Edit filter log

{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}

{{Indian English}}

{{Article history

|action1=FAC

|action1date=22:24, 16 Sep 2004

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India

|action1result=promoted

|action1oldid=5945311

|action2=FAR

|action2date=11 Apr 2005

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive1

|action2result=kept

|action2oldid=12191859

|action3=FAR

|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/India/archive2

|action3result=kept

|action3oldid=51836931

|action4=FAR

|action4date=14:15, 28 July 2011

|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive2

|action4result=kept

|action4oldid=441811169

|currentstatus=FA

|maindate=December 3, 2004

|maindate2=October 2, 2019

|otd1date=2004-08-15|otd1oldid=5256057

|otd2date=2005-08-15|otd2oldid=21044027

|otd3date=2011-08-15|otd3oldid=444882019

|otd4date=2012-11-26|otd4oldid=524820236

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |1=

{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top |india=Yes}}

{{WikiProject India|importance=Top |portal=yes}}

{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=Top |listas=India}}

{{WikiProject Countries}}

{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |user=Twofingered Typist |date=21 September 2019}}

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}

}}

{{Press|collapsed=yes|date=17 August 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date2=27 August 2009 |url2=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6099890/Wikipedia-Top-20-people-places-film-and-technology-articles.html|title2=Wikipedia: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles |org2=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |author2=James Steyn |date3=4 July 2015 |url3=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-vandals-of-Wiki/articleshow/47941452.cms |title3=The Vandals of Wiki |org3=[[The Times of India]] |author3=Sandhya Soman}}

{{tmbox

| type = speedy

| text = <big><big><big>'''PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME'''</big></big><br>If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the [[WP:COMMONNAME|commonly-used name]] (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see [[Turkey]], where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.</big>

}}

{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa|long}}

{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=

{{All time pageviews|151}}

{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2008 Top 50 Report|2008]], [[Wikipedia:2009 Top 50 Report|2009]], [[Wikipedia:2010 Top 50 Report|2010]], [[Wikipedia:2011 Top 50 Report|2011]], [[Wikipedia:2012 Top 50 Report|2012]], [[Wikipedia:2013 Top 50 Report|2013]], [[Wikipedia:2014 Top 50 Report|2014]], [[Wikipedia:2015 Top 50 Report|2015]], [[Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/2016|2016]], [[Wikipedia:2017 Top 50 Report|2017]], [[Wikipedia:2018 Top 50 Report|2018]], [[Wikipedia:2019 Top 50 Report|2019]], [[Wikipedia:2020 Top 50 Report|2020]], [[Wikipedia:2021 Top 50 Report|2021]], [[Wikipedia:2022 Top 50 Report|2022]], and [[Wikipedia:2023 Top 50 Report|2023]]}}

{{Top 25 report

| August 11, 2013

| October 20, 2013 | until | November 24, 2013

| December 8, 2013

| December 29, 2013 | until | January 19, 2014

}}

{{Spoken article requested|{{U|Sdkb}}|Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners}}

{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}}

{{Section sizes}}

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes }}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d

|algo = old(30d)

|counter = 58

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|minthreadsleft = 10

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

}}

== Short Description ==

{{Archive top|status=Done |result=No oppose. [[User:ExclusiveEditor|<span style="background:Orange;color:White;padding:2px;">Exclusive</span><span style="background:black; color:White; padding:2px;">Editor</span>]] [[User talk:ExclusiveEditor|_{Notify Me!}]] 17:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)}}

Change Short description: '''Country in Asia''' to''' Country in South Asia'''. <br>

Reason: Current short description says ''''<s>Country in Asia</s>''''(changed to Country in South Asia), while other countries in Asia have more regional short description (example: China(Country in '''East '''Asia), Pakistan(Country in '''South '''Asia) Japan(Island country in '''East '''Asia), Bangladesh(Country in '''South '''Asia), Saudi Arabia(Country in the '''Middle East''') and even countries in other smaller continents: Germany(Country in '''Central '''Europe), France(Country in '''Western''' Europe), United Kingdom(Country in '''Northwestern '''Europe) etc. ) Regards, [[User:ExclusiveEditor|<span style="background:Orange;color:White;padding:2px;">Exclusive</span>]][[User:ExclusiveEditor|<span style="background:black; color:White; padding:2px;">Editor</span>]] [[User talk:ExclusiveEditor|_{Notify Me!}]] 16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

:'''Support''', because it is a more accurate and correct short description. [[User:InTheAstronomy32|InTheAstronomy32]] ([[User talk:InTheAstronomy32|talk]]) 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

:'''Note:''' The short description has been already changed. [[User:InTheAstronomy32|InTheAstronomy32]] ([[User talk:InTheAstronomy32|talk]]) 23:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Undid the change since it is under discussion. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 02:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

:* A week passed, two people supported and there was no opposition. I will change the short description.

