RS say, also in the lead. Ludden, again: "Texts [Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Artharva] that record Aryan culture." WP:LEAD summarizes the article, and this is what the article says:
 * "Associated" is correct; "recording the dawning of Hinduism" is incorrect. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead was written in 2019 for the TFA appearance for Gandhi's 150th (October 2). The rest of the history section has yet to be revised with the sources used in the lead. I will do it for the upcoming FAR.  Please note "associated with Hinduism" is vague and elicits the question: how are they "associated with Hinduism?" We actually give some information—that the Rg Ved records the "first gleams" (per OED) of the religious culture of Hinduism.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * regarding how are they "associated with Hinduism?, the article itself misses essential information on the ascent of "Hinduism" between 500 BCE and 500 CE. Musings on the OED entry on dawnings are irrelevant here. Please stick to the sources you provided yourself ("Texts that record Aryan culture"), and publications relevant to the history of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've mostly written the lead of Sanskrit. So please don't repeat things that I already know.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This attitude of yours is why I gave up "discussing" with you after the previous discussion on the "dawning of Hinduism"; it's useless. You're not open to discussion. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The ascent of Hinduism belongs to the next sentence, which currently states: "By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within Hinduism,[29] and Buddhism and Jainism had arisen, proclaiming social orders unlinked to heredity." We can certainly change it to "By 400 BCE, Hinduism had begun to exhibit its
 * more commonplace features; stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within it;[29] and Buddhism and Jainism had arisen, proclaiming social orders unlinked to heredity."[30] We are saying in simply comprehensible language that heterodoxy had emerged both within the Vedic culture and without. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * more commonplace features; stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within it;[29] and Buddhism and Jainism had arisen, proclaiming social orders unlinked to heredity."[30] We are saying in simply comprehensible language that heterodoxy had emerged both within the Vedic culture and without. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you stop the endless, irrelevant, and defensive argument, and actually provide us with academic sources explaining precisely that "Hinduism dawned circa 1500 BCE" (despite its well-known inception as a religious synthesis from around 500 BCE only)? Until you can do so, and whatever the rethorics, such a claim has no place in the lead of a major article. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It belongs to the next sentence. See my proposal above.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here you go:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not answering the question... Nobody disputes that Hinduism incorporated the ancient Vedas into its c.500 BCE synthesis. Can you actually provide us with academic sources explaining precisely that "Hinduism dawned circa 1500 BCE"? पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wendy Doniger doesn't say Hinduism incorporates the ancient Vedas; she says, "Hindu texts begin with the Rg Veda." Her chronology of Hinduism begins with the Rg Veda. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's going too far, Fowler, as I expect you know perfectly well! "Dawn of" is just about acceptable as a very vague term, but it is inevitably likely to mislead.  A more precise formulation is now needed, I think, making clear that "circa 1500 BCE" (an early date in itself, that might not stand up to full scrutiny) there were not any people who could reasonably be described as "Hindus" .  That's like starting Christians at 800 BCE. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What is it you don't understand Johnbod? This is the lead. I can't very well let a reader go stumbling into the jumble of gray-zone history.  I have to present something that is DUE.  Here is Britannica's page:  Rigveda, (Sanskrit: “The Knowledge of Verses”) also spelled Ṛgveda, the oldest of the sacred books of Hinduism, composed in an ancient form of Sanskrit about 1500 BCE, in what is now the Punjab region of India and Pakistan. It consists of a collection of 1,028 poems grouped into 10 “circles” (mandalas)."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Relevance? Did I say I didn't understand anything? On the date, see below. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence is not about Hinduism in general. It is about the Indo-Aryan migration whose only evidence is the Rg Ved, a large collection of hymns in archaic Sanskrit many of which are still used in Hindu practice and rituals. The Rg Ved records the first gleams of Hinduism.  That is all the sentence is saying.  User:Pat is miffed that I've been taking down his gray-zone, picture-hanging, pages, so he's getting back at me.  That's all it is.  Vacuous.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What is Gayatri Mantra? Not used in Hinduism? Well, then take down the Hinduism template. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very far cry from being able to claim that "Hinduism dawned circa 1500 BCE"!!! Wendy Doniger's chronology entitled "Hinduism" is clearly not intended as a description of the chronology of Hinduism as a religion, but only as a chronology of the historical events surrounding it: for proof, she does list the creation of the Veda texts, but also lists the death of the Buddha (Hinduism too?), the foundation of Jainism, the Buddhist monuments of Bharhut and Sanchi (Hinduism!), and even the Muslim Early Sufis etc etc... So this general chronology proves absolutely nothing, and does not support your claim at all. And of course, the Rg Veda is indeed the earliest text of the Hindu canon, everybody agrees with that, nothing new. I am surprised you have to rely on such shaky and far-fetched arguments to try to back-up your claim. Again, can you actually provide us with academic sources explaining precisely that "Hinduism dawned circa 1500 BCE", rather than circa 500 BCE as commonly accepted?  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the actual date she gives for the Rig Veda is not "c. 1500 BCE" but  "c. 1500-1000  BCE", a very different matter.  As I recall, the most likely date given for most of it is c. 1200 BCE or later.  Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just lob vague memories. The Rg Ved was composed before the large-scale use of iron ca 1200 BCE or thereabouts. It is contemporaneous with the Mitanni scriptures, also 1500 BCE onward.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * We now have: "By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India". The vague and romantic "unfolding" and "dawning" should be dumped. The sentence says Sanskrit was formed outside India and "diffused into" it, which I think is rather more than we know. "Archaic" appears to be used with a double layer, to describe both the Vedic language and, before the "unfolding", its immigrant forebear.  All too confusing. I'd suggest something along the lines of:
 * "By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, was used in northwest India for the Rigveda hymns, the oldest Indian literature, which later became sacred in Hinduism". Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense Johnbod. The sentence is not about literature.  It is about a cataclysmic migration whose only evidence is the Rg Ved.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What a sentence is "about" comes from what says. The old version was "about" language and the "dawning of Hinduism", not at all about "a cataclysmic migration" - if you want to add one on that, please suggest a draft. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It already does in an idiom an ordinary reader can understand. The Indo-Aryan migration was chiefly a cultural one, though there is DNA evidence for small bands of males migrating into South Asia. Here is the sentence "By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India."  The sentence leaves unaddressed the question of when the Rg Ved was composed; it gives only a lower bound.  By 1200, the archaic language had certainly diffused into South Asia.  The sentence says that it unfolded (i.e. developed further, adapted to the local linguistic landscape further, expanded further, by oral transmission) as the language of the Rg Ved and recorded the dawning of Hinduism in India. By using the present participle "unfolding," but with adverbial meaning, I've left open the question of when precisely this unfolding happened.  Sure I can rephrase it in a dozen different ways, but I have to balance all sorts of factors here, the primary one of which remains: the lead has to be comprehensible and readable  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You guys are seriously wasting my time. You don't have any knowledge, just fumbling in the dark. I will dig up the sources in a few minutes.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler is correct. Most academics like myself do not distinguish between a separate Vedic Religion and Modern Hindu Religion, although they do distinguish between time periods. It is for this reason that Hinduism (along with Judaism) are regarded as the oldest recorded religions in the world. What most scholars state is that Hinduism slowly evolved over time (as did other religious traditions such as Judaism). LearnIndology (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dubious, but you will notice my draft avoided all such questions. I thought you were an engineer. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's Wendy Doniger who actually translated a selection from the Rg Ved dates it to 1500 onward. Here is Michael Witzel, in his article on "Vedas and Upanisads" in Gavin Flood (ed) Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (p 68) "the Vedic texts were orally composed in northern India, at first in the Greater Punjab ... between ca 1500 BCE and 500-400 BCE" So we do have an upper bound there, i.e. 1500.  Btw, all dating in historical linguistics is "ca"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And Wetzel again, same page: "The oldest text, the Rgveda must have been more or less contemporaneous with the Mitanni texts of northern Syria (1450–1350)" Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As regards Michael Witzel, giving even an imprecise single date to the Rgveda is exactly what his life work is NOT about! How you think the first quote supports the old text escapes me. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More Witzel (same article, p 70): The RV text was composed before the introduction and massive use of iron, that is before ca 1200–1000 BCE"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And from the horse's mouth:  The italics are mine.  So what does "the first evidence" or "the seeds are there" mean if not the first dawnings, the first gleams, the first light? Why is it that I end up finding all the sources; everyone else seems content with waving their hands?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's again a very far cry from claiming "Hinduism dawned circa 1500 BCE". Many elements of Vedism ("seeds") were indeed incorporated into Hinduism, that doesn't mean that Hinduism started a millennium earlier than what reliable sources say. As standard on Wikipedia, the onus is on you to find reliable sources to back up this specific claim. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree I would be OK with a sentence on these lines, at least it's factual, not misleading. Many things are possible as long as we don't make Hinduism a millennium older than it really is (without any academic to back it up...). Thank you for the constructive proposal. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More from Jamison and Brereton, The Rigveda (2020) above. This time it is page 1: "The Rgveda is a monumental text with signal significance for both world religion and world literature; yet it is comparatively little known outside a small band of specialists, even among those who study the religious traditions of India. The oldest Sanskrit text, composed probably in the latter half of the second millennium Bce, it stands, at least nominally, as the foundational text of what will later be called Hinduism, and one of its verses, the so-called Gayatri mantra, is part, at least nominally, of the daily practice of those initiated into Vedic learning."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally, Gavin Flood's working definition of "Hinduism:"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS please restore your edit now, but please do not remove mine inadvertently.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2








