Talk:India#Map of India

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

X= As it is.

Y= Adding "Category:Newly industrializing countries" 89.240.106.155 (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Golem08 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

The phrase of Devanagari script in Hindi: "भारत गणराज्य" should be inserted in between the heading, containing the country name as "Republic of India" and "Bhārat Gaṇarājya". WikiUser20500 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: Per WP:INDICSCRIPT. CMD (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Please provide legitimate explanation for this action. WikiUser20500 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::He just said it. Per WP:INDICSCRIPT, "{{tq|Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes}}. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, everyone! I was wondering if we should add the IPA for the pronounciation. I refrained from adding as I thought there must be some reason of it not being added. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:An IPA for India? Not needed for such a well-known name. There is a reason that for the last 18 years no one has suggested this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Fowler&fowler Thanks for replying! I actually mean adding it for Bhārat Gaṇarājya. India is a common and well known name so I also don't see a reason to add for it. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 05:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't really have any views on the BG pronunciation. I'm not sure that people are looking to pronounce it. Perhaps the sources to which it is cited should be guides. Do they have the IPA or some other guide? There was a long discussion on it on this talk page (with sources) sometime in the latter half of 2019 or in 2020. This is all I can offer. You'll have to wait for others' inputs. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Bharat Ganarajya is not mentioned in the lede or in the opening sentences. So I don't think there's a need for that right now. It's only mentioned in the infobox and doesn't warrant an IPA for that. The etymology section has the much more needed Bharat and Hindustan pronunciation along with audio files. Ganarajya won't be that useful I think. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Benison [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#cite_note-30 See here] Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 06:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I'm aware. It's a footnote, and doesn't need an IPA for that, IMO. Let's see what others think. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, also I wanted to ask if it's necessary as footnotes are used when IPA and transcription is long. But here it's not. I guess we should remove it. For example at Indonesia & Golden Temple Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 07:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Neither of those articles are FA, or even a GA. So not a fair comparison. Here, I think it's superfluous to add IPA to a footnote for a term in the infobox or that's not even in the lede sentence proper. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Kind of redundant. I don't think we should add an IPA for it EarthDude (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Earlier, I stated that Bharat Ganarajya is in unnecessary Talk:India#Infobox native name languageWashi189 30px 10:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

In March 2025, a discussion was started by Westdoggys on the removal of the clunky 'June 2023' date for when the population ranking of India became #1 in the lead sentence. The overwhelming majority of editors in that discussion (to name them: {{u|Yue}}, {{u|RegentsPark}}, {{u|Moxy}}, {{u|EarthDude}} and of course the OP Westdoggys) agreed that that some sort of change was needed. The only objector was {{u|Fowler&fowler}}.

The discussion was archived. Nothing came of that discussion despite a consensus for change. I'd like to restart this discussion, as I am also of the opinion that this requires change. JDiala (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Full support for removing the June 2023 phrasing. It is a very clumsy inclusion. It doesn't make much sense why the change wasn't made considering the fact that consensus was reached EarthDude (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Since consensus was for removing the phrase, I have removed it and linked to Talk:India/Archive 61#‘the most populous country from June 2023 onwards’ in the edit summary. There are very good reasons for keeping the phrase, but ... -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion please? There seems no reason to keep it open unless somebody new comes up with a killer-argument for why the consensus was wrong.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} The second sentence in the lead of this article

:*from the time of an FAR of 2011 (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&oldid=441811169 here]),

:*the Wikipedia front page appearance of 2nd October 2019 for Gandhi's 150 birth anniversary) (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&oldid=919087729 here]) for both of which there were several months of talk page discussions in the presence of over a dozen administrators,

:*not to mention the changes in place of a second FAR during COVID, involving additions of new sections,

:*has noted three things: the geographical area; the population ranking and on-the-nose population count; and the population ranking among democracies.

:*It has stood the test of time. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=1162739875 the extended talk page discussion of June 2023] and the consensus phrasing achieved therein.

:*See also the remark of MilborneOne on the significance of WP:SILENCE, on this page on October 3, 2019. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=919417249 here]. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please revert your edit Toddy1. Please note the consensus phrasing of June 2023 referred to above and the significance of the three features in the second sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/Archive_61#%E2%80%98the_most_populous_country_from_June_2023_onwards%E2%80%99 This] was that talk page discussion of March 2025, in which no one responded to my objections.