:[[User:InTheAstronomy32|InTheAstronomy32]] ([[User talk:InTheAstronomy32|talk]]) 11:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

== The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period ==

{{atop

| status =

| result = Refer to [[Talk:India#Text_updated?|discussion]] below. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 17:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

}}

Are the only sources for this coming from 2 Germans who lived in the 20th century [[User:Jamesman666|Jamesman666]] ([[User talk:Jamesman666|talk]]) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:text removed. not factually correct, rather seems like personal opinion of Germans. Wondering, why they believed the priests & warriors were not the indigenous people in India. Their stupidity made me laugh though. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

== Request to remove pic "US president Barack Obama addresses the members of the Parliament of India in New Delhi in November 2010." ==

It is a very bad quality picture and the Parliament building too has changed. My suggestion is to refrain from adding non-Indian people in the India article, specially under its politics para. [[Special:Contributions/122.187.117.179|122.187.117.179]] ([[User talk:122.187.117.179|talk]]) 11:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:Updated the new parliament building. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 11:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

== "Bharat" must be added as the endonym. ==

The word "Bharat" must be added as the endonym in the lead sentence and the infobox WITHOUT changing the common name. Why is the hesitation? [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

* In that case a discussion should be started about it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

*:It's strange that all the exonyms like Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush) were included, But the most used endonym (Bharat) is not being included. All the information from western sources are considered reliable, but source from government of India is being labeled fake. That shows how neutral is wiki article is. Meanwhile, the [[Neutral point of view]] policy of Wikipedia cried alone in the corner. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 08:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::To begin with, the name ''Bharat Ganarajya'' is clearly given in the lede as well as in the infobox. Two, the official name of India has NOT been changed to Bharat by any bill or any law or even as per any circular or a notice. No sources are labelledas fake, if they are reliable. Go though [[WP:RS/P]] and [[WP:RS]] to identify the sources we use in Wikipedia. Here, nobody cares if it is from a government or a king. If the source is not reliable, it is not. No differences from western or oriental or Indian. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 08:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Which bill or law mentions about Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush)? Going by your logic these should also be removed. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 09:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::and to be precise, I never asked to change the official name of the country. I have always said that endonym should be included. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 09:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::& Also, Category & wiki page for Countries of Voice of Global South were deleted by editors two days back because it had references from Government of India which were considered not-reliable. What a shame. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Hey, I would like to urge you to read every messages posted here, and in your talk page in depth before making further statements. The lede ''do not'' mention the exonyms or endonyms anywhere. They are in etymology section which comes ''after'' the lede. The next paragraph of the section goes into detail about the ''Bharat'' terminology. The artcle [[Names for India]] goes into an in length discussion about many names of our country. Also, lede doesn't have to include any of these endonyms or exonyms or whatevernyms per [[WP:LEDE]] and [[WP:FACR]]. There is an entire seperate section for that.

:::::::Secondly, the category and the subsequent article for Voice of Global South was deleted due to copyright violation (see [[WP:G12]]), ''not'' due to sources that aren't reliable.

:::::::Finally, I'd like to say that this article has been a target of discussions for 20 years now and if you think you have something new to add or some changes to be made, there is a really good chance that it was already been discussed here. So, you may go through the huge talk page archive that we have and see if such a step was already done. If not, have a read of [[WP:OWN]] (especially [[WP:FAOWN]]) to see if you can implement such a change. If such a change need consensus, when it had to be obtained from the consensus and you ''have'' to convince over thousand page watchers of this page that that change is justified. If still it is not happening, you can start a [[WP:RFC]] and see where the consensus leans to. There is no point blaming the system or the policies and guidelines. This article is a Featured Article that has gone through community review multiple times before getting into the current shape. You can't change something just because you don't like it or it goes aganist your own personal agenda. (Kinda like the democracy of our country. You can't change a law cuz you don't like it, lol). Good luck. Thanks and happy editing. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::::@ [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] Thanks for calling me 'agenda pusher'. Bulgaria is a FA. yet the '''Romanized''' name ''Bŭlgariya'' is used along with official name.