LearnIndology (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, I made this exact statement last December, but people here don't seem to understand Hinduism. LearnIndology (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:CHERRYPICKING and misquoting:
 * Jeffrey Long, full quote (emphasis mine, note the omitted comma):
 * Hinduism - The history of Hinduism (Encyclopedia Britannica), correct link, fuller quote (emphasis mine):
 * EB, The prehistoric period:
 * Hinduism - not WP:RS
 * Hugh Urban: this is about the Vedas, not about Hinduism as starting at 1500 BCE
 * Bolich et al., Introduction of Religion: what kind of source is this? Specialists on the history of Hinduism?
 * Again, see Origins of Hinduism and Hindu synthesis: "Hinduism" is a synthesis of the Brahmanical ideology with a large number of other local traditions, which took shape after 500 BCE, with the start of the second urbanisation, when local communities became part of trans-regional networks. Brahmanical culture provided the language and conceptual framework for this integration. Arguing that "Hinduism" started at 1500 BCE completely misses this dynamic. Again, the Vedas record the Vedic religion; the Vedic was not Hinduism, but a predecessor of Hinduism. Ludden, for the third time:
 * Jamison and Witzel, for the second time:
 * We summarize what the sources say; and we use the lead to summarize the article. We don't use the lead, and certainly not in a featured article, to give a personal interpretation, not backed by the sources, and not treated in the article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Aman Kumar Goel, regarding The existing text was fine and is supported by scholarly sources. CNN dates Hinduism to 2300 BCE. I don't need to get started with sources. diff. Again, are you serious? The text is not supported by the sources; CNN is not WP:RS for this; and yes, you do need to get started with sources. And note that CNN's Hinduism Fast Facts states 2300-1500 BC - A very developed civilization dwells in the Indus Valley with its own religion and culture, and is believed to be the beginnings of Hinduism. That's not what F&f is arguing here, nor what the discussion here is about. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am replying to your original post here which absolutely misrepresents the association of Vedic period with Hinduism and does not address what vast majority of scholarly sources say. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jamison and Witzel, for the second time:
 * We summarize what the sources say; and we use the lead to summarize the article. We don't use the lead, and certainly not in a featured article, to give a personal interpretation, not backed by the sources, and not treated in the article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Aman Kumar Goel, regarding The existing text was fine and is supported by scholarly sources. CNN dates Hinduism to 2300 BCE. I don't need to get started with sources. diff. Again, are you serious? The text is not supported by the sources; CNN is not WP:RS for this; and yes, you do need to get started with sources. And note that CNN's Hinduism Fast Facts states 2300-1500 BC - A very developed civilization dwells in the Indus Valley with its own religion and culture, and is believed to be the beginnings of Hinduism. That's not what F&f is arguing here, nor what the discussion here is about. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am replying to your original post here which absolutely misrepresents the association of Vedic period with Hinduism and does not address what vast majority of scholarly sources say. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am replying to your original post here which absolutely misrepresents the association of Vedic period with Hinduism and does not address what vast majority of scholarly sources say. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly a matter of confusing history, origins and formative influences with the actual emergence of a religious mouvement. You could also argue that the "history of Christianity" or "the origins of Christianity" go back to the time of Abraham (circa 2000 BCE), and that the Old Testament had a major formative influence on Christianity, but, guess what, Christianity as a religion only starts with Jesus Christ two thousand years later. Nobody would dare to say that "Christianity dawned in 2000 BCE". Same thing for Islam. Hinduism as we know it clearly has roots in the Historical Vedic religion, it even uses books such as the Rig Veda which were written around 1200 BCE, but Hinduism as a religion only started to form ("dawned") circa 500 BCE, after the Vedic period (1500-500 BCE) (cf. the quote by Jamison and Witzel above "Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion – at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism."). पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC) पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Alf Hiltebeitel (Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa, "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture, p.12, Routledge), the "Hindu synthesis" follows chronologically Vedism and Brahmanism, and started from around 500 BCE:
 * The existing text was fine and is supported by scholarly sources. CNN dates Hinduism to 2300 BCE. I don't need to get started with sources. Overall, facts contradict your personal views. You keep bringing up Christianity despite it has nothing to do with this subject, neither it has any support in scholarly sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Aman, you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't understand the discussion. The sources do not support the text. If you think they do, explain how, instead of making unsupported statements: where do those sources, which refer to "Aryan culture," say that this Aryan culture was the "dawning of Hinduism"? Where? Pagenumber and quote. And please leave out "sources" like CNN; everybody here knows that we don't use "sources" like that. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua, you are just expanding my source, it doesn't change the meaning. Vedism is the oldest stratum of Hinduism, not a separate religion as you believe. I don't understand why there is an article called Historical Vedic religion. The title is more like a sentence than an word, and I find no source calling it as Historical Vedic religion. The suitable term should be Vedism, with lead something like this: what do you think? LearnIndology (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does change the meaning (emphasis mine): "the next phase of [...] the history of Hinduism, begins with the arrival in India of small waves of migrants from Central Asia." Jeffrey Long starts his historical overview with the arrival of modern humans in India, an approach ridiculized below by F&f. Do you even bother to read your sources, or do you blindly pick-out what seems to fit your point of view? See also EB, stating "Early Hinduism (2nd century bce–4th century ce)." Regarding Vedism, sources, please, not personal opinions and interpretations. We've already seen enough of that. And yes, it was a separate religion, and no, it may not be the oldest layer, though the term "layer" itself is deeply problematic, and should be avoided. I don't understand that you don't understand the difference between the Vedic religion, the subsequent Brahmanical religion, and the synthesis that Hinduism is, even after having it spelled-out, and being presented with texts that explain how Hinduism emerged, after the Vedic period. Anyway, this article, on India, should contain information about the emergence of Hinduism, after the Vedic period, before even mentioning anything like "dawning" in the lead. Basic Wiki-policies: WP:LEAD summarizes the article; in the article we present the relevant points of view from WP:RS; if there are various relevant points of view on a topic, we present those various points of views. That is, how Hinduism emerged as a synthesis of various religions between ca. 500 BCE and 300 CE, and why this synthesis emerged; why some authors 'associate the beginnings of Hinduism with the coming of the Aryans', and why others don't; and why some authors go even further back in time, to the IVC. And we are aware of certain tendencies to put the origins of Hinduism as far back in time as possible, and avoid that trap. After we've done that, we can give a summary in the lead. An appropritae addition in the article would be:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, JJ, that sentence is lost in the weeds, or should I say in the reeds; we need to be center stream. In other words, your sentence is so lost in little details that a reader is unable to figure out what is important.  A common uninformed reader will stop reading at this point.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree to Joshua Jonathan's proposal. It is very factual, well written, and well referenced, and brings much-needed clarity to this confused area. We need to put an end to the approximations and the misleading statements. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In a sense what you are saying is true, but liable to get more opposition from opposers. I've added a more cautious and also more careful statement of Hinduism's Vedic origins in my revision of the RfC below.  I don't think their version is going anywhere.  You, Aman Kumar Goel and I have already supported the previous version.  But regardless, they soldier on.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Roots of Hinduism
If someone wants to make an argument about the ultimate "roots" of Hinduism, there is quite a lot of reliable literature actually starting the origins of Hinduism with the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1700 BCE), with its Shiva Pashupati figurines etc... ("There are good reasons to suspect that a largely unknown quantity, the religion of the peoples of the Indus Valley, is an important source for determining the roots of Hinduism" in Alf Hiltebeitel Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa, "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture, p.3, Routledge), as also described in our article History of Hinduism. This of course predates by far the Aryan "cataclysmic migration whose only evidence is the Rg Ved". In this sense too, it is quite problematic to state that Hinduism "dawned" with the invasion of the Aryans in 1200 BCE only, and it almost sounds like a case of cultural misappropriation. The Rig Veda essentially records the state of the Vedic religion of the Aryans around that date, that's all. After Vedism and Brahmanism waned, the Hindu synthesis finally appeared circa 500 BCE, combining the local belief systems with Vedism (A period of consolidation, sometimes identified as one of "Hindu synthesis," "Brahmanic synthesis," or "orthodox synthesis," takes place between the time of the late Vedic Upanisads (c. 500 BCE) and the period of Gupta imperial ascendency (c.320-467 CE). in Alf Hiltebeitel Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa, "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture, p.12, Routledge). Overall, the chronology is: The current sentence in the introduction, by affirming the "dawn of Hinduism" in 1200 BCE under the Indo-European-speaking Arian invaders, not only denies the probable antiquity of the roots of Hinduism to the IVC, and gives all credit to the Aryans for the birth of Hinduism, but also denies the historical reality of the "Hindu synthesis", another Indian phenomenon, which finally gave rise to Hinduism as we know it from around 500 BCE. For these two reasons, the sentence in the lead should be amended and keep itself to undisputed historical facts only: "By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Vedism in India."... or not even mention Vedism at all. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * c. 3300–1700 BCE: possible earliest "roots" of Hinduism in the Indus Valley Civilization
 * c. 1500-500 BCE: Aryan-sponsored Vedism and Brahmanism
 * c. 500 BCE: Hindu synthesis, "Hinduism"