::The fact that India has not had a census since 2011, and that Britannica continues to say in its last updated version of 25 May 2025, "India, country that occupies the greater part of South Asia. ... India became the world’s most populous country in 2023, according to estimates by the United Nations."(see [https://www.britannica.com/place/India here]), continues to make a case for keeping the June 2023 qualification. If there is general consensus that it is not needed, I'd be fine with it, but I'm not sure that it has emerged yet (in light of the discussion here of June 2023 referred to above and the un-responded objections of March 2025. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Alternatively, if you Toddy1 or someone else can find two scholarly sources (especially introductory textbooks published by academic publishers, Oxford, Cambridge, etc) published in 2025 that refer to India as the world's most populous country (without qualification), I will no longer object, for it will then mean the phrasing has due weight among scholarly sources. See WP policy on the role of these textbooks in WP:TERTIARY. But a BBC bloggish article of June 2023 by Soutik Biswas hardly cuts it Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Consensus was reached for removal. That stands true unless a new consensus is formed. The article's status, past features, or editorial seniority are irrelevant to this discussion. Arguments from authority do not override community consensus. Wikipedia:Lead notes that the lead section of articles should avoid unnecessary details or descriptions. Just because some sources state a month does not justify over-precision. You also mentioned that no one objected to your arguments in the previous discussion, but looking at the archive, that's just not true and editors did give arguments against what you said. Until and unless a new consensus is reached, re-introducing the month and year when India became the most populous would violate Wikipedia policy EarthDude (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|q=y|The fact that India has not had a census since 2011, ... India became the world’s most populous country in 2023, according to estimates by the United Nations.}} You have put your finger on the problem - the claim is based on estimates derived from projections – that is a strong argument for "and thought to be the most populous country" – it not an argument for "from June 2023 onwards".-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Toddy1}}, "thought to be" is an overly uncertain tone for something that is not controversial. A footnote could be an idea to indicate it is based on UN estimates. However, it is important to understand that merely because something is based on modelling, does not imply it is controversial (hence requiring attribution or qualification).

::::I (and other editors) are more concerned about the stylistic problems. It is simply not a natural or encyclopedic flow for the second sentence. Even with your edit, it remains problematic as there is a clear redundancy in saying it's the most populous country and the most populous democracy. JDiala (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Fowler&fowler}}, I am sorry, but this is just getting bizarre.

::::*WP:SILENCE is not relevant in this case: multiple editors have clearly spoken up and taken the position that it should be changed. Your position is a clear minority position.

::::*References to discussions having taken place in 2011 or 2019 are not relevant, since this concerns a factual change which occurred in 2023.

::::*Consensus can change. That is part of the process. And it is clear that in this case, consensus has changed. Appealing to past discussions to override current consensus is not a compelling argument. It is really just a form of WP:STONEWALLING.

::::*Demanding a scholarly source is an unwarranted request. Scholarly sources, especially textbooks, are slow to update for more recent events. We have cited reliable sources of among the highest calibre (the BBC, for instance) which clearly state that India is the most populous country in an unqualified and unequivocal manner.

::::*You are WP:BLUDGEONING in both this and the earlier (March 2025) discussion. Your position is clearly the minority position yet you are taking up over 50% of the text space. While your passion for the article and topic area is appreciated, it important to keep in mind WP:OWN. You do not have a veto on every decision here. JDiala (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The claim is based on projections from a 2011 base, those projections cannot possibly be accurate to one year.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::They are based on the UN's WPP which are regularly revised. This does not require perfect accuracy; it just requires enough accuracy to beat out China for our purposes (so we have around a 2% error tolerance). There are no reliable sources suggesting that the new ranking is controversial. JDiala (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Fowler&fowler asked for {{tq|q=y|two scholarly sources ... that refer to India as the world's most populous country (without qualification)}}. The point about it being a projection is that until a new census for India is done, no good scholarly sources will make that claim without qualification. But the qualification that matters is to do with it being an estimate, projection, call-it-what-you-will. It is not a question of it being controversial or not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I have reverted the change for now. Let's get a clear consensus for now. I don't see a clear consensus for the change in the March discussion as F&F's statements aren't refuted convincingly. A note to JDiala that consensus is not majority or votes. It's how well your arguments based on our P&Gs holds true. The discussions held today here also fail to refute Fowler&fowler's assessment yet. This is a Featured Article and we really need a hard and fast consensus in each and every statement. Thanks and happy editing. — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's an FA article in dire need of FA review because of a bloated and strange lead section, a fact that you yourself have acknowledged in the past. But substantive changes to the lead are not possible because we have a handful of longstanding editors who stonewall discussions and expect a right to veto all changes. This leads to a poor collaborative culture. This also happened last year when I proposed some changes.

