Talk:India#Comment by Sarvagnya.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7 contribs.29:

The use of “Bhārat Gaṇarājya” under “Republic of India” in the infobox. This transliteration represents Hindi in a Sanskritized form, but its use as the sole native name may unintentionally imply that Hindi is the national or only native language of India.

India is a multilingual nation, with 22 official languages at the constitutional level, and no declared national language. Therefore, I believe the current infobox should clarify this.Washi189 30px 07:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree. India is not a solely Hindi speaking country. But I think instead of removing the phrase altogether, we could use what is done in the article for the European Union, where the official name is given in all official languages. We should add the official name for India in all languages recognized in the Eighth Schedule, such as Marathi, Tamil, Gujarati, etc. It would be a far better representation of the country, considering the fact that as per the 2011 Census, only around 40% of India's population framed Hindi as their mother tongue. EarthDude (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can't place it, but a similar discussion has happened earlier too. Have a look in the archives for that. Bharat Ganrajya and Republic of India are the official names on India in it's official languages (English and Hindi), and hence that's more than enough. Adding each of those 22 languages would be too much like the EU page. There is no unintentional implication here because a few lines below, in the infobox, the official languages are extensively covered and named. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I seem to remember too, Benison, that this has been discussed before. At least the sources that are considered reliable in this specific context of naming have been enumerated. A consensus among those ultimately matters more than language-equity concerns. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not just about equity or implications though, even if those are a part of argument. The Eighth Schedule is a list of official constitutionally recognized languages, which gives it pretty fair weight. I am not arguing to add India's official name for languages not in the list. Also, just because it is similar to the article on the EU does not matter much. EarthDude (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@EarthDude What about Indian passports ?? It also has only English and Hindi 😂😂😂 Logo5556 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::@EarthDude Well, we can't include all names at once. This is precisely why the WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS policy was made in the first place. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 06:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But this proposal won't go against WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS because we can just have it be written in latinized form, like how "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is written in latinized Hindi EarthDude (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@EarthDude The issue is not with the script but rather with the no. of languages. For example, during the implementation of the policy, in this discussion, even the name of the topic suggests that it's because of too many languages. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 08:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is to be noted that Washi189 has been indefinitely blocked as an sockpuppet of {{user|M1rrorCr0ss}}Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 17:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:FAR, I am providing notice that I intend to initiate the first step of the featured article review process. The main concern I have is the poor prose and bloatedness of the lead. This was initially brought up by me in an August 2024 discussion. Although there have been marginal improvements since then, it is still far from FA acceptable. I note that there may be (and likely are) other issues besides the lead to be discovered in the review process, but for simplicity I will focus exclusively on the lead.

A table detailing concerns is below.

Changes to the second sentence are being discussed above, but it is unlikely that consensus will be reached which resolves the concerns of concision, clarity and redundancy which have been raised.

JDiala (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:The separate distinction of the most populous democracy has been discussed above. "Luminous" is perhaps promotional, but "pioneering" and "influential" seem less so. Point 6 is wrong, those terms are not synonymous. CMD (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is discussed above but it seems increasingly clear that it will not be significantly changed (that said, if I am later proven wrong and it is changed, you may disregard this). MOS:PUFFERY explicitly lists "pioneering" as a word to watch. Point 6 says "near-synonymous", not "synonymous"; they're sufficiently similar that using three separate adjectives is not very informative and the singular "pluralistic" suffices. JDiala (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::FAR is not meant to be a run-around for consensus decisions that someone disagrees with. A word to watch is not a word to never use, and pluralistic does not cover the overlapping demographic complexity here. CMD (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It is precisely the purpose of FAR to potentially downgrade articles when editors of that article fail to uphold FA standards. The issues here are longstanding and independent of the above discussion. "Pioneering" is a puffery word and the fact that it was explicitly listed there makes your point look silly. "Demographic complexity" seems like a good thing to cover in a body, not in a lead, which is intended to be concise. JDiala (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It has been discussed many times. Your view is your view, but a few prose points are not sufficient for a FAR. CMD (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not sure that's your call to make. I plan on following the process through as far as I can. I'll be happy to expand on this by finding more issues. Anyways, this is a 2004 FA with its last FAR in 2011, it's overdue. JDiala (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::A process in lieu of the FAR had taken place beginning in the summer of 2019, when a two-month review took place in preparation for the Wikipedia front page appearance on Gandhi's 150 birth anniversary on 2 October 2019. At that time not only was the lead revised in the presence of a couple of dozen reviewers including eight or nine administrators, but India#Cuisine and India#Clothing were addes; and during COVID when more sections were added. Among them were India#Visual_arts by Johnbod; India#Education by Rjensen; India#Energy by Femke. SandyGeorgia and and user:Flemmish Nietzsche had discussed what else was needed, but it was not much. Otherwise, I would not have taken on the responsibility of the successful Darjeeling FAR in the summer of 2022. (See here and slowly scroll to the bottom to see the extensive review.)