 * Please don't keep repeating "dawn" obsessively. The word is "dawning," which has a slightly different meaning.  The rest of your post is nonsense, in keeping with your other gray-zone editing on WP. No dice.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, to your commendable gray zone musings, you may consider adding the neolithic incantations uttered in Mehrgarh when the proto-dentist brought out his bow drill, and adorning this page with five pictures of a bow drill, four of the drill and one of the bow, giving the lie in the process to any Indo-Aryan claim that they brought the bow, and not just the quiver, the chariot and domesticated horse into the subcontinent. (Here is a citation) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Going out further on the western limb of the subcontinent—into the Iranian tablelands and beyond—you might want to cite prayers in Elamite and Proto-Elamite, where I see, you have already generously contributed your pictures; can't see any earthly objection to further adorning this page with cuneiform tablet prayers. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You may also want to give a nod to the earlier migrations, and consider adding chants in the Munda language, which Witzel somewhere considered (per Colin Masica elsewhere) to be among the languages that decisively gave Vedic Sanskrit's chants their characteristic retroflex flavor. In general, you may want to add the prayers of India's Adivasi people, the ones malevolently suppressed by the Indo-Aryans migrants or benignly disregarded by the Dravidian-Elamite migrants into India. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your partner in the gray zone, Johnbod, has already contributed some voluptuous yakshis to represent Buddhist art, the self-same Buddhism of awakening, renunciation, and monasticism. But as the yakshis were really guardians of India pre-Aryan, pre-Dravidian cultic traditions, I don't see any further earthly reason that these yakshis cut, rotated, and recombined, cannot be added in the Ancient India Section. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally, what about the roots of Hinduism in our common human homeland? Would not some prayers in click language be appropriate here? The possibilities are endless; the opportunities for cutting, pasting, and hanging pictures of vocal cords plentiful.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that Witzel was particularly rigorous in his last incarnation of would-be geophysicist and Eurasian-myth specialist, but he does say in his earlier more rigorous avatara in the selfsame source of arbitrary break 1 (p. 91): "a Vedic connection of the so-called Siva Pasupati found on some Harappa seals (D. Srinivasan 1984) cannot be established; this mythological concept is due, rather, to common Eurasian ideas of the “Lord of the Animals” who is already worshipped by many Neolithic hunting societies. Similarly, the remnants of the so-called fire rituals at Kalibangan (B. B. Lal 1997) involve clearly non-Vedic offerings of animal bones; they (and the so-called “linga steles,” actually supports for cooking pots) may represent nothing but a community kitchen of the Indus Civilization (R. S. Sharma 1995: 47)." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please also don't go crying wolf to administrators. There is nothing in your post that merits a serious reply; still, I've given you a semi-serious one.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Your incivility only shows that we are getting closer to the issue at hand: you are holding desperately to a sentence claiming "the dawning of Hinduism in India" in 1200 BCE under the Aryans, without being able to provide a single source to that effect. Hinduism (the "Hindu synthesis") actually only started to develop nearly a millennium later circa 500 BCE, and its "roots" probably go way before the Aryan invasions anyway. Rants do not replace reliable sources. Your fanciful, unsourced, claim about "the dawning of Hinduism in 1200 BCE", has to go. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "has to go" sounds like your xenophobic insistence on having an Indian-looking man model a Kurta on this page. Deep deep shame.  I can dig up that vile post.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, I am anything but xenophobic. Don't you remember that, following my complaint, Admins had to remove your self-promotional Kurta photograph in the end? Ironically, most contributors who have been around long enough know for a fact that if we had to dig up all your infamous anti-Hindu/pro-Muslim/pro-British posts (not to mention all the glaringly incivil ones), this Talk Page wouldn't be long enough (and, to go back to the issue at hand, your insistence to falsely attribute the "dawning" of Hinduism to the Aryan invaders sounds a lot like the same general narrative). पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * May I request again not to keep pinging me? It hurts my ears. Again: stop pinging me.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Enough

 * Please start an RFC if you can't agree among yourselves. But, please stop the edit-warring. Respectfully, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What is an RfC going to do on such a page? A Featured Article on Wikipedia is a democracy of sources, not of voting editors.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Every article is a democracy of participating editors. FA process has editors voting, doesn't it? Just as the FA review only counts the opinion of the informed and well-argued, so too does an RFC (in theory, at least). It's the best we have, regardless. The discussion isn't going anywhere, and you can only go back and forth so many times before the article gets admin-protected (that's assuming they don't opt for blocking editors instead). How about you make sure you are one of the first to comment, so everyone will read your concerns before they decide whether to weigh in? You !vote for your choice making a complete but succinct case for your preferred option. Then, tell the editors to keep in mind that this is an FA, and that the lead here is a summary of a summary of a summary... And, to make sure the option they go for doesn't mess up the flow/level of detail/accuracy of the article. And, whatever other concerns you have. Then, you can ask that only a very experienced administrator close it. You can inform editors who've participated in FA reviews past, indeed any discussions about improving this article, that their input could help here (provided you make sure not to violate WP:CANVASS). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the level-headedness and balance of your comment. Indeed "Every article is a democracy of participating editors". पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I make sure I'll be the first to comment? I go to sleep for a few hours after receiving my Covid vaccine yesterday, and upon waking up find that there is a feeding frenzy below. The RfC is not neutrally worded. The admins are not around for until the end of this month so all the editors with gripes are having a go. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

More sources
I've added more sources to the sentence being disputed in this edit. I have not changed the wording, which in my judgment is the best one, balancing both scholarship and readability. The sentence is: "By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India."

The cited authors are among the best around today. They are: The citations with generous quotes added are:
 * John J. Lowe, is the Associate Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Oxford, and the author of Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit, OUP, 2015
 * Michael Witzel is the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard and the author of many works on archaic Sanskrit
 * Wendy Doniger is the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of History of Religions at the University of Chicago.  A translator of many Sanskirt selections, including the Rg Veda, she was the past president of the Association of Asian Studies.
 * Gavin Flood is the Professor of Hindu Studies and Comparative Religion at Oxford University and the author and editor of many books on Hinduism
 * Stephanie W. Jamison is a Distinguished Professor of Asian Religions and Indo-Iranian Literature at UCLA; she is the translator the the Rg Veda, Oxford University Press, 2020
 * Joel Brereton, is a Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Texas at Austin; he is the co-translater of the Rg Veda along with Stephanie Jamison.
 * Axel Michaels is a Professor of Classical Indology and Religious Studies at Heidelberg University;
 * Patrick Olivelle is a Professor of Sanskrit and Indian Religions in the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas, Austin, and the translated of many works in Sanskrit, including the Oxford World Classics, Upanishads
 * Tim Dyson is a historical demographer of South Asia, an Emeritus Professor of Population Studies at the London School of Economics, and the author of A Population History of India, Oxford University Press, 2018
 * Peter Robb is the Emeritus Professor of South Asian history at the School of Oriental and African Studies, former chair of the department, and author of History of India, Macmillan, 2011
 * David Ludden is a Professor of History at New York University, and the author of India and South Asia Oxford: One World 2013, and An Agrarian History of South Asia, Cambridge University Press, 1999. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the late Frits Staal was the department founder and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and South/Southeast Asian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

(a), (c)  (d)  (this is a guide, published in 2020; the actual translation was a behemoth three-volume set of 1,726 pages published in 2014 by OUP); (e); (f) ; (g)  Quote: "Although the collapse of the Indus valley civilization is no longer believed to have been due to an ‘Aryan invasion’ it is widely thought that, at roughly the same time, or perhaps a few centuries later, new Indo-Aryan-speaking people and influences began to enter the subcontinent from the north-west. Detailed evidence is lacking. Nevertheless, a predecessor of the language that would eventually be called Sanskrit was probably introduced into the north-west sometime between 3,900 and 3,000 years ago. This language was related to one then spoken in eastern Iran; and both of these languages belonged to the Indo-European language family. ... It seems likely that various small-scale migrations were involved in the gradual introduction of the predecessor language and associated cultural characteristics. However, there may not have been a tight relationship between movements of people on the one hand, and changes in language and culture on the other. Moreover, the process whereby a dynamic new force gradually arose—a people with a distinct ideology who eventually seem to have referred to themselves as ‘Arya’—was certainly two-way. That is, it involved a blending of new features which came from outside with other features—probably including some surviving Harappan influences—that were already present. Anyhow, it would be quite a few centuries before Sanskrit was written down. And the hymns and stories of the Arya people—especially the Vedas and the later Mahabharata and Ramayana epics—are poor guides as to historical events. Of course, the emerging Arya were to have a huge impact on the history of the subcontinent. Nevertheless, little is known about their early presence."; (h) (i)  (j).