::It is not enough to simply say F&F's statements are not refuted convincingly; you have to actually engage with the counters to them. While WP is not a vote per se, in practice when you have an overwhelming majority of people in a discussion taking one position and this position is still rejected, you need profoundly compelling reasons. In the end, if we need someone to arbitrate the quality of the arguments, it would be better for the article if these determinations are made by non-regular editors in the area. Hence it may be best to do a formal RfC and get it closed by an experienced editor who's not a regular here and hence less likely to be influenced by their priors. JDiala (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Toddy1}}, a compromise that could be considered is using a footnote mentioning both the June 2023 date and that this is based on a UN model. For me, and many other editors, the issue is fundamentally stylistic. It just doesn't look good as it is. A footnote can help mitigate that concern. How do you feel about that? JDiala (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think the lead looks extremely good as it is. I mistakenly thought there was a consensus for what I thought was a trivial change - but you and Fowler&fowler raised issues that demonstrated a lack of consensus; hence my edit to the article got reverted. You could not even shut up when I was trying to explain to Fowler&fowler why I thought the reasoning he/she gave did not support the wording he/she wanted. Instead you told me that my reasoning (for thinking that Fowler&fowler was mistaken) was wrong (which a naive person would think meant that you suddenly realised that Fowler&fowler was right).-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It was a trivial change, but it seemed to me that you made it non-trivial by suggesting a third wording option ({{xt|"thought to be"}}). When there are three or more options, the matter ceases to be binary — hence me disagreeing with you was not an endorsement of F&F. The reason your edit got reverted was because of a failure on the reverter's part. It was their responsibility to accurately assess the discussion and identify your counterargument to F&F's wording. Getting upset at me is odd. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with your argument insofar as it is a refutation of F&F's wording — I just don't think {{xt|"thought to be"}} is the best wording. {{u|Benison}}, do you have any thoughts on Toddy1's comment on UTC 13:10, 25 May 2025 against F&F? JDiala (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No. — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

To streamline the discussion, I would like to create a separate subsection here discussing the {{xt|"most populous democracy"}} clause in the second sentence. The editor Yue indicated in the earlier discussion (linked above) that this is strange to include now since India has become the most populous country (not merely democracy). I share this view. However, F&F has objected.

I'm (informally — not starting an RfC, at least not yet anyway) requesting feedback from other editors specifically on the {{xt|"most populous democracy"}} clause. JDiala (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wrong question. It currently says: {{tq|q=y|and since its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy}}. Nobody could possibly want to delete just the last five words of that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::We should just remove the entire statement of it being the most populous democracy entirely, as in removing all of "and since its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy". It has become far more redundant considering the country is now the most populous in the world. The statement would make more sense in, say 2015. EarthDude (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::EarthDude:

:::Being the world's most populous country (even if we agree to its reliable truth) does not mean at all that being the world's most populous democracy for an extended period of time is not notable for the lead sentence. Please read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=1162739875#The_most_populous_democracy the discussion from June 2023] for a refutation of your assumption. Johnbod, Abecedare, and RegentsPark agreed with the formulation, which is also the current one. (Fayninja, in addition, has been permanently banned.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You are citing a discussion from two years ago as a reason to dismiss a very recent discussion. By definition, if something is contained in an article (especially for the lead of a major FA article like this one), consensus would have been obtained for inclusion in the past. But consensus can change. Most people in the recent discussion reject the notion that mentioning not one, but two separate population rankings with two separate dates, is notable enough to include in the lead sentence. The lead is by definition a summary; it does not need this level of detail. JDiala (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Leads are supposed to be a concise summary. Adding both most populous country and most populous democracy is thus redundant. Furthermore, the latter has been challenged by many reliable sources due to the country's significant ongoing democratic backsliding. Keeping the statement of it being the most populous democracy would be undue and not neutral. EarthDude (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The only two options would be go either acknowledged views from reliable sources challenging India's democratic nature, which would be undue and overdetailed for a lead, or go omit the phrase entirely, which would be ideal. EarthDude (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The current second sentence in the lede says (excluding citations):

:{{tq|It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country from June 2023 onwards; and since its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy.}}

What do editors think of rewording it as:

:{{tq|It is the seventh-largest country by area; the world's most populous democracy since its independence in 1947; and the most populous country since 2023.}}

The motivation being:

1. To me the parallel phrasing of the three parts and the chronological ordering reads better, although I realize that this is a matter of taste.
2. Specifying the month June may have been of importance back in mid-2023 but now it is overly, and dubiously, precise and not even supported by the two cited sources. I also suggest replacing the references from a [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65322706 news report] and [https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf a primary source] to, say, the following secondary scholarly work that cites the latter:

:::{{cite book |last1=James |first1=K. S. |last2=Sekher |first2=T. V. |editor1-last=James |editor1-first=K. S. |editor2-last=Sekher |editor2-first=T. V. |title=India Population Report |date=2024 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9781009318860 |pages=1-18 |edition=1st |chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009318846.003 |chapter=India’s Population Change: Critical Issues and Prospects.}}

Fwiw, I continue to support mentioning "most populous country" and "most populous democracy" as distinct facts for reasons discussed previously. Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:June remains an estimate, being less specific is probably more accurate. CMD (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is good. I support it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Abecedare, I like your formulation too and I like the stress on chronology, but am a little reticent about changing an order in the article's second sentence from at least the FAR of 2011: a) geographical area, b) population rank and count, c) most populous democracy. Support this too but in light of CMD's remark, would probably prefer:

:{{tq|It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country since 2023; and since its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy.}} Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, this way, the prepositional phrases (of time) are together, making their contrast immediately apparent, and thus also the notability of India's long tenure as a democracy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In other words, we are inverting the usual adverbial order (manner, place, and time) in the last phrase to emphasize the long span of India's democracy. This is one of the purposes of inversion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The proposed changes in my tweak in order of decreasing importance to me, are (1) removing the overly-specific "June", (2) updating the corresponding ref, (3) changing "onward" to "since", and (4) the exact ordering of the words. So I am fine with your proposed rephrasing too. And as you say, breaking the expected pattern can sometimes compel the reader to pause and pay greater attention. As [https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44908/the-rape-of-the-lock-canto-3 Pope] showed in writing about Queen Anne, {{tq|Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey, Dost sometimes counsel take—and sometimes tea.}} :) Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Abecedare: I love the Pope lines. I have my mother's college-days copy of The Rape of the Rock lying right here. I had taken it out of a bookshelf a few weeks ago to read it, but didn't. Now I have more motivation to attempt it.

:::::As for your proposed second sentence in the lead, I absolutely agree with it. (My remarks above were just random free association.) Please go ahead and add your version in the lead. Hopefully we can put this tempest in the teapot behind us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I believe the the ideal option would be:
{{tq|It is the seventh-largest country by area and the most populous since 2023}} EarthDude (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Any objections to replacing the second sentence with F&F's tweak of my suggestion, ie, {{tq|It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country since 2023; and since its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy.}} and updating the population citation to [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009318846.003 James & Sekhar (2024)]? I'll wait for at least a day before implementing any change.

:{{reply|EarthDude}} discussion on possibly removing the "democracy" part can continue even beyond the proposed replacement, if there is interest. Personally, I prefer retaining it, since not only is being the largest democracy a prominent aspect of the republic of India, the segment fragment is also very information rich and unobtrusively introduces the post-1947 temporal scope for the subject of the article. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think it'd be better to have the discussion on the most populous democracy line here itself. Because otherwise, having multiple separate discussions on what is that same single sentence, might get quite tiring for editors taking part in these discissions. As for the issue itself, calling India the world's most populous democracy violates NPOV because it takes a clear editorial stance on a deeply contested issue, such as the state of the country's democracy, recent democratic backsliding, etc. Many highly reliable and reputed scholars and academics (for example, Christophe Jaffrelot, Ashutosh Varshney, etc.) have also noted India's recent democratic backsliding, and many global rankings have also degraded the country's democratic status (for example, V-Dem Institute downgrading India's status from "flawed democracy" to "electoral autocracy"). While the intentions may not be malicious, including such a statement feeds into propagandistic narratives and violates Wikipedia's neutrality, by taking an ideological side. EarthDude (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Abecedare: As I imply above, both versions, yours and mine, are good. Please make an judicious choice and add to the lead. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've implemented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=1292736828&oldid=1292729944 the tweak].

:::{{reply|EarthDude}} As you'll note from the diff, my edit doesn't change the status quo for the "democracy" part of the article's second sentence, for which discussion can continue. IMO we are better off explicitly mentioning the democratic backsliding during the Emergency era and in recent years somewhere in the article body, or even the lede, rather than try to hint at it through omission of the word democracy from the lede para. The latter would be less helpful to the reader and also undue recentism given the scope of the article and the attendant literature. But I'll let others weigh in for now to see what consensus develops. Abecedare (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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 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)

::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)

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)

: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)