:::::::Besides user:JDiala, you have not made a single edit to India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article, now 21 years old. The article has 4,000 watchers besides. Please be aware that Your edits on Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose and Talk:India show signs of WP:Sealioning, which is a Wikipedia concern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have not edited India specifically but I have edited India-adjacent articles extensively, including a substantial copy edit of the Sikhism article last summer. I have also participated on the India talk page extensively.

::::::::I haven't seen the 2019 discussion, but I am skeptical that a non-FAR discussion could be had in lieu of a formal FAR. I doubt it could be as rigorous. I would need to read through that discussion to form a solid opinion. JDiala (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The '2019 review' was performed almost exclusively by regulars on the article. That kind of defeats the purpose. JDiala (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::May I ask how does that defeats it's purpose? These regulars you talk about are half a dozen sysops and other veteran editors who have worked in multiple featured articles and have have conducted FA reviews and GA reviews, with multiple successful FAC and GAC in their cap. That ought to count for something. The article has over 4000 watchers and these edits matter. Those discussions matter. This article is not a random article that is an FA. It has been very thoroughly copyedited and is in this shape right now. So, regulars or not, the opinions of those veterans do matter. When you come out of the blue with zero edits in this article with changes that the consensus doesn't agree to, and accuse those regulars of STONEWALLING and BLUDGEONING, that's simply ain't right and is slowly entering into the CIR territory. — Benison (Beni · talk) 08:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::If you are so confident about the editors and the editing history, then a FAR would be nothing to fear. I am sure you will pass with flying colours. My main concern is the experience of the end-user, not chest-thumping on talk pages. In my humble opinion, this article is ugly in a way that FAs like Germany, Japan and Canada are not and I have yet to see a convincing reason why this needs to be the case. I am not saying I am for sure right or that my opinion should trump consensus, but only that other eyes ought to look at the article. That's why the FAR process exists. JDiala (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::User:Fowler&fowler: editing an article has never been a requirement to start a featured article review. ALittleClass (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Calling a movement "pioneering" is absolutely a violation of NPOV EarthDude (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Point (1) is being discussed above. I, like CMD, agree that "luminuous" is probably an overkill (although we'll need to check the sources) but don't find merit in the other points.

:Frankly, Jdiala, your participation at this page is increasingly looking to be a response to consensus not favoring you over F&f at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose with this pointy FAR appearing to be further escalation to you not getting your way in the lede discussion. And your rude "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=1292451769 look silly]" response to CMD, and latest battleground threat to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=1292454426 find more issues]" etc {{small|(shouldn't you have done that before starting this section?!)}} is not encouraging. Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Luminous" has been discussed before in these pages, I'm pretty sure. Not only during the summer of 2019, but also once later. Not tonight, but I'll look for the discussion tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. Your theory is directly contradicted by the fact that I made an August 2024 post outlining the identical issue. I can point to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndia&diff=1292419074&oldid=1292413099 similar] battleground-y behaviour from other editors (being told to "shut up", worse than anything I might have said). "Finding more issues" is not a "battleground threat"; actually that's literally our job as editors, correcting existing problems. I was under the assumption that a poor prose in the lead is an adequate reason to do a FAR which is why I focused exclusively on that, but CMD hinted otherwise. That was the impetus for my response. I already had some potential non-lead issues in mind which is why I asserted that so confidently (for instance the global article length is exceeding the threshold specified by WP:ARTICLESIZE).