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to preserve the "disputed" tag and also support removing any "quote=" parameters added here because they are not needed after this post above. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Arya Samaj introduced the idea that the Vedas are the origin and well of everything Hindu; see here for just one source about this (and the relation with "patrotism," that is, nationalism). And see here for an example of an outspoken rejection of this idea within the Saivist tradition. The history of Hinduism is not simple and straightforward.
 * The quotes above say that 'the Vedas record Aryan culture', and are "the earliest evidence for what will become Hinduism." In case of doubt, c.q. dispute, stick as close as possible to the sources. And use the lead for a summary of the summary of these sources in the article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Michaels (2004, p. 38):
 * Olivelle (1998), Upanisads, p. xxiii:
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think this is all very clear and well documented. The academic consensus is that Hinduism (the "Hindu synthesis") started around 500 BCE, and that it is quite different from the Vedic religion that preceeded it. Claiming "the dawning of Hinduism circa 1200 BCE" is therefore highly misleading, and not supported precisely at this point by a single source. There is no denying the existence of formative influences going back possibly as far as the Indus Valley Civilization, but the emergence of Hinduism as a religion is a comparatively late phenomenon, roughly coeveal with the rise of the Sramanic religions (Buddhism etc..). पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Before the dawn, there was darkness. The Rigveda brought light into the darkness-filled lives of the Indians. That feels like how a Christian missionary might view Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are saying that the sentence "the dawning of Hinduism circa 1200 BCE" does insinuate that India was only miserable darkness before the Aryan invasions... That's a good point. These sectarian innuendos are getting tiresome... Be carefull "seeds", "seeding" is another innuendo-filled vocabulary. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Before the dawn, there was darkness. The Rigveda brought light into the darkness-filled lives of the Indians. That feels like how a Christian missionary might view Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are saying that the sentence "the dawning of Hinduism circa 1200 BCE" does insinuate that India was only miserable darkness before the Aryan invasions... That's a good point. These sectarian innuendos are getting tiresome... Be carefull "seeds", "seeding" is another innuendo-filled vocabulary. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional lead issues
"Dawning of Hinduism" is not the only issue with the current paragraph. There are other serious issues with the lead, as apparent from the concerns raised by.


 * "By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within Hinduism,[30] and Buddhism and Jainism had arisen, proclaiming social orders unlinked to heredity.": This is misleading and the cited source does not support the wording.
 * "Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity,[33] but also marked by the declining status of women,[34] and the incorporation of untouchability into an organised system of belief.": There are WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR problems with this. The sources do not lend the WP:UNDUE weight to these events when they are summarizing "India" but instead they are particularly discussing the subjects (untouchability, women status).

In the next paragraph:


 * "British Crown rule began in 1858. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly,[45] but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root." This is valid, but British rule was more complicated and debated than what the sentence implies. For example, there's the article "Timeline of major famines in India during British rule," which could be alluded to in the intro to take into account the opposing views on British colonialism.

