Talk:India/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Infobox history edit proposal

The current history section is a bit short. It only mentions stuff that happened after start of the dominion status. Shouldn't more information about how the modern day entity called "India" was formed be included? It isn't like the entity began to be called India after independence. It had been called India since at least 70 more years before. (Note I said "entity" not "region"). This infobox example given below is just a proposal. Others can decide which pre-independence "highlights" should be given. I'm just giving a suggestion.

Republic of India Bhārat Gaṇarājya (see other regional names)
Flag State emblem
Motto: "Satyameva Jayate" (Sanskrit) "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Anthem: "Jana Gana Mana" (Hindi) "Thou Art the Ruler of the Minds of All People"
National song: "Vande Mataram" (Sanskrit) "I Bow to Thee, Mother"
Territory controlled by India shown in dark green; territory claimed but not controlled shown in light green
Capital	New Delhi 28°36′50″N 77°12′30″E
Largest city	Mumbai (city proper) Delhi (metropolitan area)
Official languages	Hindi English
Recognised national languages	None
Recognised regional languages	State level and Eighth Schedule 8th Scheduled Assamese Bengali Boro Dogri Gujarati Hindi Kannada Kashmiri Konkani Maithili Malayalam Manipuri Marathi Nepali Odia Punjabi Sanskrit Santali Sindhi Tamil Telugu Urdu State level Kokborok Lepcha Mizo Sikkimese all the 8th scheduled languages (except Sindhi, Kashmiri and Dogri)
Native languages	447 languages
Religion (2011)	79.8% Hinduism 14.2% Islam 2.3% Christianity 1.7% Sikhism 0.7% Buddhism 0.4% Jainism 0.23% unaffiliated 0.65% other
Demonym(s)	Indian others
Government	Federal parliamentary constitutional republic
• President	Droupadi Murmu
• Vice President	Jagdeep Dhankhar
• Prime Minister	Narendra Modi
Legislature	Parliament
• Upper house	Rajya Sabha
• Lower house	Lok Sabha
Independence  from the United Kingdom
• Great Revolt	10 May 1857
• Government of India Act 1858	1 November 1858
• Proclamation	1 May 1876
• Dyarchy	23 December 1919
• Federation	1 April 1935
• Dominion	15 August 1947
• Republic	26 January 1950
• Last polity admitted	16 May 1975
Area
• Total	3,287,263 km2 (1,269,219 sq mi) (7th)
• Water (%)	9.6
Population
• 2023 estimate	1,425,775,850 (1st)
• 2011 census	1,210,854,977 (2nd)
• Density	427.3/km2 (1,106.7/sq mi) (30th)
GDP (PPP)	2023 estimate
• Total	$13.033 trillion (3rd)
• Per capita	$9,073 (127th)
GDP (nominal)	2023 estimate
• Total	$3.737 trillion (5th)
• Per capita	$2,601 (139th)
Gini (2011)	35.7 medium inequality
HDI (2021)	0.633 medium (132nd)
Currency	Indian rupee (₹) (INR)
Time zone	UTC+05:30 (IST)
	DST is not observed.
Date format	dd-mm-yyyy
Drives on	left
Calling code	+91
ISO 3166 code	IN
Internet TLD	.in (others)

PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing called a "history" section. If you mean the "independence" section with dates, that is much too long, as is the religions list, which should cut off with the Sikhs, + "other". The whole thing is far too long. Is the side of the road India drives on infobox-worthy? I don't think so; our readership almost entirely divides into those who already know, and those who have no use for the information. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Per Johnbod, it's not a history section, it's a date of independence field. CMD (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've changed nothing apart from teg history section or whatever you call it section (definitely not called independence section). Look at the pages on Canada and Australia. They do have events that occured before their independence (such as formation and acts concerning them). Adding just five lines more wouldn't really make it any more longer relatively. And I'm not requesting all of them to be there anyways. I've said I'm open to suggestions about the pre-independence events. Maybe proclamation, dyarchy and federation (just 3 lines) would be enough. If you want to remove driving side etc, you are free to do so. I didn't add them in.

Edit – It actually lists events related to formation/establishment not independence. So my arguments do hold valid. Again I'm not in any way talking about the region of India, I'm talking about the colonial/imperial entity which the modern day entity is the "continued personality" or something of. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I know all that, but it is far too much for an infobox. I'm not "free to remove" the driving side, as on this important page, where everything is controversial, almost all changes need consensus here. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's just three more lines. How is it far too much? I've already said those three lines could be decided by a consensus. I'm just saying that we need to add at least a couple of pre-independence stuff. Check pages like Canada and Australia. It's just 3 more lines. They aren't far too much for this infobox. They are necessary for this infobox.PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Which of the Canada and Australia lines are pre-independence? CMD (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Confederation in Canada and Federation and Constitution in Australia. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We should be reducing, not increasing. See WP:INFOBOX for the need for brevity. Most of the lines won't mean anything to most readers; these are not at all necessary. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I did reduce a bit by removing offices like Speaker of Lok Sabha, Chief Justice and a bunch of ther offices that don't belong to leader parameter some days earlier. Vice President, President and Prime Minister are enough. The history/establishment section needs this information as it is relevant. Last polity admitted is not important and we can remove it. Most pages don't mention stuff like that. We would be adding three lines and removing one (net two lines). How would that be compromising the brevity? Look at the corresponding sections of articles like United States, Russia, Germany, UAE, Algeria, Sri Lanka, etc. They are pretty large. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the "formation" sections of the last two are ridiculously long (didn't look at the others). Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

And what about the first couple of arguments. I know that I can'tale an argument that add this to x because this exists in y, it just didn't come to mind because I'm an idiot, but do look at the previous two arguments of mine too. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are 1876 and 1919 (look where that link actually goes) "needed" - they just aren't. Anyway, time to see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod that the proposed additions are undue clutter, which not only add unnecessary details to the Infobox but also bury the two truly important dates in disputable trivia (eg. referring to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 as the Great Revolt, and dating a rebellion that lasted over a year to its start date). If anything, the infobox could do with some trimming. For example, by removing the collapsible list of state and Eighths schedule languages; Vice President from government; geographical co-ordinates of New Delhi, etc. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Notes

Dubious claim regarding the term "Hindustan"

The claim in the etymology section that the term "Hindustan," as a name for India was introduced during the time of Mughal empire looks dubious. The etymology page of Hindustan says the term was in use from at least 262 ce whereas Mughal empire came into existence in 1526 ce. This issue was raised here once by someone else [1] and was left unanswered. Would be better if quoted text from the source regarding this claim is added to the reference. Rim sim (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Good question, Rim sim. I think the content may be based on the language in footnote 5 of the Clémentin-Ojha article where she says, "The Persian Hindustān got introduced in India and became very commonly used in the Moghul period." That said, I am not certain whether the "in the Mughal period" should be read to refer to the "common use" alone or "introduced in India" part too. The sentence structure prima facie indicates the latter but I too am dubious of that reading. The Mughal era seems much too late for the term to be introduced (even with the "in India" qualifier) 'cause:

• as Barrow (2003) says, citing Mukerjee (1989), "Hindustan was first written in Persia during the third century and was used to refer to the lands lying on the western bank of the lower Indus."
• as Clémentin-Ojha (2014) herself says in the very sentence to which footnote 5 is attached, "the word Hindustan, which was already used in Persia in the third century B.C. to refer to the land lying beyond the Indus River." (The B.C. part may well be a typo since there are other typos in the paper, which often cites Barrow (2003) as Barrow (2011); in any case that part is not too material to our discussion here.)
• as Sharma (2008), which I and others have previously cited for related content, says, the word Hindustan "had become a common word for India, specially north India, by the thirteenth century."