::FA status is a matter of a community-level consensus. It cannot be overridden by local consensus. FAR occurs when consensus-building at the article talk page level fails to maintain FA status. It is eminently reasonable for an editor to initiate a FAR when, in his judgement, the local consensus is failing. Bullying or casting aspersions upon an editor for merely initiating this process is indicative of a poor collaborative culture on the talk page. JDiala (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::user:JDiala. I said you have not made a single edit to the FA India. See [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/India here]. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Edits are not the only form of contribution. Discussion also is. Generally speaking, I am circumspect when editing FAs and prefer to seek consensus first. This is why I am here on the talk page. I have worked on non-FA India-related articles, like Sikhism. JDiala (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Precisely, one sentence in the lead is devoted to Sikhism. India is a many-splendored topic area. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=1292264399&oldid=1188070361 These are the changes] happened since the last FARGIVEN. I had agreed back then (2023 November) that a rewrite was needed, but I think the article is in decent shape for a Featured Article now. This notice doesn't makes sense, citing MOS issues which can be fixed (if required) by getting a consensus here. JDiala needs to calm down a bit and reasses the situation after taking a step back, IMO. I'm not sure of their history with F&F, but I'm sensing some kind of hostility here, and probably a COI. — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Hello Benison, I have no idea who JDiala is. I doubt I had had any interaction with them on any other page, at least none that I can remember, before I met them on Subhas Chandra Bose a little over two weeks ago. They came riding roughshod into the article, making dubious racial comments, suggesting that the article reflected the viewpoints of White scholars. When I reverted them, and posted on their user talk page (see here), they cited Orientalism, and attempted to connect "White" with "Whiteness studies.
• :When they emerged from their two-week block (on another matter that same day), the first thing they did was to appear on Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose and wax incredulous about how we could have a viewpoint at such variance to what India's 1.4 billion people believe to be the truth about SCB. Since then it has gone from bad to worse. My citing WP:Sealioning was not done lightly. I have already mentioned this to Valereee to be a major India-topic-area concern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd ask editors to read both this article's talk page and the Bose talk page and make up their own minds. In this discussion, I have provided a detailed box labelling each of my individual concerns with the lead in a neat and professional manner. In the Bose article, which was a WP:OR dispute, I gave a detailed source-by-source analysis in a subsection. F&F, in each case, rather than engaging with the points raised mostly resorted to PAs and aspersions. F&F has a record of this conduct, for instance in a November 2020 discussion with another editor on a similar issue: a new editor to the area suggested an FA review and F&F was notably agitated and BATTLEGROUND-y in the interaction and was explicitly reprimanded by the administrator {{no-ping|Femke}} for his rude conduct. This is just one example. This years-long pattern of WP:STONEWALLING, WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:OWNing by longstanding editors is a major reason new editors are unable to contribute effectively here. The existing 'old guard' editors make it a deeply unpleasant environment. See also comments by {{no-ping|Moxy}} in the August 2024 discussion. This is why getting outside eyes on the article is a good idea. JDiala (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Reality check: {{tq|q=y|new editors are unable to contribute effectively here}}:

::::*If they want to improve the article, they can. You know that from your own experience - for example, you raised an issue on the talk page,^{[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndia&diff=1292059495&oldid=1291772159]} and one of the so-called "longstanding editors" you complain about made the change you asked for.^{[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=1292132977&oldid=1291885895]}

::::*If they are only here to pick fights with other editors, this is the wrong forum for it – WP:ANI is the place for that.

::::-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is no longer a FAR. This is moving into an ANI case now. I have replied above in terms of the BLUDGEONING and STONEWALLING comment. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 08:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:In my opinion, aside from some flowery language, much of the rest of the concerns you have raised seem exaggerated and overly hostile. For instance, the sixth issue you have raised, of the pluralistic line, doesn't seem to be an issue at all EarthDude (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate your feedback, although, given the views you have expressed in the above discussion, you seem to also have some criticisms of the second sentence (in the current status-quo form). JDiala (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The lead was discussed for several weeks, if not months, in the summer of 2019 before the article's second TFA appearance in October that year. See sections 1, 2, 4 and 6, in Talk:India/Archive_46. No one can say that a consensus was not attempted nor reached. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:PS Where the current phrasing of the lead is different from the one above in archive 46, long discussions in the months and years after, lasting several weeks in each instance, eg, of Rig Veda, the pioneering and influential nationalist movement, the partition, the summary of East India Company rule in India, took place. I can cite chapter and verse of that history if anyone seriously objects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::* See for example, Talk:India/Archive_47#RfC_on_superlatives_sentence on the second sentence in the lead dating to nearly three weeks after the TFA appearance. It was very likely discussed again in later discussions. This reopened above by JDiala.

::*See Talk:India/Archive_48#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_9_June_2020 for "pioneering and influential nationalist movement."

::*Johnbod's Visual Arts section addition: Talk:India/Archive_50#Art_section_draft

::*Talk:India/Archive_54#FAR_notice_on_WP:FARGIVEN

::*Talk:India/Archive_55#Wrong_link and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=1110884077 this diff] for "Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rig Veda. Preserved by a resolutely vigilant oral tradition, the Rig Veda records the dawning of Hinduism in India"

::*Talk:India/Archive_56#Description_of_the_Colonial_Period_in_the_introduction and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=1111136686 diff] for the British Raj sentence in the lead, "... and modern ideas of education and the public life took root."