These problems should be corrected. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Where are all the admins?
From the days of, this article has always had administrators watching and keeping it from sliding into POV-promotion&mdash;the bane of this page&mdash;or its talk page from degenerating into an intimidating confusion of purported "sources." Lately, though no administrator has been around. Editors well-known for their UNDUE edits are having a field day. A case in point is the most recent RfC, which should not have been allowed to come this far without administrator input and some supervision. See RegentsPark's excellent supervision of this discussion. Where are all the admins? Pinging all the admins who have paid some attention in the past to India-related page; I'm especially pinning my hopes on (last edit 31 March 2021) and  (last edit 8 April 2021); others such as  (who is not around; he made his last edit in January 2021),  (last edit December 2020),   (last edit 22 January 2021), I am nevertheless pinging. Also pinging admins such as who watched the last prepping for the WP:TFA appearance for Gandhi's 150th anniversary on October 2021. Also, pinging others such as, , who have now and then looked in on India-related pages. Something needs to be done. The preparation for the upcoming FAR  has been thrown to dogs and editors with shall we say unconventional views, who have never successfully been able to make a single edit to this page, are bickering about inconsequentials. It feels like the sorry state this page was in when I arrived on WP in 2006. The straw that broke my camel's back was an edit that I have just reverted. Please help! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * True, I'm impatient and blunt, but I am also the content creator here; I have been since 2006. I need some help here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pinging,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, this admin is having a beer and cooking dinner. I will be happy to help--but you can't really expect me to understand what all the issues are and just jump in. I don't know what the problems are but let me tell you this: if there are irredeemable POV edits, revert them, and if they can be written up as vandalism, write them up and report them. There are things to do that might take some of the pressure off of the big things--maybe. I don't know, because I rarely look at this article, and it's huge. Like I said, I'll be happy to help, but calling on the admins is always going to have to involve pointing to specific matters that admins can adjudicate: edit warring, unexplained content removal, personal attacks, disruption, etc. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying.  I'll write something more precise by tomorrow morning.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler, admins can't really help with content, or we're no longer admins at the article, so admins can't really 'watch an article and keep it from sliding into POV-promotion'. Only editors can do that. RegentsPark, once they'd voiced an opinion in that RfC, was no longer an admin for this article or its talk. They were an editor, and any editor can provide necessary leadership in an RfC.
 * What admins can do is help with behavior. Go through the article and revert the non-neutral content with an edit summary that directs anyone who disagrees to the talk page. If another editor reverts you without discussion, open a talk section yourself about the removal with a ping to the other editor, then remove it again with an edit summary directing the other editor to the talk section. At that point the onus is on them to support including the content, and reversion without discussion or attempts to push POV can be dealt with as a behavior issues by admins.
 * I don't have the patience or time to try to understand the above RfC, so if there's a problem with it please be very specific about what that problem is that needs an admin to deal with. —valereee (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. The participants to this RfC are all well-intentioned and established contributors, mostly long-timers who are fairly knowledgeable of Indian history and culture. They only wish to resolve a content dispute and a breakdown in discussions over a point regarding the chronology and the evolution of ancient religions in India. The discussion so far has been generally civil and scholarly. We expect more users to participate in the discussion so as to reach a consensus. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. As you must have seen, Drmies has already offered to help out and I shall soon be preparing something for him.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw Drmies had also responded. When you ping ten admins it's quite likely you'll get more than a single response. :D —valereee (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a hurried and somewhat brusque reply to you above. Apologies. I have reread your post a few times and appreciate the knowledgeable advice you have given.  I will be using it in the more specific post for Drmies I shall soon prepare.  I pinged many because quite a few seem to be away from WP and I'm feeling both overwhelmed and a little helpless  :)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! Like Drmies I'm busy IRL right now but as I've never edited this article or its talk, I'll be happy to help. —valereee (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Valereee and Drmies. RL caught up with me too today, but seeing that all is quiet here, I figured I'll let it be quiet some more.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of Africa migration to India
In my last India page edit summary I requested you to not edit the page directly but discuss your edits on the talk page. I supplied the link WP:OWN in my edit summary. For Featured articles, it recommends discussing changes on the talk page first. Why are you consistently refusing to do this? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The first time you made an Out-of-Africa-related edit, it was in the lead. You added "through Western Asia," which is incorrect. Now you have changed the text in the Ancient India section to: "Modern humans, following their migrations from Africa along the coastal areas of Western Asia, reached the Indian subcontinent no later than 55,000 years ago"  The coastal areas of Western Asia include the Mediterranean and the Caspian see.  Why is the migration route important?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Again WP:OWN. I'll keep this discussion for another RfC. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, please revert your edit; it supplies incorrect information. The " coastal areas of Western Asia" include its Mediterranean, Black Sea and Caspian sea shores. There is no consensus for mentioning the migration routes anyway, as there were waves of migration.  You made a bold edit in disregard of WP:OWN, I reverted it for the reason that it was not only incorrect, but also without consensus; per WP:BRD you should have discussed it first, not reverted again.  I request again that you self-revert.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing neither a consensus in favor of mentioning migration routes in the lead, nor a consensus to use "coastal areas of Western Asia" as a description of them. Pending such consensus, please self-revert. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN clearly says that Featured articles... are open for editing like any other, so you are falsely claiming "a bold edit in disregard of WP:OWN". "Bold edits" are perfectly allowed in any article, including on Featured articles. This is not in itself a valid reason for reverting. Please read the rules again.
 * The edit summary for your revert says "Please do not edit this page directly, especially not in any significant fashion." : well, that is an infringment of WP:OWN and WP:OWN, and a denial of the freedom to edit articles on Wikipedia. Anybody has the right to edit a page directly, including a Featured article. It is not a valid reason for revert. In this case, I am well-founded to restore the content.
 * An edit never requires consensus beforehand, contrary to what you claim as the basis of your revert ("...but also without consensus"). Demanding that any edit should be validated (...by you of course) beforehand, and affirming that it will be reverted if not, is completely WP:OWN. And we all know that you basically always stonewall any discussion for change anyway (just look at the above marathon discussion and RfC about your false claim that "Hinduism dawned circa 1200 BCE", something which would have been resolved in 5 minutes anywhere else).
 * I do believe my edit is an improvement compared to the clumsy and problematic sentence in place, which I will make the object of an RfC when the current RfC is finished. Reverting the edit of an established user just because you think it is incorrect is quite inappropriate: try to improve on it. Wikipedians just don't systematically mass revert the edits of an established user when they find it defective, they actually try to make it better.
 * Keep in mind you've basically reverted all my edits on this page during the last 3 years, and you are effectively blocking me from contributing to this page, even boasting about your achievement ("...editors with shall we say unconventional views, who have never successfully been able to make a single edit to this page" ). That's abosolute WP:OWN, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.
 * Please keep in mind that you have already reverted on the India page 4 times today (4RR), so your revert of my post (the 4th today) was illegal in the first place. You are already up for a 4RR block for your actions today, and I am only being generous in not filing it.
 * I would appreciate your evaluation in view of the above. There is a major WP:OWN on this page, and I believe administrative action should be taken. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , any content that is disputed requires consensus, and that is particularly true on an article that has received thorough peer review, such as this one or any other FA. No portion of your lengthy post here justifies your edit on the substance. F&F is not in breach of 3RR on this page: consecutive edits count as a single revert. I have asked F&F to moderate his language before, but in this case, it's your behavior that's questionable; when challenged on the content, you have responded with a lengthy and tangential post about your feud with F&F. Please self-revert the content about migration routes, and justify it here on the merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: RESTORATION OF CONTENT Please note F&f did not challenge me on the content until after I restored the sentence (20 minutes later actually), so my content was not "disputed" at the time I restored the sentence. His only ground for reverting me in the first place had been "Please do not edit this page directly, especially not in any significant fashion.", which is not a valid reason for revert on any article, including a Featured article, and is WP:OWN. I would like to reserve the discussion on content to another RfC, in order not to pollute the above RfC. As explained above, there is a major WP:OWN problem on this page, and I believe administrative action should be taken. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: WP:OWN & AFRICA 1) I take good note that consecutive partial reverts of the same edit only count for one revert. Thank you. I checked the edits, and they are actually reverts of the contributions of different users, except for one edit that looks like a revert but is just a modification of the page, so it's actually a 3RR. Please note that Fowler&fowler received a warning at ANI only 5 days ago for edit warring on this page . 2) Fowler&fowler's systematic reverts of the contributions of others have a pattern: it's always "revert first, stonewall later", in fundamental contravention of the rule that Featured articles... are open for editing like any other per WP:OWN. In the meantime, he himself edits the article at will, effectively using the article India as his very own "private garden", and falsely claiming consensus when challenged ... And if discussion there is, it is never ending as above. This level of ownership is not seen on any other Wikipedia page. Fowler&fowler himself boasts that he "takes responsibility" for articles such as this India article, that he has "been managing India for 13 years" (sic!!!). If this kind of pattern is not WP:OWN and contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, I don't know what is... 3) The ownership and impunity favour content issues: F&f's views of Hindus and their culture are well-known, and more or less subtil sectarian innuendos abound in the article:
 * The current RfC (above) is one case, challenging a claim which essentialy denies Hindus the creation of Hinduism circa 500 BCE, instead attributing it to the invading Aryans circa 1200 BCE.
 * And the issue at hand... There is no denying our common African heritage, but the intentionally blunt shortcut "Indians arrived from Africa" or "Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa" seems to be only meant to hurt Indian sensitivities the author is all too aware of (cf "Indians... their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid)" ), metaphorically denying millennias of migrations and evolution across a continent. This kind of blunt simplification is actually clumsy and unscholarly and only meant to hurt sensitivities, as many contributors have repeated on this page. I am afraid this is actually a racist way of denying Indians their own racial identity. Who would accept in a scholarly encyclopedia the blunt shortcut that modern humans arrived in Sweden from Africa 50,000 years ago, overlooking everything that happened in between, as if they had taken the ferry?
 * The selection of images in this article that mainly show a backward India is yet another issue, an issue that has also been stonewalled by F&f for 8 months now, despite early promisses of a speedy review... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your lengthy and repetitive posts are becoming a problem. I will keep my reply brief, because I have no intention of wikilawyering with you. 1) Disputed edits require consensus, period. I don't especially care how or when the content you want to insert was challenged, it's patently obvious there's no consensus for it. 2) Your interpretation of 3RR is utterly novel, and one no admin would support. Feel free to ping other admins here if you think I'm mistaken. 3) If you think stating that anatomically modern humans arrived in India from Africa is racist, then you need to seriously recalibrate your approach. 4) If you think migration routes are worth mentioning, then discuss that here, without kilobytes of personal commentary, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Please note that I am only proposing that the following sentence: "By 55,000 years ago, the first modern humans, or Homo sapiens, had arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa, where they had earlier evolved." should be changed to something like: Modern humans, following their migrations from Africa along the coastal areas of Western Asia, reached the Indian subcontinent no later than 55,000 years ago. This is in order to evoke, however faintly, the millennias of migrations and evolution across a continent before modern humans actually reached the Indian Subcontinent. These migrations have nothing of the "immediacy" ("arrived from") that the current sentence suggests. Many users have complained about this sentence already. Of course, all modern humans derive from African ancestors, I am not denying that at all. But making the shortcut suggestion that "Indians=blacks" is of course unscientific, and making fun of the reaction of Indians to such a claim ("God forbid!" ) is misplaced. We could also say that "Europeans=blacks" or "Japanese=blacks", but that would be unscholarly and unsourced. We all derive from Africans, or at least reached our respective continents after a process, that's semantically different from just "arriving", and I think the current sentence should avoid dismissing that. I'll raise the discussion on this page when we are through with the RfC above. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indias=blacks is perfectly fine. It didn't take "millennia" for them to reach India. Perhaps only a few centuries. That is so all the way up to Australia. None of the places they went to had the cold climate needed to produce pointy noses that the Central Eurasians later developed and contributed to humanity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As of today, user:Pat has been away from WP for ten days. I have been skimming this and other sections for the purpose of requesting that they be closed and I couldn't help but notice your remarks above.   "Pointy noses," whatever they are, have little connection with the prevailing climate.  Native Siberians and Alaskan Inuits, who have lived for tens of thousands of years in temperatures far colder than in most parts of Europe, do not necessarily have long and thin noses, whereas many Ethiopians (not far from the Rift valley of our common origin) do.  Although skin color may well have been a limited adaptation among humans in colder climes, there is little evidence that facial features are.  Those have to do with random mutations, the founder effect, and genetic drift among small bands of migrating humans. After all, the European wolf does not have a more pointy snout than the wolf of the grasslands of India; if anything, these two in France, both black and white, have more rounded features.  (Think also of the St Bernard and the Saluki.)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think they need closing, as there isn't any clear resolution as such. I think some smaller discussions that have been fully resolved can be archived, such as the one on caste, some edit requests, and the ones about editor conduct which are as good in the archives as here. I am not sure why the bot is not archiving from this page anymore, but I noticed that is very long, very old, and very ripe for archival, unless something is likely to still come out of it. That one, we could archive right now, and the page would be much lighter. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not fair to quote me out-of-context. I had made that comment on the Talk:Kamala Harris page where I was advocating that she be described as "African American" and "South Asian American" (descriptors that have held and now used by the media, even by politicians).  I forget the context, but a minuscule minority of editors had been advocating that she be described as Jamaican American and Indian American instead.  It is to them I was addressing that post.  As her sister Maya Harris has repeatedly said, both sisters identify as African American, not because of their father's Jamaican heritage but because of the African-American studies pioneers among which they grew up in Oakland and Berkeley in the early 1960s.  These pioneers who were their mother's dear friends and neighbors ran a day-care where they went, and so forth. Race as I've repeatedly stressed on the Talk:KH page is a social construct, not genetic. What I'd said precisely was this: "If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid)." meaning that it is the kind of racism that makes some Indians reject blacks as inferior and therefore the Other.  (I was thinking more about incidents of African students being spontaneously attacked in parts of India.)  I'm amazed that user:Pat has pulled that diff out of a hat.  Whose hat is that as user:Pat was not a part of that discussion? The reason that the Out-of-Africa sentence was added to the India page was that by the late 2010s when the the article made its TFA appearance, this prehistory had become a part of textbook histories, most specifically Tim Dyson's A population history of India and Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India. I waited 13 years after the initial Y-chromosome studies announcement(s) because nothing appears in (most non-topical sections of) the India page unless it is a part of tertiary sources (e.g. textbooks) and thus WP:DUE.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * However you try to spin it, equating Indians with Africans or suggesting so  is scientifically misleading. Making sarcastic fun of Indians who reject this notion  is uncalled for and insensitive. Don't worry, we'll have plenty of time in an RfC or the next RFA to discuss this with other contributors.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean FAR. Regardless, long before that, I will be requesting at WP:AN that you be page banned from the India page for disruption and holding up any progress on the page. Please don't say you were not warned.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS I was the primary discussant at Talk:Kamala Harris (see here). I said hundreds of things there spending thousands of words, some in a straightforward manner, some tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, or in satire, but I was never racist. My concern is the India page, which you have continued to disrupt by throwing anything you can find at it, things you have misunderstood, or have expressed perfunctorily in out-of-context diffs.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like more WP:OWN... defending your own preferred content at all cost. We were only having an RfC and content discussions, that's not "disruption and holding up any progress on the page", quite the contrary, we are promoting progress here. But you have already stonewalled any change, and expressed your opposition to discussion above "What is an RfC going to do on such a page? A Featured Article on Wikipedia is a democracy of sources, not of voting editors.", so it's no surpise you would be glad to derail it, and try to mute the opposition. You are the one who brought pages of unrelated charges and accusation here ("allegations...", "xenophobia..."), and pinged dozens of administrators to create more drama ("Where are all the admins?"), so you are actually the one attempting to block the progress of regular content discussions... I'm afraid quite a few people are familiar with your continuous civility, POV and OWN issues at AN, including all your anti-Hindu pronouncements, so that might be quite interesting actually. Have a good day, Fowler&fowler. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You are repeatedly quoting a comment F&F made about the discomfort Indians have with being equated with black people. That comment was made at Talk:Kamala Harris, not here, and not in the context of this discussion. Repeatedly bringing it up does you no credit at all. The lead of this article states that "Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago". It makes no nonsensical statements about racial equivalence. Those interpretations are entirely your own; and any offence you have taken at that interpretation is both quite problematic and entirely your own problem. Until this discussion, I was quite certain that both you and F&F could make constructive contributions here, but this is making me seriously doubt that., you rightly expressed concern below that the "real Indian" problem was rather old; have you seen this discussion, however? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, the stuff that पाटलिपुत्र brings into this discussion is irrelevant and it looks like stonewalling to me. And I agree that contentious edits should be discussed. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * पाटलिपुत्र is on Wikibreak as of 14:56, 13 April 2021. See very bottom here. I wish him the best.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Are false allegations acceptable on this pages, repeatedly so?