It may be worthwhile to look back in the wikipedia article history to see when this content and sources were introduced to the article, to check if subsequent edits have somehow changed the intended meaning. Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This content was first placed in the article with the same meaning as it's now in this edit dated 27 September 2015. Considering the ambiguous nature of the referenced material and the logical incongruity of the claim with other primary sources, it would be better to rephrase the text saying the term Hindustan became "popular" or "common" in the Mughal period, rather than saying it was "introduced" during the Mughal period as it stands now. Rim sim (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks adequately sourced so I agree that the language needs to be changed. Also @Kautilya3: (the editor who introduced the text). RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The question is when "Hindustan" started getting applied to the whole of India, not just north India or not just Sindh. I am pretty sure it was used by Mughals in that sense. I have sen explicit quotes from Baburnama etc. Whether it was done earlier is doubtful. See Hindustan#North India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the text again, I notice is mentioning the "north India" usage as well. So I think it is fine to change it to the 13th century, sourced to Arvind Sharma. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hope the specific changes will be made soon to the text. Rim sim (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Under "Biodiversity" section in the article located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India Kindly change below mentioned Phrase A with Phrase B. Phrase A= twenty-five wetlands are registered under the Ramsar Convention.[223] Phrase B= Seventy-five wetlands are registered under the Ramsar Convention.[223] XavierXon (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I can make the change, but what source do you have @XavierXon to prove that it should be 75 and 25? Cherrell410 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

kindly refer this official source

https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1851484

and wikipedia page source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ramsar_sites_in_India#cite_note-1 XavierXon (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

In this article located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India under 'Biodiversity' section, kinldy update the phrase " thirteen biosphere reserves" with "eighteen biosphere reserves"

official Source : https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/biosphere.pdf XavierXon (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The most populous democracy

Hi @Abecedare: I just noticed that you removed the bit about the "most populous democracy," with the edit-summary rationale "now redundant claim." Why is it redundant? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Presumably because India is now the most populous country in the world, so the sentence is pointless - it was relevant when China was the largest. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was it. And the fourth paragraph of the lede begins "India has been a federal republic since 1950, governed through a democratic parliamentary system." So both the "most populous" and the "democratic" part are already mentioned in the lede. As it stands, "the most populous country in the world, and the most populous democracy" is logically equivalent to, "the most populous country in the world, and a democracy". The latter does sound awkward but if we want to mention democracy in the lede paragraph itself, we should try to find a smoother transition. Abecedare (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

    "Most populous country" and "most populous democracy" or "largest democracy" are entirely different kettles of fish. The first is just a feature of demography. It came and went without spectacular notice in India, and indeed the world. The source cited in its support titled, "World's most populous country: should India rejoice or panic?" expresses ambivalence. It had been predicted for many years, perhaps many decades. Being a populous democracy, let alone the most populous, however, is an achievement that has been lauded the world over. It has involved elections on a scale unseen and unheard of in world history, especially for a country that had such high levels of illiteracy at the onset of its democracy. It was unpredictable in 1950, when India became a republic, and its fact is still not predictable; indeed I had thought it had been removed because of Mr Modi's anti-democratic machinations. Its thriving has never been a cause for panic, only rejoicing both in India and worldwide.

    Observers from around the world watched India's first elections in 1952. The pictures abound from 1952 until the last one in 2019. Here's one from 1952, another from 2009, and another from 2014, not to mention provincial elections, this one from 2018. Another way of looking at the difference is this: if population alone were notable, more notable than India's political system, then being the second-most populous country should have been notable too, and indeed the fact of being a populous country. But "populous country" occurs only a third as much as does "largest democracy" OR "most populous democracy" in Google books published since 1950.

    I'll suggest a couple of formulations for that sentence next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

    How about: It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country as of June 1, 2023; and from the time of its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy.

    There are plenty sources to back up the last phrase. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Updaed and pinging @Abecedare and Black Kite: please weigh in or suggest alternatives. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    "It is the seventh-largest country by area, the most populous country, and since its inception in 1950, the world's most populous democracy. From the time of its independence until its first elected government in 1952, India was ruled by the constituent assembly. I am hesitant to include 'And from the time of its inception in 1950' because it would be considered original research, as it does not align precisely with 1952." My suggestion would be this: "It is the seventh-largest country by area and holds the distinction of being both the most populous country in the world and the world's largest democracy." Fayninja (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    @Fayninja: Remove the holds the distinction of (WP:PEACOCK phrasing): It is the seventh-largest country by area, the most populous country in the world, and the world's largest democracy. Bazza (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    me like it Fayninja (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    @Bazza 7 and Fayninja: Thanks for your responses. As I've explained, the two assertions that India is the world's most populous country and that India is the world's largest (or most populous) democracy cannot be made without their historical background. The first has recently limped its way into the world of facts, and only barely. For not everyone accepts it. Although various estimates of the UN do show India to have overtaken China, the List of countries and dependencies by population does not. This is because it relies on the national government's estimate, and India's own is still lower than China's. A census would settle the matter, but the Indian government has postponed its decennial census of 2021 a number of times. So the date as of which India has become the world's most populous country is important to mention, in order for the reader to know that it is very recent news, days old not decades, as China's status as the world's most populous country was.

    Fayninja is correct that a nation technically becomes a decracy from the date of its first elections, which in India's instance were held in 1952, but as the sources I've added show, historians consider the saga of India's democracy to have begun with its independence in 1947. This is because the anti-colonial nationalists (Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, and others) had begun to institute democratic reforms as early as 1946 when untouchability was abolished by the constituent assembly. I have added several sources which make clear that many major historians consider this to be the case. India's long history of democracy, an important contrast to its newly found status as the world's most populous nation, is therefore of encyclopedic value. Pinging some other regulars @Chipmunkdavis, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, DaxServer, TrangaBellam, and RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    @Fowler&fowler: Remember the purpose of the lead section: a summary of its most important contents. Omitting the current standing of the country's position in the world population tables (which I recognise that others may want included), the statement "It is the seventh-largest country by area and the world's largest democracy." hinges around the word "is". To say that that simple expression of what is cannot be made is false: I have made it and it is true. What went before and how things came to be as they are is of no relevance in the first sentence about these facts in the lead. The rest of the lead, article, and sub-articles, are where more details can be added. Bazza (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    I disagree for the reasons already stated. I will let the others weigh in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you for giving your time @Fowler&fowler: I did not consider democracy in such a comprehensive manner as you did, incorporating it with other laws. My perspective was limited to the process of government formation alone. I agree with @Bazza 7 that histories should have their own separate section, while the introduction should primarily focus on the current state. I understand your support for India's democratic traditions and your desire to emphasize its deep historical roots in order to preserve them. However, from my standpoint, any system of government is simply a means of managing society, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. If democracy were universally adopted, it could potentially lead to a lack of diversity, hinder experimentation, and discourage exploration of alternative systems that may be even better. Consequently, this could result in stagnation. Fayninja (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    I disagree, but will await responses from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

    Democracy is good but we are a little concerned about India’s descent into the freebie model. Fayninja (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

    • Sounds good to me. I agree the distinction is required. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

F&f, fine with me too. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• (pinged) I don't fully understand what is being contended here but I agree that the populous democracy needs to be mentioned. While I get the concern about democratic backsliding, it is not for us to decide when a nation ceases to be a democracy (or whether democracy is a good or bad thing). I'm fine with F&f's lead suggestion. RegentsPark (comment) 18:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It is redundant, and honestly does not need to be included. If it’s the most populous country, it would obviously be the most important democracy and that factoid does not need to be mentioned separately. I agree it just seems like a remanent of when China had a higher population. BhamBoi (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: I'm sorry, but your view is not the consensus. Please read the discussion above. Please also note that generally in a featured article it is a good idea to post on the talk page first and for a consensus to evolve rather than making non-trivial changes in the text, especially the lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies @BhamBoi: I thought the consensus above had been implemented, but it had not. I have done so now. Please take a look. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Changing of images

You should change the images that are in the article there are very useless images that are not very appropriate for the image of India you should publish some new images that show the developments of new India's growth. 103.79.249.91 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

Please change "Populous Democracy" to "Largest Democracy"— Preceding unsigned comment added by आशुतोष कुमार झा (talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, that would be unclear. "Largest" suggests the physical size of the country, by which measure India is not the largest democracy. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

"It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country and the world's most populous democracy."

1) Not everyone knows what's a democracy so please add external wiki link.

2) "most populous country and 7th largest country" should be separated with "most populous democracy". It can be edited like:- "It is the seventh-largest country by area and the most populous country. It is also the world's most populous democracy.