::*Finally, here are my posts and exchanges in thread Talk:India/Archive_60#Bringing_the_article_back_to_FA_standard before a RL emergency beset my work on WP. There are few things that do need to be done, but I did ping several editors and received responses from Vanamonde (and elsewhere from Benison, I believe, on improving the economy section. (Apologies, if it wasn't you.). But someone with no experience on this page, such as JDiala (who, in addition, has COI issues, to use Benison's term) is not the person to spearhead the small unfinished balance of what in effect has been a six-year-long FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also pinging Z1720 who had made a post earlier and Nikkimaria who copyedited the lead. Both are both FAR regulars. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::PS To whittle this down to an achievable task, here is what I can offer. As I wrote the current lead (with some later modifications), and the sections: history, geography, biodiversity, clothing, and cuisine, I am happy to revise them. Could some people please volunteer to review and, if necessary, revise the other sections? Johnbod has written the India#Visual_art section. Could they take a look at Architecture, Literature and Performing Arts? Rjensen wrote the Education section. Could they update it if need be? user:Moxy's image concerns should be addressed (certainly, sandwiching is not good.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Note: I will create a separate section for this content, so please do not respond here further. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the ping above. I took a quick look at the lead and some of the points mentioned are potential useful improvements to the lead, and some are preferences. Bullet points below:

• I like cutting words when they are redundant, too much detail, or not needed. However, I think an article of this size can justify its current lead length (although a copyedit never hurts).
• MOS:LEADCITE neither requires nor bans citations, so the citelead concerns can be discussed outside of a potential FAR. My personal preference is to reduce citations in article leads, and a routine check to ensure all information in the lead is cited in the article body would be helpful.
• I think "pioneering" can be a little puffery: non-violent movements have been used in the past, and if it were to remain I would like a bit more explanation in the lead about what made it pioneering. Similarily, "leaving a legacy of luminous architecture" could probably also be worded better to avoid borderline puffery. Perhaps, "and building luminous architecture such as the Taj Mahal" or something similar.

I added two citation needed tags to the article which should probably be resolved. The article is over 10,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends trying to keep under 9,000 words: I usually recommend 2-4 paragraphs per heading, so sections larger than that could be candidates for reducing the word count. Overall, if I was reviewing the article I would not bring it to FAR, though there are places where the article can be even better. I haven't taken a deep dive into the article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you very much, Z1720. I will address some of your concerns by rewording or adding the context.

:*For example, the Indian nationalist movement was pioneering long before it became nonviolent. All anticolonial nationalist movements are in its debt. See ({{citation|last=Marshall|first=P. J.|title=The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire|url={{Google books|S2EXN8JTwAEC|page=PA179|keywords=|text=|plainurl=yes}}|year=2001|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-00254-7|page=179|quote=The first modern nationalist movement to arise in the non-European empire, and one that became an inspiration for many others, was the Indian Congress.}} But I get your point. Pioneering in this context (for me) is not so much puffery (though it may sound so to others) as imprecision. I will address your other concerns, especially the caution about size. Fowler&fowler«Talk»`

:Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Fowler&fowler}} I'm not against the lead saying that it is pioneering, but the lead should include a short statement on why sources state it is pioneering, which is then expanded upon in the article body. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Z1720}} OK, noted. Thanks. Please give me some time to organize this section a little in subsections so that we can refer to them more easily later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Z1720}} OK, I will include an explanation of why the sources say it was pioneering, and rephrase. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have now done so. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your input, {{re|Z1720}} Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have limited bandwidth to participate here. That said, none of the supposed issues warrant an FAR in my view, and some aren't issues at all. {{tq|"It is a pluralistic, multilingual and multi-ethnic society"}} is patently not redundant. Citations in the lead are not prohibited, and in a contentious topic they enhance article stability. Contra the above, I don't think this needs extensive revision at all: it needs wordsmithing in some very specific areas (in the lead, I agree "luminous architecture" is odd, and genetic diversity is somewhat tangential, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{re|Vanamonde93}} Could you please wordsmith some of the issues you have outlined? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Abecedare, Benison would you like to volunteer for sourcing and wordsmithing some content? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Fowler&fowler, Sorry for the delay. I didn't get nuff time to drop by. But happy to see you all working on it. I'll have a look at it this weekend and if the discussions are still up, will add something. Please excuse me by then. Busy IRL. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Vanamonde OK, I will attend to your criticism of "luminous" architecture and either rephrase with something more precise or remove. Ditto genetic diversity. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Vanamonde and Z1720 I've now addressed your critique of genetic diversity (I've removed its mention) and "luminous architecture" (I've removed the term and made it more precise). Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Abecedare and 1720: I'm done with the lead. Could you give it the once over, especially prose niggles? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Also pinging Nikkimaria. Sorry I forgot to ping you earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Where the lede says "Indian movies and music increasingly influence global culture", would it be appropriate to link "influence global culture" to Indianisation or a similar target? GreekApple123 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I am pinging SandyGeorgia, RegentsPark, Abecedare,Vanamonde CMD, Johnbod, Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Moxy, Remsense, Flemmish Nietzsche, Benison, Ratnahastin, ,Flemmish Nietzsche, Benison, Ratnahastin, Remsense, Emsmile, Femke, Toddy1, (will add more here) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can no longer participate in FAR; I am a 24/7 caregiver and preparing to be a widow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Very sorry to hear, Sandy. My thoughts are with you during this difficult time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I will start by ensuring that the references in India#History_2 are modern {{tq|introductry college or graduate school}} textbooks published by scholarly publishers. For the history section of such a high-level article (similar to Wikipedia's "vital" articles), general {{tq|specialist}} secondary sources, such as journal articles, are not appropriate unless they provide supporting vignettes to bolster claims in textbooks. See WP:TERTIARY for the role of textbooks in matters of due weight. I will also ensure that the listed references are indeed being cited in the article. Corrections in green added later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Agreed that general textbooks can be removed, although academic sources that are an overview of history are considered high-quality (like a "History of India" book that is published by a university press). I like to improve the daughter articles first, then use the lead of those articles as the basis of the prose in the parent article. Then, I just need to use the best sources from the daughter article in the parent article (and maybe this will allow more articles to be nominated at WP:FA? Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Apologies: I meant we will restrict for the most part to Introductory college and graduate school textbooks (such as the various titles, History of India, by Burton Stein, David Arnold, [https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/peter-robb Peter Robb] and so forth, and published by scholarly publishers such as Universilty Presses. Narrow focus sources, such as journal articles or monographs, will be included only when they provide supporting details to assertions in the textbooks. The restriction, which has long been a part of the history section here, ensures due weight in the sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The approach of going from daughter to mother articles has never worked in South Asia. One look at History of India, which is perennially embattled with POV issues, demonstrates that. When I arrived on WP, my mentor Nichalp, who had led the drive of more FAs in South Asia, favored improving the mother articles, and using the sections to be the leads (and NPOV templates) for expanding the daughter articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bring this up here, but we've had a number of discussions before about some flaws in the lead. I'll copy from :Talk:India/Archive 49#Discussion:

{{talkquote|* Diversity: Dyson (2018) p.28 refers to ANI and ASI; the diversity is due to subsequent migrations, not to the long occupation of India by the first modern humans to arrive in India.
* Social stratification: Dyson (2018) p.16 does not refer to "Hinduism," but to the Aryan culture which spread to the Ganges plain. Stein refers to "Vedic times," not Hinduism. The body of the article says "The caste system [..] arose during this period." Remove "within Hinduism" from the lead, and the problem is solved.
* Dawn: All three sources used in the article refer to "Aryan culture," not to Hinduism. Calling Vedic culture/religion Hinduism is an interpretation of the sources. Vedic religion is not Hinduism. Jamison, Stephanie; Witzel, Michael (1992). "Vedic Hinduism" (PDF). Harvard University. p. 3.: "... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradictio in terminis since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion – at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism."
Stephanie W. Jamison and Michael Witzel are reputable scholars. See Hindu synthesis for an extensive treatment of this topic. My proposal, in accordance with the sources:
By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the expansion of Indo-Aryan culture and it's Vedic religion,[1] one of the predecessors of Hinduism.[2]"}}

The same issues were discussed again in 2021; see Talk:India/Archive 51#"Dawn of Hinduism", and are still not solved. I'm not going to discuss this futher here; I already did before, without avail, but I still think these points need attention. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Joshua Jonathan: As you know, "hymns" is Wikilinked to the Rig Veda. I have changed "dawning" to "early dawnings," which has been linked to Historical Vedic religion. But beyond this change, I'm afraid I am hesitant to make further changes so early in the lead, in particular to burden a new reader with too much specificity. That includes a mention of "Indo-Aryan culture" and explicitly of the Rig Veda. It had been included for a number of years until recently, but fell victim to exigencies of reducing the lead length. Obviously, India is an old culture, so some leeway is allowed compared, say to, to European settler colonies such as Canada, a much more recent FA, with a much shorter span both of prehistory and recorded history, but we still have to keep the lead length under some kind of control. I will defer to Abecedare and Vanamonde further in this matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::The lead length is 650 words. I will defer to user:Nikkimaria, who took a stab at reducing the lead earlier, and Z1720 in this matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::PS Obviously I don't pay much attention to the mostly Moxy-written new rules for lead length (400 words) somewhere or other. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::File:Example of fragmented image display in mobile view.pngWas not involved with the huge community discussion related to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Length Moxy🍁 11:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::A statement in a rulebook that most Wikipedia editors have two hands would not mean that editors with one hand were banned. :MOS:LEADLENGTH says {{tq|The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words.}} It is guidance, not a strict rule. 650 words is not much more than the guidance suggests. But the current lead is very good. Trimming it just to make it no more than 400 words is likely to be reverted on the grounds that the current lead is better.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Apologies. I note it says, "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the complexity of the subject and development of the article." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::With a complex, comprehensive article like India, the lead can be a little longer. However, a copyedit is always useful to see if there are redundant words or too much detail, which can be discussed on the talk page. I haven't taken a look at the lead yet because I usually evaluate the lead after the article body is complete. Z1720 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::OK, that's fine. We'll work on finishing the article body. It would be beneficial to record on the talk page that an FAR, or a process equivalent to an FAR, occurred in 2025. Thanks {{re|Z1720}} Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Z1720. I have reduced the word count to 8,997, which is < 9,000. I will read the article a couple of times tomorrow for outstanding prose or sourcing issues. You and others can then have a go at it. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also, the India page is officially the Republic of India page, a postcolonial nation state, so more recent history should be given more space. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Pinging RegentsPark in this matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sidenote "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels...... In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used" See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size for conversion numbers. Moxy🍁 23:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As you are the image expert, Moxy, would you like to take a stab at changing the format to upright? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry to pester you Moxy, but could you please change the image formats to upright, for all the images, that is? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