 * 1) has repeatedly made allegations on this page that are belied by the settled facts.  The most flagrant of these is that I have waged "a 14-year-long and recurrent campaign to denigrate and deprecate the Indian people, and especially Hindus and their history."  In support of his claims he has repeatedly brought up a talk page diff:   .  He made this claim again  in the RfC above at 17:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I pinged him at 14:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC), querying: "Can you please explain, how you have arrived at this assessment of me?
 * 3) He replied at 15:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC) by not answering the question but enlarging his accusations to incivility and embellishing them with diffs from other pages. "Your diffs speak for themselves Fowler&fowler, and these are but a very very small number of examples. This is unwarranted battleground mentality. Not to mention your innumerable instances of incivil behaviour towards your fellow contributors."
 * 4) I pinged him again at 17:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC) and pressed, " You have made a serious allegation. Are you aware that the first diff you have supplied was in response to a now indeffed user Highpeaks35.  I was using "Hindu garbage" in the sense of " 'Hindu' garbage" in reference to his gratuious use of "Hindu" in the picture captions and in the themes of the pictures. "Hindu" was interpreted as a descriptor in the captions not as a reference to Hindus (i.e. those who profess the Hindu faith) by admin Vanamonde93, Sitush, and Joshua Johathan.  See this discussion on Highpeaks35's talk page just before he was blocked by admin TonyBallioni and eventually indeffed by admin Abecedare.  So again, what do you mean by bringing the "Hindu garbage" reference again and again.  This is the fourth or fifth time you have brought it up.  I consider the reference to a 14-year campaign to be a personal attack and request that you scratch it, ... "
 * 5) He replied at 21:00, 11 April 2021, again evading the question: "Did you strike anything or apologize when you insulted ..." (See here)
 * 6) He has repeated that allegation about "Hindu garbage" in the section above, but now expanding his list, accusing me of racism (see here), wildly mixing and matching posts from other pages&mdash;from the Talk:Kamala Harris of all pages&mdash;consistently misinterpreting the meaning, especially in satire. (See here)
 * 7)  you were part of the discussions on the Kamala Harris talk page. I was consistent throughout that she was African-American and South Asian American.  Reams of discussion pages were spent in its defense. I poked fun at racism, but never engaged in it.     you were all a part of  the discussion on "Hindu garbage."  What do I do with this editor?  May I request that he be topic banned from the India page?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Brilliant idea Fowler&fowler!!! Let's ban those who challenge you from the India page, so you will be even freer to indulge in you preferred theories and misrepresentations. Wikipedia is an open media F&f, but you are making this page your own walled garden, and visibly cannot stand being challenged. For those who are interested in the actual WP:OWN and content issues in this article, please see my post above addressed to Vanamonde93 "Re: WP:OWN & AFRICA".  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * People who have ownership issues don't advertise the revision of a lead so widely and with so much lead time as I did for this page's WP:TFA on 2 October 2019. See (a) History paragraph in the lead; (b) The remaining sections, (c) Final proposal, and (d) Gandhi's 150th and TFA.
 * On TFA day, about such people admin would not have said  (in Nice to see India on the main page), "It is worth a note that if all the hard work that is done recently by User:Fowler&fowler is not following consensus or not improving the article there is a over 4,000 watchers who would have made a lot of noise but prefer to support with WP:SILENCE."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Is xenophobia acceptable on this page?
has made xenophobic comments on this page.
 * 1) The first time was on 29 August 2020 in this remarkable post in which he objected to a picture because in effect it did not show "an actual Indian."
 * 2) The picture featured our son who was in his early teens then (2007) and is now in his 20s. I used him and other family members to model clothes for some WP articles on clothing I was writing at the time (Kurta, Blanket sleeper, Sadri (clothing), Churidar, Pajamas, and so forth.   The picture was added to the India page in September 2019 for a new clothing section which I wrote for the pages WP:TFA appearance on Gandhi 150th on 2 October 2019.
 * 3) The picture was removed after admin said he preferred an adult modeling the item
 * 4) user: पाटलिपुत्र brought the topic up again on 4th April 2021, implying this time that the picture was self-promotional (See here)
 * 5) It is all well and good to throw personality rights objections at these pictures of a teenager who is now an adult, but the pictures have not been bettered on these pages in the last 13 years. They are specific to the text of the section in which they appear.
 * 6) How long will this go on? , ,   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging also who helped with arranging some pictures in the Pajamas page which has pictures of children and who this editor (पाटलिपुत्र) seems to be brining up again and again as some kind of trump card.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment I am afraid Fowler&fowler's formidable sense of ownership of this page (WP:OWN) and impunity has been demonstrated by this case. The photograph in question is unfortunately quite low quality and quite unworthy of a Featured Article. He self-proclaimed it as a photograph of his son, that's his choice. F&f took the liberty to force it into the India article apparently without any discussion or consensus. I challenged it, as well as I challenged many of the poorly selected photographs in this article ("Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article"). Fowler&fowler is making this page his own walled garden, and visibly cannot stand being challenged. The photograph finally had to be removed forcibly by an administrator. For those who are interested in the actual WP:OWN and content issues in the current article, please see my post above addressed to Vanamonde93 "Re: WP:OWN & AFRICA". पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed forcibly? Admin removed it with edit summary "rm image since one editor finds it bothersome"  It didn't bother RegentsPark as he had given me the Million Award for bringing India to Featured Article status on 11 October 2019, and admin  had concurred.  (See here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs)


 * I refuse to get into the weeds with this discussion. We are long past the point where either of you bringing up behavioral issues about the other on this talk page is helpful. Please take them to an admin noticeboard, or cease and desist. Speaking as an observer rather than an admin, the outcome of such a discussion is most likely to be an IBAN, so think long and hard before approaching such a forum. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My feelings also. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I made these two posts because there was no administrative oversight of this page during the last month and it had begun to go to dogs. I made a call for help at Talk:India.  Only two admins responded.  They were u|Drmies and u|Valereee.  Drmies implied and Valereee  explicitly stated "'What admins can do is help with behavior. Go through the article and revert the non-neutral content with an edit summary that directs anyone who disagrees to the talk page. If another editor reverts you without discussion, open a talk section yourself about the removal with a ping to the other editor, then remove it again with an edit summary directing the other editor to the talk section. At that point the onus is on them to support including the content, and reversion without discussion or attempts to push POV can be dealt with as a behavior issues by admins."  My posts here are primarily meant for those two editors.  If you are unable to help, which you apparently are not, then it is better not to say anything than to leave haikus about the weeds and IBANs. Sorry to be blunt, but thus far nothing has been done to pull the page out of the morass it finds itself in.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I just saw that you have responded in one section above about Out of Africa.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * F&F, you said "पाटलिपुत्र has made xenophobic comments on this page"--I think the "actual Indian" thing might maybe qualify as such, but that was last year. If you are asking us to police new xenophobic comments, you should provide evidence of them. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He has not specifically referred to "actual Indian" for the reason that the picture is no longer around on the India page, but he has referred to my adding it as an example of "self promotion" a few days ago. I opened this section  because he accused me not so obliquely of racism in this edit this morning. The last time he had done so was at the time of the "actual Indian" incident; admin Doug Weller had thereafter left an ARBIPA notice on his user talk page. (See here).
 * The bigger problem, where I think you might bring your insights to bear is described in the previous section. It is about how he has used the so-called "Hindu garbage" incident of many years ago as a cudgel again and again recently to say inappropriate things about me.  I'm flabbergasted.  He seems to be keeping a list of my impatient turns of phrase which he repeatedly misinterprets.  Any progress on this page toward the forthcoming FAR has ground to a halt.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you're going from xenophobia (in the very title of this section) to self-promotion to Hindu stuff. I don't think this is a talk page topic anymore, and you should consider AN, maybe, because if you are correct (and I'm not speaking out on the matter) a topic ban might be warranted. This is not some simple ANI matter where a block is a possible answer. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * F&F, when one person uses "impatient turns of phrase", other editors have a harder time assessing. What I would very strongly recommend is that you stop using "impatient turns of phrase". I know that is difficult. Extremely neutral statements are helpful to admins trying to assess a situation. —valereee (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both and  I will post at WP:AN.  Haven't done one of those in years, but will attempt a coherent narrative.  You are right Valereee about impatient language.  It is just that sometimes keeping a page such as this accurate and well-sourced (as Dank put it in this post after the TFA) can become very trying.  Until the pandemic, it received 40K views a day.  I'll make another effort.  Thanks both for replying.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