DLord36 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

India is a great land 114.73.194.53 (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart ^(talk) 06:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Early indians book promotion

Under see also why is a book being promoted? 103.86.19.90 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the mention. Capitals00 (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct map of India

Please replace photo of India map to include full kashmir. Historic and Correct (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Only part of Kashmir is administered by India, so we won't do that. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean only part of Kashmir? Who administers that part then? 115.98.233.209 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  See Kashmir. It's not difficult. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The anthem of India

The enthem of India is exactly 52 seconds long.But here it is 1 minute 4 seconds long.Revise the enthem or just remove it.Because this can be offensive for some Indians.For reference it's on the official site of knowindia.com Yuthfghds (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yuthfghds: Who says it is exactly 52 seconds long? The "official" site you gave as a reference seems to be spam. Bazza (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Consider this reference:- orders

relating to the national anthem of India.This is published by Ministry of Home affairs (mha).I confess that my previous reference is not strong.But this one is officially published by mha.And one more thing this is not "exactly" but "approximately" 52 seconds.But this version is off by 12 seconds which is unacceptable. Yuthfghds (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yuthfghds: Advisory related to Strict compliance of the Orders Relating to the National Anthem of India, section I paragraph 1, states that the full version's playing time is approximately 52 seconds [which is a strangely precise approximation], not that it must be that duration. The playing time of any composition is determined by the tempo at which the piece is played, usually determined by the conductor or other leader of the musicians playing; there is no indications in the MHA advisory about the tempo to be chosen. The audio clip on the article's page is 64 seconds, with 1 second's silence at the start, and 3 seconds at the end, making it 8 seconds greater than the 52 seconds approximation. By what reasoning is this unacceptable? Bazza (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This instrumental cover is by US Navy.Do you know why it's 52 seconds long?.Because it was composed in a specific "Raga" and "Swar".And there is a speed in which you recite a composition according to the "Raga" and "Swar".Take a look at the dedicated Wikipedia page about Jana Gana Mana. Yuthfghds (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The US Navy version is used because it is a high quality public domain recording. Does anyone know of the copyright status of the recording at Know India (pretty poor audio quality though) or of a better free version? Fwiw, as a spot check, a recent version of the anthem played in the US was again about 62s (0:24 to 1:26), while one played in India was 52s (9:31 to 10:23). Abecedare (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty solid point.Well which one you pick one played in the US or one played in India. Maintaining the tempo of our national enthem is important. Yuthfghds (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yuthfghds: It doesn't matter where it was played. If you want one which is played marginally faster, find and reference it. It must be a high quality public domain recording. As @Abecedare has pointed out, the one at Know India is poor quality and of unknown copyright status. Bazza (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate Yuthfghds (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to appear very late in this discussion. I don't think the original composition was written up in Indian music notation. The copyright is in western notation and the song very likely does not have the characteristic microtones of Indian music, i.e. Tagore may have deliberately composed it to conform to western standards, amenable to being played on western band instruments. But I am no expert in music.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

About space programme in lead section

"It has a space programme which includes several planned or completed extraterrestrial missions."

Suggestion that this be written as "It has a space programme which includes several completed and planned extraterrestrial missions". It seems like the more legible structuring and also flows better than the former. Nasadiyaa2 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nasadiyaa2: Those unreferenced facts do not appear in the article, so must not be in the lead. See WP:LEAD. The entire sentence should be removed. Bazza (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems fair. Nasadiyaa2 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• A mention of the space program in the lede is certainly undue. Whether it should be mentioned in the article at all is more debatable although even in that case we need to avoid recency bias and see what scholarly sources on the subject say. My guess is that they'll be more focused on the impact of the developments in the launch vehicles and the communication, and especially remote sensing, satellites than the initial steps of the extraterrestrial programs. One possibility would be to see if there is a related featured picture whose caption can then be used to provide a one-sentence intro to India's space efforts. But that's just me spitballing. Recommend that any concrete proposal be discussed here on the talkpage so that its content and language can be refined before potentially be added to the article. Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think @Abecedare: has a point. However, some version of that sentence has been in the article since the last major revision of the lead in October 2019 in preparation for Gandhi's 150th WP:TFA when the article was under the scanner of a large number of editors, including many admins. See Talk:India/Archive_46#D_draft. Why it was included I can't say, i.e. don't remember. That sentence was not sourced to a major tertiary source (i.e. textbook such as Metcalf & Metcalf) such as the other sentences were. So, had it been snuck in because of general demand or pressure? That too I can't say, but as it has been in the article for nearly four years, I suspect that changing it would require a major discussion. A lot of things in the lead don't appear in the article, but that is because the rest of the article has not been updated using the sources in the lead (except the newly written Cuisine and Clothing sections). That is just the way this page has proceeded since the days of Nichalp. I doubt we can change that now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for the confusion. My statements above were with reference to recent addition such as such as this and the proposal at the start of this section. I only later noticed that the article lede already had a sentence "It has a space programme.", to which my argument should apply too. But that's such a short, neutrally written, long-standing sentence that, as you say, it is not worth spending any time arguing for its removal. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for replying! I vaguely remember that when this was written an Indian lunar probe was about to be launched, or had been already and a lunar soft landing was soon to take place. There was much press coverage, including that in the major international newspapers. But the lander crashed and the enthusiasm died down quickly. I don't think the world is paying it as much attention this time around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Please allow to add the 2008 India's space program, its highly WP:Notable as it was milestone achievement, why does contemporary history only cover up to 1950s?

As India continued to expand and achieve success in the field of Science and Technology, on 22 October 2008 Indian Space Research Organisation historically launched its first lunar probe the Chandrayaan-1. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: I have again reverted your recent addition due to WP:DUE, grammar and WP:TONE issues. See the discussion in the above section, and if you still wish to expand the article's coverage of the Indian space program, please propose and gain consensus for the change. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg, @Abecedare: I'd be happy to see a single sentence at the end of the history section. The space programme is mentioned in passing in the lead, so a brief expansion of that in the article seems relevant. The now-reverted attempt by Dilbaggg needed trimming and the WP:FLUFF removing, but the topic is a good rounding off of the section: perhaps In the 21st century India saw rapid advancement in science and technology, with the country launching its first lunar probe in 2008. Bazza (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

We would need authoritative secondary sources (ie not newspaper or, magazine articles or press releases) for the adjective "rapid", for dating the "advances in science and technology" to the 21st century, and for highlighting the Chandrayaan-1 probe as the singular example of this progress. Abecedare (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare So you are saying history of India should only be covered until the 1950s in the "Modern India" section, why not include at least some (even a single) notable event from the 21st Century? Many WP:Notable things and events have happened since year 2000, we can include something! Dilbaggg (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Also its unbelievable the article has nothing about Assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984! You can't call it history of modern India if you only include upto 1950s! Dilbaggg (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As 1984 addition has not been challenged I am adding it for now, please WP:AGF. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

An addition which I have removed, because the political history, including the Gandhis, is already covered in the "Politics" section. Please check the article more carefully before adding material. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Image size and placement

@Fowler&fowler: You reverted my edits which, as noted in all [[WP:ES|edit summaries}}, ensured that this "Featured Article" conforms with various aspects if MOS:IMAGES, in particular MOS:IMGLOC, MOS:IMGSIZE and MOS:SANDWICH, the last two of which have repercussions on the article's conformance with the mandatory WP:ACCESSIBILITY. My edits were for image placement only: no content was altered.

Please explain why you reverted these edits; your edit summary was not very enlightening: I'm sorry Bazza 7, there have been a number of discussions on this before and no consensus emerged for your edits, which, moreover, makes the article unsightly. You may raise the issue on the talk page again if you'd like. Please also note WP:OWN#Featured_articles. Nor do I understand your reference to WP:OWN#Featured_articles. Bazza (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bazza 7,

This topic has been discussed a number of times on this page. I apologize, but I do not have the time to rummage this page and locate that discussion. As you are an editor that had edited this page quite regularly, that task will be easy enough for you. Please find that/those discussion(s) and make a case that your undiscussed edits were justified when the extended discussion(s) proved inconclusive.

A featured article, which has been reviewed by the community several times, most recently by a couple of dozen editors, including half a dozen administrators in July and August 2019, is not open to a run-through with brief edit summaries consisting of Wikilinks. I'm sorry to have to do this, but this is not only Wikipedia's oldest country FA, soon to be 19 years old, but it viewed 42,000 times a day making it the second-most-viewed country article after the United States; in addition, it has 5,000 watchers.

You must also know that we spend days, if not weeks, attempting to change a phrase in one sentence. I apologize again but we all play by the same rules. Please build a consensus for your edits. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I'm sorry, but your reply is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia's communal way of working. I will take your reference to my careful edits to conform with Wikipedia's style and accessibility guidelines and rules as a "brief run-through" as a careless statement by you rather than something more serious.

I repeat again, as you seem to have missed it in my comment above, that I have not changed the article's content; but have made it more conformant with Wikipedia's image and accessibility guidelines, for which I received thanks from other editors. It is on you to show why this should not be the case. Bazza (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You have made similar edits on this page before (see here), but his time you have changed the image placement and size. Please propose something here and wait for a consensus to emerge for your proposal. WP:FAOWN states: While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first.

If on the other hand you are attempting to bait me, please allow me to suggest that I am not the only one who feels this way about unilateral changes to this page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Again, you should assume good faith. My changes to image placement and size were, apparently, reverted but never with any explanation other than the Featured Article catch-all. You only need to quote Featured Article guidelines once.

I still have no idea why you think this article should be exempt from the guidelines and mandates on image size and placement as other articles; it is frustrating that you seem unwilling to express an opinion on this. As its absence is seeming to cause difficulty I will plainly state my proposal: that this article should, like all others, observe Wikipedia's guidelines on image size and placement, and mandatory requirements on accessibility, in particular image sandwiching.