In many citations, there is a quote from the source stating what is verifying the information (for example, refs 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60). This used to be more common in Wikipedia articles, but now these are usually taken out because of copyright concerns, the fact that it takes up additional space in the article, and because readers can go to the source and verify the information themselves so they don't need it quoted at Wikipedia. Can I delete these quotes in the references? Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, please do Z1720. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I happened to read through this article today just for the sake of learning about the country, when I noticed multiple potential issues with this article, and I felt it was a great time to address these with a newly opened FAR notice.

I noticed a few sentences which seemed poorly written to me. As an example from India#Modern_India: "Economic liberalisation, which began in the 1980s and the collaboration with Soviet Union for technical know-how, has created a large urban middle class, transformed India into one of the world's fastest-growing economies, and increased its geopolitical clout." "know-how" and "clout" are very informal words here. Also, I believe there should be a "the" before "Soviet Union", but I do take a small pause in stating this, because this article is written in Indian English, and as an American I am not aware if it is acceptable to omit the usage of the word "the" in this instance. I've also noticed many sentences that don't have commas where I would typically place them. (Example: In north India Mauryan art is the first imperial movement.) But again, I don't fully understand whether this is acceptable in Indian English or not, so I would like to get a second opinion of this.

As another example, this sentence confused me on first reading: “In the 1989 elections a National Front coalition, led by the Janata Dal in alliance with the Left Front, won, lasting just under two years, and V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar serving as prime ministers.”

I spotted one specific example of a sentence which did not have an in-text citation: "India has played a key role in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the World Trade Organization. The nation has supplied 100,000 military and police personnel in 35 UN peacekeeping operations."

Other sentences that seemed somewhat overly subjective: “Across the north, this became rather stiff and formulaic after c. 800 CE, though rich with finely carved detail in the surrounds of statues” “No doubt the style of these was used in larger paintings” “The dhoti, once the universal garment of Hindu males, the wearing of which in the homespun and handwoven khadi allowed Gandhi to bring Indian nationalism to the millions, is seldom seen in the cities.”

But maybe the biggest thing that concerns me is that there still seems to be patches of the article that should be there, but aren't. For example, while the rest of the articles for the top 25 most populous nations have a dedicated body section on the countries music (I checked), this article does not have any writing on the music of India outside of a singular mention in the lead. If this was intentional because of concerns about the article size, I think it's bad to presume that there ought to be 4 paragraphs on clothing and 3 paragraphs on visual art with images, but 0 on music. Also, there is no mention of things like film (outside one sentence in the lead), performing arts, or festivals at all, which I would consider at least bundling a mention of these things in a paragraph at the top of the culture section. ALittleClass (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There are several images that could be improved in this article:

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:*Support: These are great suggestions. Rackaballa (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do to feature discussion on the country's northeast, such as on the unique international geography (98% bordering other countries) or culture? GreekApple123 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}}

India’s Remarkable Decline in Poverty: From 29.5% in 2011 to Just 3.9% in 2024

Source :

- [https://yipzap.com/news/india-s-remarkable-decline-in-poverty--from-29-5--in-2011-to-just-3-9--in-2024] 0diff (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::With a better source, it may be worth updating the 2011 stat currently in the article. CMD (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I found a better source, for 2019. Not as spectacular numbers, but still, much less than in 2011. I have added the new numbers to the article Lova Falk (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The Anjarle creek boats image, while beautiful, seems out of place to me in the geography section. The focus of the image are the fishing boats rather than a geographical feature. It is also one of four images from Maharashtra included in the article. I understand that images on this article are heavily debated, so I looked through the archives. Apparently the relevance of this image to the section has been questioned by several editors ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/Archive_50], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/Archive_49]); one explanation, perhaps the best argument for the image (even if still inadequate) was that it shows "boats in a tidal creek in Maharashtra preparing for a Monsoon storm." But this relation to the monsoon is not well-illustrated neither visually nor through text. At the time this discussion took place, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural&oldid=468109032 the number of featured pictures from India was significantly lower] than today, so I can understand the image being chosen for technical quality more than illustrative value.