::::::::'''Read''' - [[Bulgaria]] - Bulgaria ([[Help:IPA/English|/bʌlˈɡɛəriə, bʊl-/]] ^{[[:File:En-us-Bulgaria.ogg|ⓘ]]}; [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]]: България, <small>[[Romanization of Bulgarian|romanized]]:</small> ''Bŭlgariya''), officially the '''Republic of Bulgaria''', is a country in [[Southeast Europe]].

::::::::Hence either Bulgaria page should be updated to remove the '''Romanized''' name ''Bŭlgariya'', or India page should be update to include '''Indianized''' name Bharat.

::::::::I rest my case. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 11:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::You are again missing the point, dear Makks. The term romanised in this context refers to the transliteration of България (in Bulgarian language) to Bŭlgariya (in English). See [[Romanization of Bulgarian]] for further details. In India, we don't do that because of [[MOS:INDICSCRIPT]]. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 12:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::I am confused. The article already contains the romanized name for India, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya", in both the lead and the infobox exactly like the Bulgaria article does. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 12:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

{{od|10}} Yea, we already have [[ISO 15919|the ISO]]. I think what Makks2010 meant was they want {{Lang-hi|भारत|translit=Bhārat}} or {{Lang-hi|भारत|translit=India}} (or something similar) in the lede. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]])

"romanized: Bhārat" is okay. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:([[ISO 15919|ISO]]: ''Bhārat Gaṇarājya'') is official name, hence shouldn't be touched. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

* '''Controversial statement''' - India, officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[22] is a country in South Asia.

* '''Proposed statement''' - India (Hindi: भारत, romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[22] is a country in South Asia.

The proposed statement for India is in line with another FA [[Bulgaria]].

:Read [[MOS:INDICSCRIPT]]. No need to romanize if you can't put Indic script in the lede. You should really pay attention to what other editors are saying and read the guidelines we present and the messages we post. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 15:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::* '''Second Proposed statement''' - India (romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (ISO: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.

::[[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 16:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::That is not what [[romanization]] means. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 16:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::So basically, nothing is acceptable. :( [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

== priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous" in India ==

{{ping|Makks2010}}, what is meant by "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=1216675415 text updated]"? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

* Yes, I've just reverted a couple of those, I'm especially unconvinced by the removal of the sourced section but there may be a reason for it, however none was given. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] & @[[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] : How to establish if the source that was added is actually neutral and not a personal opinion of some German guys who living in India in 20th century. Would you agree if priests & warriors castes in India are not indigenous in India? Read yourself below and judge if this is a neutral article?

*:disputed text from the article -

*:[[File:Disputed text.png|thumb|left|Disputed text for discussion]] [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::* Perhaps it would have been a good idea to actually give a reason for the removal, then? Though I don't see that the nationality of the author or the date of the source has any relevance anyway, the only question is "is it correct"? If it isn't, you'd need to explain why. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::*:@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] : Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to actually click bit more and check before simply reverting someone's work.

::*:Even a wiki page available for the author of the source. See the wikipage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Kulke

::*:Hermann Kulke (born 1938 in Berlin) is a German historian and Indologist, who was professor of South and Southeast Asian history at the Department of History, Kiel University (1988–2003). After receiving his PhD in Indology from Freiburg University in 1967, he taught for 21 years at the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University (SAI).

::*:He was a founding member of the Orissa Research Project (ORP) of the Southasia Institute (1970–1975), and was coordinator of the second ORP.

::*:Specialization: pre-colonial South and Southeast Asian History; early state formation and historiography; regional cultures of India with emphasis on Orissa; Indianization of Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean Studies.

::*:He was a visiting professor at Utkal University, Bhubaneswar (1978–1979), Asiatic Society, Calcutta (1986), and Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (1992). He was also the Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, in Singapore (1987) and of the Asia Research Institute of the University of Singapore (2007).11. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::::* You appear to have misunderstood me. I know who they are (because I ''did'' check them, thank you very much) - the question is what do ''you'' believe makes their work ineligible to source this article? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::::*:Nationality of the author very much matter, especially in a sensitive cases like casteism, because often they do not understand roots / logic behind, rather they form their own opinion, which often is incorrect. Including such text in a neutral information page would be approving such opinions. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::* I was hoping you would explain what the problem was with ''those sources'', as opposed to expressing your own random opinions on people from different nations. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::*:I already mentioned that considering priests & warriors people an non-indigenous in India is totally wrong and it proves my point. Which a western person with prejudice would never understand, hence whatever was mentioned in the source is not correct. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::::* Trying to claim that no westerner could ever understand the caste system isn't going to go too well for you, so I suggest you don't suggest that. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