I will happily await a reasonable period for other editors' opinions on why this should not be. Bazza (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Many have tried to fix the huge accessibility problem many times to no avail WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE. This page and New York City are highly viewed pages of top importance we use as examples of what not to do with images during other talks..Moxy- 16:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What is a reasonable period? Aa a frequent editor of this page you must know that discussions on this page can take weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling is a problem that has staggered the article's progression in relation to our upgraded protocols and conventions. Moxy- 04:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also recommend that you discuss the multiple images, especially the King-GG-PM triptychs in the FAs Canada and Australia. I've now had time to examine the archives on this page. Here is one discussion from 2021 that lasted three weeks. You might want to ping the various discussants there. Please also disregard, my less than civil remarks there (if any). I have just been chastised at AE and am trying to discuss this as civilly as I can. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: Upon reconsideration, your edits are fine if they help avoid sandwiching. Is there a reason that you have made changes, which involve moving the images to the right, only in the later sections? Does sandwiching not affect the earlier ones? (I vaguely recall SandyGeorgia taking out the worst offenders three years ago.) Look forward to your reply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Very magnanimous. It's a shame you didn't come to that conclusion before your hasty reversion. I am still waiting my reasonable amount of time for other editors' views before deciding whether I can be arsed to repeat the previous exercise.

I had not completed the elimination of all sandwiching before you leapt in and did your bulk "I'm sorry but" reversion of the work I'd done up to that point. I had attempted to do the same to all offenders in February 2023, but gave up after experiencing similar attitudes to yours about adhering Wikipedia's image policies. Bazza (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: As there was no consensus for the change in the discussion alluded to above in which quite a few editors took part, I would suggest that you make all your changes once and then self-revert to the current configuration. At least then, we will have an idea of what your end result will look like. All the best. Remember to self-revert, though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup ....still same problem...one editor blocking progress again. Moxy- 22:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Change National song: "Vande Mataram" to National Song: None.

Constitution of India doesn't recognise any song as "National" [2]

Change Bhārat Gaṇarājya to Intiyak kuṭiyaracu.

Bharat Ganarajya is the full form of Hindi name of the Republic of India. Hindi is just one of the 22 official languages of the Nation. I have suggested the change to the Tamil version of the official name.

Change Hindi,... official language of the government To Hindi along with English,.. official language of the Union Govt.

(Original reference is in Hindi language which I dont speak or understand and is dated to 1960 which prior to policy changes in 1963 Languages_of_India

Indian Government refers to not just the Union government but also State and Local Government authorities all of which derive their power and authority directly from the Constitution. Roaly (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Your link appears non-functional. The changes requested contradict current citations, please provide stronger citations verifying your requested changes. Please provide a reason for the change to the native name of the country. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in link. I have corrected that. India simply doesn't have a National Song. Provided the link to a newspaper of record citing the Apex court.

There is no reason to change the name of the country just like there is no reason for that name to be placed there. Why only choose an Hindi name for the country? Roaly (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The link given seems to be about the legal status of the song, as since the constitution doesn't mention a national song, there is no basis for it to be mandated in schools and such. However, while it doesn't enjoy the same legal status as the anthem, it does appear to have similar recognition, for instance here on the Government of India website, so I'd say it's got a place in the infobox.

The transliterated Hindi name is used because it is explicitly named the Official language of the union in the constitution. Other names are provided by the adjacent link. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The Official Langauge of the Union doesn't say that only the Hindi and English names of the country is the official name of the nation. Name of the country in all 22 languages mentioned in the 22 scheduled is the official name of the country. Roaly3 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The first line of the constitution proper is 1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct. No line in the constitution says that Bharat Ganarajya is one of the two official full name of the country. Bharat is also name of the country in Malayalam. So why dont we use Bharat Maharajyam in the above line? Roaly (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The name is as it is because it is the full name of the nation written in the primary native language of the nation, the native name used most commonly by the government of the nation, and it is the native name most commonly used by external sources. Other names are already easily accessible via the link provided. Please do not reopen this request. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hindi isn't a primary native language of India anymore than Konkani or Telugu. I would kindly ask the editors here to check their bias. Thanks. Roaly (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

kindly explain what you mean by establish consensus? Roaly3 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Official Langauges of India.

Please change the Official Langauge section from Hindi and English to English and Eighth Schedule. Roaly3 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:India#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023 for the same. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Official Langauges of India

Change official languages from Hindi and English to Hindi and English and all the other 22 languages listed in the 8th schedule of Indian Constitution.

This change was requested several days back and despite providing multiple sources such as Constitution of India, and even a Wikipedia main article Languages of India, the requested edit has not been made. To make it worse someone is changing the request to answered despite there being no response. Roaly (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:India#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023 for the same. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Data Update

there is new data on poverty at https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND we should update the article at least with that data and mention the main article on poverty in india via template WikiYeti (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

socio-economic challenges

the gini coefficient should be mentioned in the very section. the tensions between muslim and hindu populations should be mentioned as well. WikiYeti (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Military as a new section

Wikipedia pages of states of Pakistan and China do have "Military" as a seperate section in it. With India (bounded by these two nuclear states in its northern borders) having the worlds second largest standing army, an Airforce ranking 4th in "Global Firepower Index", a CBG operating navy, significant amount and range of missile systems, ASAT technology, having IRBM's, SLBM's and ICBM and the only non-veto state operating nuclear ballistic submarine(s). Above all it has over 80 billion USD spend in defense budget, one of the highest in the world, shouldn't have a similar and dedicated section in this page? Editor8220 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding mention of Ultimate Kho Kho

In the India#Sports and recreation section, I want to change the following sentence "Other professional leagues include the Indian Super League (football) and the Pro Kabaddi league." to this: "Other professional leagues include the Indian Super League (football), the Pro Kabaddi League, and Ultimate Kho Kho."

I believe this change is justified, as Ultimate Kho Kho is now the third most-watched non-cricket league in India (estimated to have over 100 million viewers), and it represents an indigenous sport of India, as opposed to a British-origin sport. Also, most likely it will grow in years to come (2022 was its first season), so that will further strengthen the case for it be in the article.

Sources: [3], [4] GreekApple123 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding the information of Srirangam Ranaganathaswamy temple - Worlds largest functioning temple

There are no Mentions or images of the Srirangam Ranganathaswamy temple in this article which is an injustice to the Country India. It is considered as one of the oldest temples of India . The temple is often portrayed as the Worlds largest functioning temple. It is also the biggest temple present in India located in Tamil Nadu. The temple is so Very important to the Indians, Vishnavites and explains the glory of India. The temple is rich in culture and history, Which requires a part in this article. the temple has 850+ inscriptions and 600+ are present on the walls of the temple. It has mentions in the Ramayana. it is also being mentioned in the Sangam literature of Tamil language and is considered 1st among the 108 Divya Desams . Kambar is a 12th-century Tamil poet who composed the Kamba Ramayanam, a work inspired from the epic, Valmiki Ramayana. He is believed to have come to the temple to get the approval of his work from scholars. The Jain scholar Tirunarungundam honoured the work and it resulted in Tamil and Sanskrit scholars approving the work. Beyond the ancient textual history, archaeological evidence such as inscriptions refer to this temple, and these stone inscriptions are from late 1st CE to 1st BCE.. The temple won the UNESCO Asia Pacific Award of Merit for cultural heritage conservation in the year 2017. It is the first temple from Tamil Nadu to grab this prestigious honour from the UNESCO. The temple occupies an area of 155 acres (63 ha) with 81 shrines, 21 towers, 39 pavilions, and many water tanks integrated into the complex making it the world's largest functioning Hindu temple. The temple town is a significant archaeological and epigraphical site, providing a historic window into the early and mid medieval South Indian society and culture. Numerous inscriptions suggest that this Hindu temple served not only as a spiritual center, but also a major economic and charitable institution that operated education and hospital facilities, ran a free kitchen, and financed regional infrastructure projects from the gifts and donations it received. Hence, i would like to add information of the temple. Narayanan Iyengar (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please Change "Official Langauges Hindi and English" to "Official Languages: English and Eighth Schedule". Languages of India Roaly3 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What is all the languages in the 8th schedule? Lightoil (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the error. I have corrected my edit request. Please check. Roaly3 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources I have included is the main article in wiki that is Languages of India, further articles that you can use as proof includes these [5]https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/sc-judge-calls-hindi-national-language-official-languages-act-says-otherwise-180653

[6]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/for-centre-not-supreme-court-to-recognise-a-language-as-official-language/article67104735.ece Roaly (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No reply to this. Predictably at this point. Roaly3 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roaly3: Read WP:ONUS to understand the reason for rejection. Also please go through the entire discussion thread once again to understand the reason for denying your request. Heads up, this discussion that you are continuing is edging into disruption, for which you've been warned. So please note that. Please go for WP:RFC for any further discussion on this topic. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Already done The required changes are already made, stating how the languages included in the Eight Schedule are official languages in individual state level. At national level, only English and Hindi are recognised as official languages. Please go through the article, as well as the infobox clearly before submitting another edit request. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No that is technically incorrect. Even at the "National Level" also all 22 Languages listed in the 8th schedule are Official. That is the reason why Indian National Rupee Currency Bill/Notes features the sum or amount mentioned in all these languages. You are again mistaking "Union" with National, Hindi and English are the only two official language of the "Union", not the Nation or National. Roaly (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

From 26 January 1950, Hindi has been the official language of the Union, i.e. the federal government, and English, the associate official language. The official language of India is the official language of the union. It is widely documented in tertiary sources and in what is recognized by international agencies such as the United Nations as well as foreign governments. We have had several RfCs about this over the years.