The section invokes the Himalayas several times: when elaborating the India–Eurasia collision, when talking about the formation of the Indo-Gangetic plain from Himalayan river sediment, when highlighting the 'strong influence' of the Himalayas on Indian climate, and finally when discussing climate change and retreating Himalayan glaciers. It talks about the Himalayas more than any other physical feature of India, thus I think a picture of the Himalayas would be a better fit.

If nobody has any objection to my proposal, I have carefully selected two images from Commons:Category:Featured pictures of the Himalayas of India, one of which may be good replacement for the boats image. I have also supplied the possible caption they could appear with, written with the geography section in mind.

File:Frozen Lake Shinko La Lahaul Jun24 A7CR 00315.jpg, a {{convert|5091|m|ft}} mountain pass in the greater Himalayan range in Himachal Pradesh, abutting the boundary with neighbouring Ladakh.]]

One image each from Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim and Uttarakhand already appear in the article (in the culture, economy and clothing sections respectively), and there are no FPs from Arunachal Pradesh currently. So I have not chosen images from these states.

Of the two, I prefer the image showing a frozen glacial lake on the boundary between Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh (FP at both commons and here). The other image, reminiscent of a Roerich painting, shows several Himalayan ridges north of Shimla up until the snow-covered middle and greater Himalayan ranges in the distance (FP at commons).{{small|(strike withdrawn suggestion)}} Both images are by Timothy Gonsalves, author of several Himalayan FPs on wiki. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't believe I had seen or commented upon the Anjarle Creek image before you mentioned it but I really like it! It integrates information about the economy, weather and coastal geography in a very beautiful photograph and IMO for this article with its vast scope, it is good to have images/captions that add information to what is contained in the article body rather than simply illustrate existing text.

:That said, I also like the Frozen lake image you propose, and prefer it the (admittedly very beautiful) aerial Himalyan image, since at the default scale that the images are displayed, the latter can be easily be mistaken to be a generic image of clouds. One small quibble about both the Himalayan images: I wish there was some element in the frame that helped establish the scale of what is seen. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Abecedare}} The thing is, at their gigantic scale it is easy to miss smaller elements: in the lake image, if you zoom in the middle, you can see two SUVs on a road freshly excavated out of the snow (this road is a strategically, historically and economically significant route that connects Ladakh through Himachal with the rest of India by land, and a tunnel is currently being built right under this pass to ensure all weather access on this road—the first such road when completed). In the bottom left of the image you can see human footprints in the snow. The footprints, the road and the vehicles give us a rough idea of the size of the lake and the huge Himalayan mountains. What's more is this image was taken not in winter, as the snow may suggest, but in the peak summer of June! In my opinion, it adds more value to the article than the creek boats image, since in this image (unlike the boats image) the focus is the geography while other important information and context is also present. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You are right that I had missed the SUVs etc when I quibbled about the images lacking elements establishing the scale (and that happened even though I expected any "human"-related features in the image to be relatively small)! Btw, it would be good to add some of the additional information you note in your reply in the image caption so that the latter is more interesting and informative. I still prefer the Anjarle creek image somewhat but will let others weigh in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have now withdrawn the other image suggestion, and named and linked Shinku La in the caption—so that readers could simply move to that page to read more about the importance of the pass. :) UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support change. The boats don't belong to the Geography section. Rackaballa (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed the lead section rightly mentions "gender inequality, child malnutrition, and rising levels of air pollution" as major challenges. However, the body of the article doesn't seem to have any sections that expand on these important topics. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body, so it feels like we're missing some key information here. Suggest creating sections for these to make the article more comprehensive. Thoughts? Rackaballa (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Rackaballa, you are quite right! There is only one sentence about child malnutrition. We have a section "Socio-economic challenges" so for a start, information about these challenges can be added to that section. Please feel free to write some text about it, based on WP:reliable sources, and then make an edit request, so we can add that text to the article. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:If it's not in the body but is in the lead then there's two options: 1) remove from lead or 2) add to body. Considering the topics [https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%2BIndia+%2B%22air+pollution%22&btnG= have] [https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%2BIndia+%2B%22child+malnutrition%22&btnG= substantial] [https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%2BIndia+%2B%22gender+inequality%22&btnG= quantities] of academic literature surrounding them I would suggest taking the second approach and creating the relevant sections in the body. Please make sure to adhere to an WP:ACADEMICBIAS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 17:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I want to point out some important problems in the current India article on Wikipedia. These are based on comparing it with other FA or GA articles (like Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan, Bulgaria, Timor-Leste etc.) and with respect to Wikipedia guidelines like WP:SIZE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV. Please look at the points below:

• In almost every country article, there is a small box or image row showing current leaders – President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, etc.
• Example: Look at Germany, Japan, Australia, etc.
• In the India article, this is missing. It looks incomplete.
• The section is also split into “Politics” and “Government”, which is not needed.
• In other articles, both are under one heading “Politics”.
• Also, the "Politics" part here focuses too much on history, like giving a full list of past governments. That should be in a different article.

----

• Currently, foreign policy and defence are written under one heading, which causes confusion.
• These are two very different topics.
• In most countries, they are given separate sections.
• Also, the foreign policy part talks mostly about past government policies:
• Like “support for decolonisation in Africa” — which was during Nehru’s time, not today.
• There is no proper detail about the current government's foreign policy under Modi.
• Most other country articles update it to reflect the current regime’s positions.

----

• The section has only one part called “Modern era”, which mixes everything from 1600s to 2020s. That is too vague and confusing.
• Important events missing:
• 1857 rebellion, Chauri Chaura incident, Jallianwala Bagh massacre
• Key freedom movement milestones
• Hyderabad and Goa annexation
• India-Pakistan and India-China wars
• Operation Blue Star, 1979 Jamshedpur riots, 1984 Sikh riots
• The Emergency (1975–77)
• India’s military actions abroad: Sri Lanka (IPKF), 1988 Maldives coup attempt
• Suggestion: Divide the history into three clear parts:
• British Colonial Period
• Independent India (20th Century)
• 21st Century India

----

• Article has too many images on the right side – all small in size.
• Even though they are small, it still looks cluttered and untidy.
• Many images show outdated or stereotypical scenes:
• Villagers in huts, people only in traditional clothes, poor settings.
• Some faces used are not visually balanced or diverse.
• This gives a wrong impression of India as only rural and backward.
• Need images showing modern cities, middle class, urban youth, etc.

----

• Title is “Demographics, languages and religion” – but it should just be “Demographics”, with proper subsections:
• Religion
• Ethnicity
• Languages
• Largest Cities (Missing! Other countries have a proper table or map.)
• Healthcare (Missing)
• Education (Right now wrongly placed under Culture)
• India is one of the most diverse countries, so it deserves a better and more detailed Demographics section.

----

• There is a full subsection called “Socio-economic issues”, which is not needed separately.
• This should be just a paragraph in the beginning of the Economy section.
• Giving it a separate heading makes it look like India is mainly about poverty.
• Also missing important economic sectors:
• Technology and Innovation
• Water and Sanitation
• Infrastructure

----

• India is globally known for Bollywood, music, festivals, and cultural exports, but these are not mentioned at all.
• Every other country article gives space to their cinema and music.

----

• No subsections or mentions of:
• Human Rights
• Law and Order
• These are standard in almost all major country articles, especially those with democratic setups.

----

• As already said above, most of the images show:
• Only villagers
• Dark-skinned, traditional-looking faces
• Unmodern and poor backgrounds
• There should be a fair and balanced visual representation of:
• Urban India
• Middle-class people
• Modern buildings, technology, universities, etc.

India should be presented in both its modern and traditional dimensions. Even if traditional aspects are highlighted, they should be shown in a respectful, dignified, and positive way — not through outdated or stereotypical images. Ideally, there should be a balanced portrayal of India's modern growth, urban life, technology, and also its rich cultural heritage and traditions. Striking this balance is essential for fair and accurate representation.

Lastly, it's important to mention that this article is still listed as a Featured Article, but in reality, it doesn’t meet even the basic expectations of FA quality anymore — except for some superficial formatting. According to WikiProject Countries – Size Table, India is not listed among either the FA or GA (Good Article) entries, which means it’s no longer being tracked as a quality benchmark even within its project scope.

Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have to say your points are valid but not sure the criticism on "dark-skin" representation helps your case. It takes away from your well stated summary of what can be improved. I suggest dropping that. Rackaballa (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::I seek apology for my statement. I don't intended to target anyone with "dark skinned'. Instead of dark skinned, I am saying peoples' images in this article is totally of dull personality and representation, which fuels the stereotypes against Indians. Image of people either dark-skinned, fair skinned or normal-skinned, must be giving good impression and representation. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)