British Raj in lead
British Crown rule began in 1858. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly,[45] but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root. How is this line remotely suitable as a summary of the British Raj in lead?

There are a few hundred monographs (published by university presses and highly reputed historians) which reject that the empire was some benevolent entity, going on about enlightening Indians, hitherto in darkness. This is an absolutely fringe view in mainstream scholarship (since the last 20-30 years) and I can start citing dozens of sources, if anybody really wishes to see the evidence.

A very prudential quote from Kim A. Wagner comes to my mind: the racialised violence of the British Empire was a systemic aspect of colonial rule. People in Britain have nothing to be ashamed about, as long as they are willing to face the oftentimes uncomfortable realities of the empire instead of taking comfort in some ahistorical moral calculation according to which railways make up for massacres. There is no doubt that the British did some good stuff (which deserves mention) but as notes, the scenario is far complex. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The citations have been used quite strategically. Douglas M. Peers notes in p.76 that the 1858 proclamation promised a rule bereft of racism but the actual rule fell far short of theory. That is, the rule continued to be racist - overtly or covertly. Peers also notes that the decision to grant a variety of rights to Indians (not all but an absolutely unrepresentative section) often derived from financial and strategic interests. All of that gets represented by the phrase rights were granted slowly.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * My reading of that sentence is that the "ideas" took root during that time, rather than were caused intentionally by the British Raj, and that the mention of ideas leads into the "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged" of the next sentence. This reflects the article body, which states "In the decades following, public life gradually emerged all over India, leading eventually to the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885". The items attributed to the Raj in the lead sentence are only a grudging giving of rights, and technology. Technology could be perhaps be read as benevolence, however the article body covers both negative (economic dependence, famines) and positive (more food, infrastructure) impacts of such technological change. CMD (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * British Raj and the extent of their role in famines are complicated. I won't go into that.
 * But, we need to mention something (a single line) about the violence of an imperial regime in lead. I note that the article does not mention the Jaliwanwalabagh Massacre a single time, an event which is noted in every History_Of_India_XYZ to have immense significance in subcontinental politics.TrangaBellam (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to add more history to the lead. History already takes up about twice of what it should (although some does double to give insights towards culture and demography), and the 200 years of company/Raj rule already takes up 3 of 19 sentences, which is a bit more than the relative time frame (although this is slightly ameliorated by recent history generally getting a bit more space). Getting into specific violence seems a bit much, although the Mughal sentence does mention relative peace which may be somewhat related.
 * On the article body, within the 20th century the only specific events really mentioned are the two world wars, independence/partition, and the 1950 constitution. There's not really space for too much specificity. CMD (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be certain, I am not proposing that The Jallianwala Massacre be mentioned in lead. (the article does not mention). Also, a phrase will be quite sufficient about the aspect of imperial violence in lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We decide what is WP:DUE by considering only tertiary sources, i.e. undergraduate or beginning graduate-level textbooks (not monographs) published by internationally recognized publishers, and used around the world. Per No_original_research, "'Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.'" and "'Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other'" The sources used are listed in India. I believe the sentences in the lead are an adequate summary of these sources.

We are talking about a period of 90 years, unprecedentedly documented in Indian history. There are dozens of monographs published in the last 25 years on various aspects of the Raj, but we don't use them in the India article.

DUE is not that easy to arrive at. Look at the Bengal famine of 1943 article. I have quite a few books on it, going back to long before Sen had shown any interest, even to the Indian Famine Commission report of 1880 where the topic of entitlements is first impressionistically broached, and forwards to books published after Sen's POV had become somewhat outdated (e.g. Tirthankar Roy's reassessments). I have contributed original pictures to that article taken during the height of the famine. The article has been to FAC three times. The main author of the article, Lingzhi, made a Herculean effort to be neutral and comprehensive but the article has not become an FA because editors on WP were unable to agree on what is DUE. In my view, Lingzhi has very likely read more on that topic than Madhusree Mukerji has (the author of a polemical trade book for which Sen took her to task in the NYRB, but which counts are WP:RS). Paul Greenough, the author of a classic book on the famine, wrote a letter to a coordinator of WP:FAC singing praises of Lingzhi's article. But it is still not an FA. What you are suggesting is a surefire, failsafe, recipe for this article to become mired in controversy and lose its FA status. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing with the Bangal famine as a metaphor for the Raj, from time to time people make posts asking why it is not being called a genocide (per Mike Davis, Madhusree Mukerjee, etc). To one such I wrote this reply, which to be sure is impatient, but it captures the various complexities:"A genocide by whom and of whom? By the British (led by Churchill) of Indians? By the Raj of its constituents? By the Indian provincial government of Bengal (headed up by a Muslim) of its constituents? By the Japanese who had bombed Burmese rice to smithereens of Bengal's rice eaters? By the grain-hoarding merchants of Calcutta of their customers? By the Hindu absentee landlords of East Bengal of their Muslim tenant-farmers and landless laborers? Or, by the mostly Hindu, Indian men—who in a last-ditch bid to save the patriline and unconversant with the Birkenhead drill, had slinked away to the cities— of the abandoned women and children of rural Bengal? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)"   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with CMD's answers and interpretations The article, moreover, will be revised again for the forthcoming FAR.  Some newer textbooks such as Tim Dysons A Population History of India (OUP, 2018) or Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India (CUP, 2017) (which are used in the lead but not in the article) will be used.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Err, why are we discussing famines? I am neither a fan of Mashushree's scholarship nor do I support the tendency to read every historical wrong as a genocide. I explicitly noted British Raj and the extent of their role in famines are complicated. I won't go into that.
 * So, you are claiming that tertiary sources on India don't discuss the violence of the empire? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a metaphor for the Raj, not to be interpreted literally. BFo43 lasted two years, the Raj 90. Please summarize the violence of the famine in one sentence. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote
I changed the hatnote in response to concerns here: Talk:Bharat (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dineshswamiin, Deleted (undo), the post of Cabinet Secretary of India-- Undid revision 1019733498 by Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk)Add only top five or important.
Dear, User:Dineshswamiin, important 🙄...quite strange.😔let me tell you,

Cabinet Secretary of India is the head of permanent executive branch. Permanent means permanent. It doesn't mean it depends upon elections (like politicians).

The one and only Cabinet Secretary of India is not important. This is beyond my comprehension. The head of permanent executive.

And if we talk about Executive (that list is of executive), A person (post) who is the head of that permanent executive should be listed. Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding the top five to the article generally seems more appropriate. I wanted to said Add only top five. However, this article is about the country, not the government. If you still do not agree then knows better about it. Undid edit is here -- Dinesh  (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not aware about rule of only 5....n don't know about very 'seems appropriate' number only 5. May be it is a wiki rule that I don't know. Thanks for reminding me this rule. I'll definitely look up for this rule. Or 5 may be a good astrology number. Well, do whatever you want.😖😖I am done. Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A Cabinet Secretary is just another Secretary. In the Indian order of precedence, a list of India's notable leaders in office and out, s/he is is quite low. There are many office holders higher up the ladder.  India doesn't have a Presidential line of succession, at least not on WP.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Updated.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear ,

Well, firstly as you may know, Indian order of precedence is just a ceremonial protocol list and has no legal standing. Which means the higher number doesn't mean you are higher or more powerful (in terms of separation of power in India). And I had listed the post Cabinet Secretary of India under government(which includes executive) section (as it is the head of permanent executive of India) of article. And many who appears above in list are not the current officeholders of Central government of India(like state governers,bharat ratna awardee or there are former prime ministers appears above in list, but they are not the head of permanent executive of central government of India, they are like head of a state, their name have been given in particular state lists, and like bharat ratna awardees are not the part of current central government's executive body, they may have their own article, but what about the current head of permanent executive of central government of India. As the government means Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

And I didn't get the point of Presidential line of succession here, and If we talk about India I think there is a presidential line of succession as the vice-president works as a president in absence of him(or in post vacant case). And many more are there in list. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Pandemic - COVID-19
Given the current surge, I am surprised and disappointed that there is no content related to India's management of the pandemic.