I should warn that I'm seeing edits being snuck in based on the judgment of one person responding to an extended-confirmed-protected post. Just because the poster has a reliable looking source or two backing up their proposed change is not reason enough to make the change. Quite often infobox information is the result of a longstanding consensus, and it can't be changed without a discussion. The responding editor is better off saying, "Please open a discussion thread."

This is an old old featured article, soon to be 19 years old. There is good likelihood that pretty much anything you can think of has been thought of before and discussed. That doesn't mean that the article cannot be improved, only that in most instances it is better to examine the talk page archives first. Perhaps we don't do a good enough job with the FAQ up top, which may warrant a revision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As for Hindi, I found this description of B. Mallikarjun in an article in Language in India, November 2004, from a previous discussion:

Once the Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950, the status of Hindi was greatly enhanced. It is Hindi in Devanagari script and the international form of Indian numerals that is the Official language of the Union. Among the Indian languages, Hindi is the most highly empowered language which constitutionally/legally has multiple statuses – an official language of the Union; the official language of 13 states and union territories; the major regional language in 9 states where it is a majority language and an important minority language in 18 states and union territories. Also, it is a language of deliberations of the Parliament of India and state legislatures in the states in which it is recognized as an official language. Apart from this, the Constitution also provides that, with mutual consent, any two states or the states and the Union can use it as a language for their inter-communication. It is the majority language of the country and also a Scheduled Language since it is in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution. It is the only language about whose development the Constitution has given direction, and hence it has the constitutional right for development.

In other words, for better or worse, no other language has quite the constitutional status in India as Hindi. Still, Hindi is not the National Language, although much effort was made toward that status during the framing of the Indian constitution and has thereafter. See Hindi Day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly dissapointed with this reply.

India has 23 official languages, they are English and all the langauges mentioned in the 8th schedule of the constitution. All the constitutionally ordained Governments in India use one or more of the languages among this 23 as their official langauges. The Official Langauges of India isn't the Official Langauge of the Union, nowhere is it said so in our Constitution that it is so the case.

The infobox says that English and Hindi are the official languages, and that rest of the languages of the 8th schedule are recognised state languages which is wrong. I have provided proof and substantiation that shows that all the 8th schedule languages are official. The Union means only the Union Govt, it is not to be confused with the Indian Nation or Republic. Roaly3 (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would urge you to give me a better reply than this. Telling me that anything I can think of is probably already discussed is insulting to say the least. I requested one edit which I could have made myself but isn't allowed to, I have defended that request repeatedly with proof and substantiation and have reached the point that not even a single proof to the counter has been furnished. Please just give one invalidatable proof that shows that Malayalam and Tamil and Kannada and Bengali aren't official languages in India. Hindi isn't an official language in Kerala state. Speaking Hindi in the assembly is infact banned. All the state of Kerala Govt communication must happen in Malayalam and English and use of Hindi is next to none existent unless there is a special objective. So if Hindi is the official language in country how does this scenario arise?

Hindi is the official language of the Union Govt. Malayalam is the official language of one of the State Governments in addition to the official language of one of the UT. Both Union and State are part of the larger component of the Government in India and constitutionally recognised intrinsic part of the polity and state. Union Govt doesn't equal country. Roaly3 (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

State level and 8th schedule languages, including Malayalam, are already included in the infobox. Each state also has their own article and infobox covering their specific situations in more detail. The details in the infobox and article here are by necessity those relating to the whole country. CMD (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Roaly3: We cannot interpret the Constitution of India on first principles. Only sources can, both WP:TERTIARY for determining due weight and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for reliability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roaly3: Please read Talk:India/Archive_12#Secondary_sources from July 2007 and the following threads in Archive 13 for the deliberations that led to the current version of the official languages in the info box. If you are still dissatisfied you may begin an RfC on the phrasing you prefer. But arguing here, however eloquently, has no meaning on WP. We can effect change only through sources. This point is all the more salient for phrasing that has been in this much viewed FA for 16 years. All the best. I am traveling until August 16 and mostly unavailable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

what is an rfc on phrasing? And which is the other page or space where I can place this edit request. I thought this was the page where such requests are made. Roaly3 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Go through WP:RFCOPEN for further details. Drop by Voyager 2 talk page for an example of asking for consensus to change the phrasing according to your need. And for the nth number of time, kindly understand that this page is an FA, and is one of the oldest of the sort with a lot of traffic. Any major change in such an article need a very clear consensus and agreement from the editors. As you have been answered multiple times by various users, latest by Fowler&Fowler, that by arguing here, however eloquently, will not change anything, nor changing the edit request template from yes to no. You being adamant on getting it done out of this edit request will not work, be it how many times you reopen the request. So kindly do the RfC and get the consensus. I'm closing the request for now and marking it as answered. Start a new section for another edit request. Good luck and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I am new here and just following the instruction. Instruction is that I change answered from yes to no since my request was neither accepted nor did i get a reply that told me why my request cannot be taken up. It was a fair request that I laced with facts and sources. Roaly (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roaly and Roaly3: I applaud your commitment to following instructions. Here's some more friendly advice/instructions:

• Don't your multiple accounts for editing. See WP:SOCK for more details.
• As you've been warned already in your talk page, opening and reopening multiple edit requests may constitute as disruptive editing, and can result in losing editing privileges. So consider this as a level 2 warning too.
• I've invited you to WP:Teahouse, a forum for new editors. You may drop by and learn how to kick off editing in Wikipedia.
• Kindly go through the entire thread of discussion to see why your edit request was declined, multiple times, by multiple editors. It's nothing personal.
• Finally, once again, go through WP:RFC to know more about the procedure and how to start one.

Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I am going to report you for being unethical and personally attacking me despite my constant effort at being professional and consistent. I have two accounts, one is open in my phone and another in my PC, I didn't realise they are different accounts but I most certainly didn't use them to push through any changes or edits, I didn't abuse the system. Roaly3 (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2023 Official Language

Change official langauges from Hindi and English to Hindi and English and all the other 22 langauges listed in the 8thnschedule of Indian Constitution. Hindi and English is the official language of Union only. For the whole country all the languages of rhe 8th schedule and English is official. Roaly3 (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Eighth schedule languages are not listed as official in the constitution, and are already listed under "Recognised Languages" WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Not even Hindi and English is listed as the official language of the country in the Indian constitution. The Indian constitution says that Hindi in devanagri script and English is the official language of the "union" and authorizes the states to adopt as official language either English or any or multiple languages listed in the 8th schedule. All the languages in the 8th schedule thus can be technically considered as official language of Indian Republic, Union isn't the only component of the nation, States are also intrinsic part of the national polity, state legislatures elect representatives to the parliament for instance. As far the recognised languages are concerned, it is not limited to the 8th schedule languages, Puducherry for example recognises French language which doesn't have a mention in the constitution. Roaly (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There is already consensus for this alteration. Reffering you to the main article in wiki on the topic of Languages of India.Languages of India Roaly (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. I looked at that article, and it says, among other things:

Article 343 of the Constitution of India stated that the official language of the Union is Hindi in Devanagari script, with official use of English to continue for 15 years from 1947. Later, a constitutional amendment, The Official Languages Act, 1963, allowed for the continuation of English alongside Hindi in the Indian government indefinitely until legislation decides to change it.[2] The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union are "the international form of Indian numerals",[13][14] which are referred to as Arabic numerals in most English-speaking countries.[1] Despite the misconceptions, Hindi is not the national language of India; the Constitution of India does not give any language the status of national language. The Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution lists 22 languages,[17] which have been referred to as scheduled languages and given recognition, status and official encouragement. In addition, the Government of India has awarded the distinction of classical language to Kannada, Malayalam, Odia, Sanskrit, Tamil and Telugu. Classical language status is given to languages which have a rich heritage and independent nature.

That seems pretty clear to me. Two "official languages", no "national language", and 22 "scheduled languages". – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Two official langauges of the "Union" is what is written in the Wikipedia article on this topic not Two official langauge of the nation. Kindly provide refferences to the two official language of nation claim.

The 22 scheduled languages which also includes Hindi and English which is recognised as official subsidiary language of union are the official languages of India. Roaly3 (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: you've been asked to establish consensus before using the edit extend-protected template. Please do so before using the template again. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has been established and is reflected in this article Languages of India which neatly explains which all are the official languages of India. Kindly dont repeat this endless request towards me to establish consensus. Roaly (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Kindly explain what is this? I have already established consensus. Roaly3 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roaly3, we don't use other Wikipedia articles as sources or as proof of consensus. You need to persuade the editors here on this talk page, and for that you need a reliable source supporting your change.

FWIW re: the other article: It looks to my untutored eyes that many of the other languages are actually official languages of a particular state rather than of India? If you look in the infobox here, you'll see an expandable section that does list all of those. Valereee (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing Hindi ISO

The official name ISO has "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" but not "भारत गणराज्य" as is the case for most nations, which mention the original. 122.173.28.14 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

even Bharat Ganarajya is not the official name of the country in most languages. The whole thing should be removed. Roaly3 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.indiatoday.in/law-today/story/india-or-bharat-renaming-constitution-article-1-supreme-court-2431213-2023-09-05

Article 1 of the Constitution states that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” It's crucial to emphasise that Article 1 of the Constitution recognises both 'India' and 'Bharat' as official names for the country.

Should add Bharat alongside India as official name in constitution is India as well as Bharat. Revdevil (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2023

India should be named as a Bharat and soon it will be announced officially Kp144 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

India is not named Bharat anywhere in Constitution except in the Hindi, Sanskrit and Konkani translation of the same. In all the other official translations of the constitution it is India, that is Bharatham. Roaly3 (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

India changing it's name?

I've seen several news reports saying that India is changing its official name from the Republic of India to the Republic of Bharat, is this true? J.A. (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, they just showed "President of Bharat" to a G20 meeting. So probably not MrJaydenfire (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Changing the name requires constitutional amendment with passing the bill in simple majority in both the house of Indian Parliament. The ruling party is in minority in Upper house, so they can't pass the bill unless some opposition party supports. Hence it is unlikely to be so. Only news rumours can't do it. And 'Bharat' is also used alongside 'India', so the G20 invitation where Bharat is used is also not unofficial. Ku423winz1 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

We still haven't got enough information on this, but I've heard that this change will be effective starting September 18th. Best regards, TheGreaterAdenz Joy Bangla! 11:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

TheGreaterAdenz: It sounds like the bill has to pass first before the name change takes effect, so if the bill fails on the 18th, nothing happens AFAIK. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 19:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

Article one in the Consutution of India says that India can also be called as bharat. Shounakadi (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

See clearly, Bharat Ganarajya is there in bracket Ku423winz1 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

India name is changed to Bharat

Sirs please the name India is in current moment no longer, if you will see the President Modi will changing the name to Bharat as in our Hindi language

Please Wikipedia operator do the needful and update article name as appropriate. 46.135.31.16 (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. As this is the English language Wikipedia, we go by WP:COMMONNAME. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

ISO language?

I have no idea what an ISO is. The name of the language that "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is being transliterated from should be clearly stated. Please change "ISO" to "Hindi". 76.69.93.199 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. The ISO indicates that "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is being transliterated from Hindi (as you can see if you hover over it). Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Settling the Bharat dispute: lead sentence?

Given that the banner on the page notice states that just like Turkey and Türkiye, countries are to include their common alternative names in the lead sentence. The current revision of this article does not do so. Shouldn't the lead sentence be something like this:

India, officially the Republic of India and also known as Bharat...

If we want to be consistent with our page notice, shouldn't we be doing this? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Not before the bill passes, no. See sections above. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. There have been no confirmation officially nor the bill has propsed or passed in the Parliament. It's moot and redundant till then. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If the bill passes, the lead would read-

India, Officially (The Republic of) Bharat

until the use of "India" for the modern day country is phased out in secondary sources and common conversation, which could take years. Solblaze (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And when that happens, I will—if I'm still around—propose that "India" again be the name of the British Raj, the political entity that consolidated the subcontinent's sovereignty, and whose successor states became Bharat and Pakistan on the midnight of 14 and 15 August 1947.

The Raj was called India in contemporary usage and international protocols, and it was only because of that accident of history that the Republic of India received its English name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

PS This is my fantasy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

PPS I wonder what Dravidian language speakers in South India, the people who are most literate, who have created much of India's economic and technical resurgence, including, almost singlehandedly, the recent moon landing, will say to a North-Indian, Indo-Aryan, name that Bharat most glaringly is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Current challenges - more coverage would be great

This is a great article and I enjoyed reading. I feel like it could use a section on India's current challenges:

• The rise of informal employment and the challenges it poses to workers' rights and social protection.
• The impact of climate change on India's poor and marginalized communities.
• The gender gap in education and employment.
• The challenges of providing quality healthcare to all Indians.
• The need to improve governance and reduce corruption.

Wrythemann (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you could craft a sentence for each topic and we could take it from there. I think were are already over the ideal word count for an FA, so we can't add too much, unless we rewrite larger sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As for crafting sentences on each topic - I don't think I am capable of that. I leave that to the veterans. Wrythemann (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2023

In Old Latin, the name of India is spelt "Uindia". It is like the "I" in India pronounced as in Ice, Idea and Iron. Therefore, the country name is Uindia so as to pronounce it exactl, "U" is preceded.

Uindia, itself is derived from Uindhu. Uindhu means 5 in Tamil. So Indus River means 5 Rivers in Tamil. Long-time back before the great floods, there existed an Indus Valley civilization or "Uindhu Nadhi Nagarigam" in Tamil as we know. The number 1, 5 and 7 are auspicious to the ancient Tamils. 5,Uindhu,is the worship of 5 elements and 7 is the worship of 7 planets. 1 is the worship of SUN, the creator force. Uindia is the land of worship of 5 elements and the civilization was built on the banks of 5 rivers culminated into 1 river. Uindhu valley civilization is ancient Tamil civilization and it had links to Keezhadi, a new excavation site in Tamil Nadu. India is not an invention of the Britishers or western civilizations. The name has divine connections, if changed shall revert back to Uindia after severe losses. Uindia shall be apolitical (No Kingdoms or political parties) and irreligious (No religions). The Greeks and Persians respected it and never invaded Uindia. The worship of 5 elements is Uindutca. Uindian or Uian is the worshipper of 5 elements with Sun as the father and creator. Uindhavan(Masc.). Uindhaval (fem.)

Bharatama, Tusrata and Brastachar were the kings of the migrated Sherwani speaking Azeris (Azerbaijan) (Includes, Jews, Syrians and Indian Brahmins who are related) to Mesopotamia in the years 1550-1200 BCE. Brahma was the creator god and Indra was the lord of lords. The kingdom was created during a power vacuum of the Assyrians or the Asuras. All the three tribes were exiled lock, stock and barrel from Mesopotamia to Bactria (Afghanistan) except Jews to Canaan when the Assyrians came to power. Of the three kings, Bharatama was the most loved king. There was several attempts to create a kingdom for the Azeris (a sub sect of the Aryans). All failed. It seems now is the best chance to name a country after the late beloved king Bhaartama as Bharat and make Uindia their home. Pathamon (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

???????? I have no idea what this guy is on, but it seems to be nonsense. 108.160.120.91 (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I read the first paragraph and nodded along "this wont pass, but its a valid change", then I skipped down to the bottom and my jaw dropped, haha Googleguy007 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Name change reports

Apparently, India's CNBC reports that the government is preparing to change the name of the country to 'Bharat'. We should wait for a more credible source, though. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

One has to be an incredibly insecure political party to rename the country all because the opposition alliance has come up with an acronym that sounds like it. (self-striking) In any case, if indeed they have done this (a big if), the name on wikipedia will not change—only the 'Republic of India' in the first sentence and the infobox may be changed to whatever XYZ they’ve decided to change the official name to. Nowhere else. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Also a name change such as this would require a constitutional amendment, something which the BJP lacks the required strength in the parliament and state assemblies to do. But given that all this speculation comes merely on the basis of G20 invites using 'Republic of Bharat' instead of 'Republic of India', it isn’t unlikely that it turns out to be just that, sensational speculation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We'll change it on the 18th if the name is changed. Solblaze (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the article title will remain India nevertheless.

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria.

We should just buckle up for multiple move requests if such a thing happens. Otherwise, nothing is going to change in the article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Till then we should edit the name to Republic of India (Bharat) as In official Indian constitution it's already mentioned two names, one India and other Bharat. There is no doubt in this. It is just that it is not widely used internationally but it's official. I can see an ISO tag but it should be "Republic of India (Bharat)" or "Republic of India or Bharat" as Bharat is not just devnagari translation of India. It is other name. If you want ISO, it should be included after the English "Bharat" which should be placed at level equivalent to name India. Revdevil (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Article 1 of the Constitution states that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” It's crucial to emphasise that Article 1 of the Constitution recognises both 'India' and 'Bharat' as official names for the country. Got this from constitution pdf.