Ths is front page news around the world with disturbing numbers, but rarely are infection rates (per capita) ever mentioned and I hoped to find objective information in Wikipedia. Ssalava42 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll find plenty at COVID-19 pandemic in India, obviously. But if there isn't a link here yet, it may be time to add one in a fairly bland sentence about the challenge to India's healthcare system it revealed. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually we don't have a healthcare section at all, which is a problem - Healthcare in India (also a COVID-free zone!!) should be summarized in a sub-section. Now there are just a couple of mentions of the whole subject. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's too early to add something on India's abysmal failure to manage the pandemic. This is a summary style article and we should wait for some distance before adding something. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "fairly bland". It's hard to see something like "the resurgence of Covid in 2021 challenged the capacity of the healthcare system in the worst-affected areas" becoming overturned by "distance". Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with RP not so much for the reason of the topic lacking distance as of lacking a context. Instead, there should be a section "Health in India," containing information that is more focused than might be found in Demographics.  Off the top of my head, the topics could be (1) public health service(s) in India, e.g. annual budget, per capita budget, kinds of coverage (rural, urban), number of physicians per 100,000 (rural, urban), number of midwives, nurses, and anganwadi workers in rural India; the average distance to hospitals or urgent care facilities, etc (2) Topics related to women and children: malnutrition and stunting in children maternal mortality, female anemia, female feticide, neglect of girl children (affecting their physical and mental health) (3) Topics related to men: alcoholism, HIV, (4) communicable diseases: tuberculosis, malaria, dengue, amoebic dysentery, etc (in this part a sentence of two could be added about the COVID public health crisis of 2021) (4) private health services in India (5) medical schools and education. By the time such a section is written, we should have a better assessment of the COVID crisis's scale. PS Welcome back RP!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PPS I just realized there is an article Health in India whose sections cover many of the topics I have listed. I haven't checked the sourcing; if it is old or unscholarly, it may need to be improved.  But this is a topic much thought through and written up by scholars.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PPPS I've taken a quick look at the lead of Healthcare in India. It is nothing but artful deception, the usual smoke and mirrors show found in many slick India-related pages.  You'd never know that both health and health services in India (a country that ranks 120+/189 in per capita income and 131/189 in the human development index) had any problems.  All things being equal, poor health means poor healthcare, not what is being peddled in the lead of that article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's "too early" to mention any problems?  Health in India is the other side of the coin - nothing but problems, & essentially a list of statistics.  But it has no mention of Covid either. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't really suggesting that it be used as a parent article, only its list as an outline. In fact, we've never used any other WP page as a parent article for writing the sections of this page, although we make pro forma mention of many. Witness the stark contrast between the history sections here and the unjustified Hindu revivalist emphasis and claims in History of India. I could write a Health in India section in short order but I'm reluctant to do so. See the subsection below. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Time for me to quit this page
I arrived on WP nearly 15 years ago with the intention of working on natural history-related topics (especially naturalists of British India, Bombay Natural History Society, etc) but instead was waylaid by the POV promoters of this page, whom it took great effort on my part to muscle out. I was going to bow out anyway after the FAR, but user:पाटलिपुत्र Pat's relentless disruption and stonewalling in the sections upstairs, which is ugly and borders on his xenophobia of last year, has hastened my end here. Now that is back, I'm anxious that he and others such as, , and , perhaps, take over the responsibility. And, , , and  could perhaps keep a distant eye? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PS I meant to include in the first group.  Apologies.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of states and uts
Well, thanks for that... you made me clear that, A nation (country)(India) is just the outline and neighborhood countries (that's y neighboring countries have given that much importance in article India Country, not the states the country is made of ).

As much as you(you means all wiki editors,not particularly you) haven't given anything about states, district in article USA, requesting just read first paragraph of USA.

If the states are not much important for country (by uniting which a country have been created), neighboring countries are, then quite well. I got it. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was unable to understand your message. Based on some of your other contributions, I suspect your are a Hindi speaker. Can you please rewrite your message in Hindi? Thank you. (Please note that here on English Wikipedia, messages should be in English wherever possible. Is there anyone who can help you write your messages?)
 * मैं आपके संदेश को नहीं समझ सका। आपके कुछ अन्य संपादनों के आधार पर, मुझे लगता है कि आप हिंदी बोलते हैं। क्या आप कृपया अपना संदेश हिंदी में लिख सकते हैं? धन्यवाद। (कृपया ध्यान दें कि यहाँ अंग्रेज़ी विकिपीडिया पर, जहाँ भी संभव हो, संदेश अंग्रेज़ी में होना चाहिए। क्या कोई है जो आपको अपने संदेश लिखने में मदद कर सकता है?) &mdash; Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely I am a Hindi speaker(but not too much professional writing in hindi). Well above, I was answering in little satire or sarcasm way, may be the reason that you were unable to understand. Well,let me repeat myself-- As you (fawler and fawler) have removed the number of states and ut from article. That means you(the user-fawler and fawler) are trying to say that-

"A nation (country)(India) is just the outline and neighborhood countries (that's y neighboring countries have given that much importance in article India Country, not the states the country is made of )."-which is not seems appropriate as country is made up of states Also in Constitution of India, India is not given as a country but as a Union of States (which means states and uts makes a country).

Also there are many articles where states and even district or kind of sub-division is also given at top like USA(requesting go through first paragraph of USA.

As the name of article is India. The prominent things should be given about India not about details about neighborhood(or you should rename tha page as India and it's neighborhood,if you think more geographical data of india is it's neighborhood,rather than India).

It shouldn't like states are not much important for country India (by uniting which a country have been created). Rather other neighborhood countries have given importance in first paragraph of India,not the states and uts(not even a single line)-thats beyond my comprehension. That's what I was trying to say. States and uts should be mention there in India, like it is given in USA or also should be removed from USA. And I think add them to India, better idea.

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hindi Version: Well, thanks for that... इसके लिए धन्यवाद.....आपने इसे स्पष्ट किया। एक राष्ट्र की रूपरेखा मात्र उसके पड़ोसी देश होते हैं। (यही कारण है की लेख भारत में इसके स्वयं के राज्यों से अधिक पड़ोसी देशों को महत्व दिया है।)

जितने आपने राज्यों के बारे में लिखा है, (विशेष रूप से आपके लिए नहीं, सभी के सम्पादकों के लिए) उससे अधिक लेख अमेरिका में उसके जिलों के बारे में लिखा गया है, कृपया लेख अमेरिका का प्रथम गद्यांश पढ़ें। अगर राज्यों से अधिक पड़ोसी देश महत्वपूर्ण है, तो बहुत अच्छी बात है। मैं समझ गया।

Translated by:  Dinesh  (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , I see what you did there, but what we really needed AJM to do that, otherwise you're kind of mindreading him, as well as leaving English speakers in the dark at what he meant. Afaic, this is already delving deeper into non-English aspects of this one user's message than is warranted. I appreciate your effort. I'll make one last try, then I'm dropping it.
 * Once again, I am unable to understand your message. If you are using web-based translation, it is not working. Maybe a native speaker will help you if you write in Hindi. Please do not write in English again, as it is incomprehensible. Good luck.
 * एक बार फिर, मैं आपके संदेश को समझने में असमर्थ हूं। यदि आप वेब-आधारित अनुवाद का उपयोग कर रहे हैं, तो यह काम नहीं कर रहा है। अगर आप हिंदी में लिखते हैं तो शायद एक देशी वक्ता आपकी मदद करेगा। कृपया अंग्रेजी में फिर से न लिखें, क्योंकि यह समझ से बाहर है। सौभाग्य, Mathglot (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * अजय जी ने शीर्ष गद्य में राज्यों के बारे में उल्लेख किया था। उनके सम्पादन को पूर्ववत कर दिया गया। इस भाग में सामान्यतः देश के पड़ोसी देशों का विवरण लिखा जाता है। वे चाहते हैं की इस भाग में राज्यों के बारे में भी लिखा जाए।
 * कृपया इन बदलावों को देखें:
 * Edit by Ajay
 * Reverted edit of Ajay
 *  Dinesh  (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, this is becoming a comedy of errors. I'll see if AJM responds again, but probably this thread should just be allowed to die a merciful death. Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, (include official name in national language) location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like something. The geographical location of India is such that it has many neighboring countries and the border is also shared in the ocean; that's why lead section is a little bigger. lead section has some very important information. This is a Featured Article. All articles have a different format. So, we can not compare to USA. Information about population, area etc, are described in template. It is better to show neighboring countries than states in the article. Thanks.  Dinesh  (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to mention any user anywhere except his own talk page, use template. User will get a notification that someone mention him. To know more about reply to user, please see How to reply user?. To learn more about lead section, see Wikipedia Lead Section.  Dinesh  (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)