Also mention in this source:

https://www.indiatoday.in/law-today/story/india-or-bharat-renaming-constitution-article-1-supreme-court-2431213-2023-09-05

Please add 2 names for now as officially the Constitution of India already has 2 names, India and Bharat. Revdevil (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Please go through WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE and WP:OFFICIALNAMES to see the rationale behind the title of the article. Additionally, you can search the talk page archives of this page that goes back to almost 20 years to see the why the article and the titles are named so. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A country's name on Wikipedia is not just what it chooses to call itself. Please see Talk:India/Archive_53#Only_"India"_or_"India_or_Bharat", in particular my list. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Another notable example is Nihon/Nippon. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of any Japanese officials attempting to change the English name of Japan, where English is not official. — RVJ (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That was 2 years ago and we've accommodated these name choices for Czechia and Turkey in the opening sentences. Killuminator (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

But Indias name had not changed two years ago. An editor had attempted to interpret the Indian constitution from first principles 70 years after India became a republic. . This has happened once a year in my 17 years. This time it is dinner napkins. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

In other words when a country’s name changes, it is reflected in international protocols, in the way the UN addresses the dignitary of a country, records the various activities of a country. Nothing has happened yet. Only dinner napkins have Bharat printed. Storm in a teacup. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. It’s dinner invitations. What’s the difference? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Since pages of Mexico, South Africa uses a seperate Map right below the globe map in infobox, Can't we use our Zonal Map Similarly? Editor8220 (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really, unless there is a new consensus on this page for it. Please see the advisory WP:COUNTRYLEAD, which punts (see here) to the country FAs, which except for one do not have a second map in the infobox. We, incidentally, are the oldest country FA, soon to be 19 years old. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think any problem with that. India is large enough and have island chains too. It can have a seperate map on the infobox Editor8220 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I have a second opinion or should open an RFC?? Editor8220 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint. It's crucial that any additions, like maps, enhance the article's educational value and provide valuable information to our readers. Unfortunately, the zonal map (that you suggest) doesn't seem to fit that criterion.

If you have suggestions for a more informative map or any other content that could improve the article, please share them. I would be happy to comment! Wrythemann (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Its ok. The other map is "political", which is already included within the article in the Section "Politics and Government".

Another improvement might be the fact that on the article's of Pakistan and China, (pointing out, since they have heavily militarized border with India) they have "Military" as a seperate section. Being having the second largest standing army in the world, one of the largest military budget and an armed forces ranking 4th in "global firepower index" shouldn't India have "Military" as a seperate section? Editor8220 (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In general, this article (FA) should be a model for the others, not the other way around. Taking the topic on its own merit, are the armed forces of India one of the key topics that a reader needs to know about to understand India? Is there particularly crucial information about the military that is not in the current prose? CMD (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

China and Pakistan, both has it as a seperate section. India has hostile borders with both the countries have significant military developments. So why can't it be a seperate section?? Editor8220 (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyway I am closing. Editor8220 (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Telecommunications & space services of India

India achieved a major breakthrough in science & technology with Mission Moon & mission mars, recently in August 2023 India has landed its rover on moon. Indian space research organisation is well eastablished. 120.57.215.248 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable and some mention of India's space program is probably a good idea. Both the moon landing as well as the fact that it is relatively inexpensive. If anyone has the time and energy to dig up a few good sources ...RegentsPark (comment) 22:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: It had been in the lead from July 2019 (from just before India's unsuccessful moon landing of August that year) to mid-July 2023.

It said,

"It has a space programme which includes several planned or completed extraterrestrial missions.

It was removed six weeks ago (in July 2023) because of a post on this page. I forget now what the issue was; perhaps there was trepidation that another failed landing might make the sentence's claim overblown. Anyway, here is a version of the lead from mid-July 2023. Note that "extraterrestrial missions" is Wikilinked to List of Solar System probes.

Perhaps we can say:

It has a space programme with several planned or completed extraterrestrial missions, including a robotic moon landing in August 2023."

I would (humbly) suggest that we not say anything about the low costs. I can offer some perspective: The Soviet Union had landed an uncrewed (robotic) lander, Luna 17, on the moon in 1970, i.e. 53 years earlier. It, moreover, returned, i.e. was able to lift off, join the mother ship, which then returned to the earth. It had a rover that collected moon rocks. The Indian rover moves at 2 ft/minute (1 cm/sec). The Soviet was quite a bit faster. (View here after the 40 seconds mark. The initial footage might be simulation.)

In other words, I would urge caution until we know how much the Indian product's technical specs were affected by the cost-cutting, how much cheaper were the components in India and how much lower the salaries of the scientific and technical staff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right about the costs. But, the new moon landing does appear to be a big deal and I was surprised there was nothing about the space program in the article. Perhaps a few well crafted sentences?RegentsPark (comment) 15:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

To add, ISRO's strategy is to use more Indian-made parts. It's a smart move, cutting mission costs, increasing control, and potentially creating export opportunities in the future. Wrythemann (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That may be, but I doubt they will be competitive scientifically in the extraterrestrial missions, though they might be for weather satellites or similar others. The Soviets had already landed on Venus of all places in the 1970s or early 80s. NASA currently has a rover and a helicopter on MARS with its very thin atmosphere, each getting around by motion-planning in an unstructured environment (i.e. not being controlled by mission control on earth beyond some major decisions). The Chandrayaan-3 rover, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on directions from mission control. With the moon at 400,000 km distance, and the speed of light 300,000 km/sec, it takes 2.6 seconds for each robotic decision. That strategy would be unfeasible on Mars. The ramping up might be costly and time-consuming research-wise. Also, they didn't really land on the South Pole, only 600 km away, well outside the moon's Antarctic Circle. There was daylight there. The Indian media might be overhyping the achievement a bit. Still, I agree it is an important achievement and definitely worth reinstating in the lead.

As for mentioning ISRO by name instead of wikilinking it to "space programme," I will of course respect what consensus there is, but this article does not do much naming. Mahatma Gandhi is not mentioned in the lead by name, though non-violence is. The Archeological Survey of India (ASI), arguably more important thus far in Indian history than ISRO, is not named anywhere in the article. We have to worry about issues of due weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, @RegentsPark and Wrythemann: I just realized that you both might be talking about the article, not necessarily the lead. Sure a couple sentences in the main body, summarized in one sentence in the lead, would be fine. Why don't you both come up with something? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to pass the baton to RegentsPark. Wrythemann (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to see something along the lines of India has a space programme with several planned or completed extraterrestrial missions. It is the fourth country to land a craft on the moon and the first to land one on the South Pole.RegentsPark (comment) 17:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I like this! Wrythemann (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Again guys. It is not the South Pole; it is 600 km from it. Perhaps we can follow the lead of Chandrayaan-3 and use: "the first to land near the region of the [[Lunar South Pole]] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "in the region of" rather than "near the region of"?RegentsPark (comment) 19:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

or "landed in the southern polar region of the moon" (NYT) Wrythemann (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Footnote 1 in Chandrayaan-3 says, "While the landing site is often called as "polar region" in media and publications, the location of Chandrayaan-3's lander or rover is not within the Lunar Antarctic circle (80°S). ISRO scientists involved in selecting and characterizing the landing site call it a "high-latitude location"."

The main thing for me is that a polar region implies an unpredictable environment, including peaks and crevasses, and sunlight that is either highly oblique, almost horizontal, on the peaks and entirely absent in the valleys. They faced none of those issues. Their rover uses solar power on flat ground.

In other words, there was no physical feature in the Indian landing area that was more challenging than those encountered in all the other previous, more equatorial, landing areas.

Or we could be precise, "... the first to land within 600 km of the Lunar South pole." I hope you don't think I'm being too cantankerous. I'm trying to ensure that as the lunar landing missions of other countries and private consortiums come to fruition later this year and next, our text remains encyclopedic. I will leave it to your best judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the precise option. Let's do it! Wrythemann (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Got distracted by RL issues. Fowler's precise formulation looks good to me. RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

OK @RegentsPark and Wrythemann:. Let's give it until this week's end. If there are no objections, why don't you Wrythemann—as you're the one who raised the issue—add the sentence mostly crafted by RP and you:

India has a [[ISRO|space programme]] with several planned or completed [[List of Solar System probes|extraterrestrial missions]]. It is the fourth country to land [[Chandrayaan-3|a craft]] on the moon and the first to land one within {{convert|600|km|mi}} of the [[Lunar south pole]].

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I forgot. Here's a citation:

Kumar, Hari; Travelli, Alex; Mashal, Mujib; Chang, Kenneth (August 23, 2023), "'India Is on the Moon': Lander's Success Moves Nation to Next Space Chapter", The New York Times, Two visitors from India — a lander named Vikram and a rover named Pragyan — landed in the southern polar region of the moon on Wednesday. The two robots, from a mission named Chandrayaan-3, make India the first country to ever reach this part of the lunar surface in one piece — and only the fourth country ever to land on the moon. ... The spacecraft stopped to hover about 150 yards above the surface for a few seconds, then resumed its downward journey until it settled gently on the surface, about 370 miles from the south pole. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's only fair that you do the honors. Also, I don't have editing privileges for the article. New editors are restricted. Wrythemann (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler and @RegentsPark - Can we now move the text we all agreed on into the article? Wrythemann (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Just did. Sorry for the delay and thanks for initiating this discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate your help. Wrythemann (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I like the proposed text but I feel like ISRO should get a more vocal shout-out. Wrythemann (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

See my overlong reply above. :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"officially the Republic of India" in the lead MUST be changed to "officially the Republic of Bharat" - like "officially the Republic of Türkiye" in the page about Turkey!

MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Cite please. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see the lead in the article about Turkey MagnusRegnumAntichristiAdvenit (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please show the official citation for India. This is an article about India, not Turkey. Also, go through the edit notice on top of this page. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Needless Wikilinking"

@Fowler&fowler:

The target of a link, when feasible, should be as clear as possible, see Wikipedia:TRANSPARENCY.

Thus, linking only the word "poverty" may confuse readers to think that the link target is the article "Poverty", as opposed to "Poverty in India". By linking the word "its" along, it gives readers context, making it clear or at least giving the impression that the link is specifically related to a situation in India.

Also, please explain why a link in the lead section to India's air pollution or its wildlife should be any more important that its forest cover. All three articles are about a highly specific environmental aspect of the country, but I can't see how one should be more relevant than another. Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The transparency I understand to a limited extent. The needless Wikilinking I don't. But the WP:ONUS is on you to explain that the links you have added especially "poverty," have the same need as the others. You will then have to wait for the ensuing discussion. Sorry, but this is WP's oldest country FA, soon to be 19 years old. We are not at liberty to make changes without discussion, unless, of course, they are trivial. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why India's national anthem cited as written in hindi? its bengali

India's national anthem Jana gana mana was written by great bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore and its written in bengali. Why its mentioned as hindi? change it to bengali. https://www.culturalindia.net/national-symbols/anthem.html SarkarVijay (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

I would like to edit this article to make it more accurate. For example change,"Almost 1.4 billion in 2022", to,"1.4 billion in 2023" to make it feel more modern Awesomeboy122 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

Please change the national bird. The National bird of India is The Indian Peacock, Pavo cristatus (not peafowl). https://knowindia.india.gov.in/national-identity-elements/national-bird.php 193.159.173.34 (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That's a different name for the same bird, please see Indian peafowl. CMD (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Leade second sentence

Hi there I would like to propose the following sentence from the fourth leade para to be moved up to after the first leade sentence. This makes sense because it gives after a basic geographic description a basic constituting description and only then the currently following geographic contextualization.

"India has been a federal republic since 1950, governed through a democratic parliamentary system. It is a pluralistic, multilingual and multi-ethnic society."

What do you say? Nsae Comp (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That would take a geography-focused paragraph and insert some politics and demograhpics into its middle, while removing that sentence on politics and demographics from the paragraph which includes socioeconomics. CMD (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I dont see a problem with that. I agree that the paragraphs should have a consistent focus, but the first sentences/para should state basics, introduce the topic and then there can the text can focus in the following paras on completing the introduction. Afterall the rule of about four paras will always force us to mix topics. I would say it is more important to provide good bridges/introductions to the different focuses and then you get also paras that pack the different facts relatabely together.

At the moment the the first para bombards you with geographic contextualization instead of summarizing what India is.Nsae Comp (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively how about mentioning the range of states India has, similarly to the US article's first para. Maybe this could even allow the mention of India being a federal parliamentarian state and that the states are very divers. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles, and especially FAs, see for example Australia, have structured leads: Geography, History, Politics, and general notable things such as membership of organizations. India is Wikipedia's oldest country FA, now 19 years old. In a sense, this page has set the trend for other FAs (at least according to user:Nichalp, administrator and arbitrator, who first led the drive for better South Asia articles on WP). The US is not an FA.

This page's lead has two history paragraphs. This is because South Asia is a region with an old, old, history. Not only did the first modern humans make there first stop there when they migrated out of Africa, but groups that had emigrated from South Asia thereafter and were changed by genetic drift and founder's effects, re-immigrated there with new languages and mythologies (such as the Indo-Aryans). Per force, it will have a longer history section than other country articles.

All this does not mean that nothing can change in the lead. You are welcome to propose something, as you have. This lead has been worked over by many editors for a very long time. I certainly disagree with your proposed changes. You'll just have to wait to see if others bite, and a new consensus is achieved. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Did I find a typo in the lede?

I think that "Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rigveda." should instead be "It is in evidence today in the hymns of the Rigveda." or "It is found today in the hymns of the Rigveda." What do you think? I don't have 500 edits yet so I can't edit this myself. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: I think the "its" in that sentence refers to the "archaic form of Sanskrit" in the previous sentence. You can make a formal edit request by adding {{subst:EEp}} to the beginning of your request. Fork99 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Does a formal edit request mean I am requesting that someone else do the edit, or for special permission to do it myself? Polar Apposite (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: for someone else to do the edit on your behalf. Fork99 (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I've got 500 edits to my name now, so I could edit myself. Do I think either of my proposed new versions would be suitable? Polar Apposite (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that sentence. The sentence before speaks of an archaic form of Sanskrit which diffused into India from the northwest. The evidence of that language is found today in the orally transmitted Rg Veda. It is the only evidence. Nothing else has survived. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that language itself found in the today in the orally transmitted Rg Veda? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Because of its sacred nature, the Rg Veda, has remained unchanged for 3500 years. See for example Indian_mathematics#Styles_of_memorisation. The Rg Veda is the most important source for the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European, the posited mother language of Indo-European languages. Rg Veda's language, of course, is dead, i.e. no one speaks it as their first language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

PS In other words, we have no source for Rg Vedic Sanskrit except the Rg Veda. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So is Rg Vedic Sanskrit the "archaic form of Sanskrit which diffused into India from the northwest". Polar Apposite (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of Sanskrit, John Lowe in particular. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean the second paragraph of its lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

Pages are renamed by moving them to new target names. This procedure preserves the page's edit history. Please do not rename a page by copying/pasting its content to a new page name. If you have an autoconfirmed account (an account that is at least four days old and has made more than 10 edits), you can move a page yourself, but please first review Wikipedia:Article titles. If you still wish to rename the page, go to it, click the Tools drop-down menu at the top (near the View history button and Watchlist star), and choose Move. You can then specify a new name for the article. The old page name will automatically become a redirect to the new page. However, if it isn't possible for you or you think the move would be at all controversial you should request the move on the talk page using the Template:Requested move. Even where a move is uncontroversial, if the desired target page name already exists and is other than a redirect with only one edit, you will need an administrator or page mover to move the page for you, which can be requested at the technical requests section of requested moves. Hope this helps.

Balotra (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

India, that is Bharat,

As per Constitution of India, Article 1 "India, that is Bharat" so this must be added/updated in Wikipedia as well. For reference Please check https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/ Manish4 4 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Already in the article. CMD (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

my suggestion is to add "that is Bharat," in Heading or very 1st line. Manish4 4 (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Bharat

India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. Source: Constitution of India. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/Part1.pdf

1.By adding Bharat meaning will remain same in wikipedia article and viewer will visible 'Bharat' the official name as per Constitution of India, article 1. Maru Pradesh, Bharat (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Read the edit notice and the edit requests above. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

India name has been changed to Bharat from India hopefully this site will be up to date 60.50.88.107 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:INDIANEXP

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-history/ncert-textbooks-replace-india-with-bharat-8999272/lite/

The Herald (Benison) I had provided reliable sources now change 'India' to 'Bharat'

Thanks... Balotra (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am waiting

Do it as soon as possible Balotra (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are The Herald (Benison) Balotra (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The source provided only states a "suggestion" of changing the name. Also, this is the English language Wikipedia, and WP:COMMONNAME applies. Even if the name was to be officially changed, it is unlikely that Wikipedia would follow suit unless the new name was in common use worldwide. Also, please read the edit notice! Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is official name in Constitution of India. Balotra (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Then provide a citation to a reliable source, or a citation to a copy of the constitution where this can be verified. The citation above merely discusses a suggestion, not an actual name change. Your behavior is bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS, further requests like this will result in a block on your account. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2023 (2)

2409:4081:1D91:43B:0:0:76CA:B712 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 07:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)