* You have not yet explained what you meant by "text updated". You know that Wikipedia is written by summarising [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], right? You have been here long enough. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

*:In my next update, I will include as much info as possible. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

*:: No, you will discuss them here first. You are experienced enough an editor to know what [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:EPTALK]] mean, and you have been reverted by three different experienced editors today. This is especially true as this is a Featured Article. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

*3RR violation in an indef protected FA. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Makks2010&diff=prev&oldid=1216703730 Warned] {{U|Makks2010}}. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 14:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

*:3RR violation happened because people didn't ponder enough before reverting someone else's work. :S [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

*I am very alarmed to see when an editor believes that "outsiders" (here: a German scholar) are incapable of adequately studying/discussing a topic that is tied to a specific region (here: the Indian caste system), and thus apparently believes that sources written by such "outsiders" should not be used. If this continues to be the rationale of their edits (let's see what happens after 24 hrs), this eventually will call for a TBAN. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:: It is not as simple as that because we do know the problems of [[Orientalism]]. The statement they point out is indeed slightly problematic. I had it in my mind to look for better sources, which I will try again now. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 22:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Removed along with that statement was a sentence on the "chiefdom stage of political organisation", which does not seem to be sourced to Kulke. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

::: Aye ... probably because it tries to summarise an incredibly complex issue in one sentence. It certainly doesn't mean what Makks2010 thinks it means, though. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:::{{re|Kautilya3}} My comment was not about the source, but about the a priori rationale by @Makks2010 in these comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1216699807&oldid=1216693224&title=Talk:India][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1216703627&oldid=1216702070&title=Talk:India]. Being aware about existing systemic bias is different from undifferentiated rejection based on the nationality of the author <small>(or add: "editor", and you have the root of chauvinist traveling circus discussions in WP)</small>. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:::: Systemic bias is present throughout the western conception of "caste". But German Indology is special still, for having given rise to the infamous "Aryanism".

:::: The present text conveys that the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", whereas the fourth unnamed class alone was "indigenous" and was regarded as "impure". That is a very strange reading that I don't think you will find outside German Indology. We could just say a caste system with ranked classes of priests, warriors, free peasants and labourers arose, without attaching additional value judgements. There is no need to go beyond that in a breif summary of the history. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]], @[[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] & @[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] : Question is not if any scholar is capable of discussing or studying a topic related to another region. Everyone is entitled to have one's own opinion, even if it is not neutral in nature. But the Wiki article must follow [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], which is not the case here. It is neither 'slightly problematic' nor 'phrasing an incredibly complex topic' issue, rather it is an unreasonable & unfair opinion. If one reads couple of paragraphs rather than just one of two sentences from the book (given in the reference of the sentence in the wiki), one will find that the Scholar's work is too shallow and full of unreasonable prejudice towards the Indian society lacking a complete societal view of India. I have already written a detailed email to the author of the book calling out his hypocrisy towards the Indian society with many examples which of course, he did not consider while writing his book.

:::::[[File:Feedback on the reference book.png|thumb|left| Feedback on the reference book]]

:::::Anyhow, the sentence in question must be taken down with immediate effect as it mis-represent '''the most populous nation of the world''' and is not following the policy of neutrality. Hope, you all would agree. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 18:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

::::@[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] : Thanks for getting me blocked, even when I informed you individually that I was in process to improve the article and category, it was not cool though. I will write the article again with all the references and get it reviewed before publishing it. @[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]] [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Makks2010}} Again, you are confused regarding your rationales of blocks and deletions.

:::::You were '''blocked for [[WP:3RR|editwarring]]''' and the article (and subsequently the category) was '''deleted due to copyright violation per [[WP:G12]].''' It doesn't matter if you were in the process of adding the sources then or 2 days later, all the information must be cited when you are entering it in Wikipedia. Please read the disclaimers that comes up before you click publish changes button. You could use [[WP:SANDBOX|sandbox]] or [[WP:DRAFT|draftspace]] when you are testing edits or creating a new article. Also, sarcasm and snide remarks are not going to help your cause. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::@[[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] Any input on the original bone of contention - "priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous" in India"? [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

* I have read through ''almost every archive'' discussing about "'''indigenous people'''" in the [[caste system]]. Everytime, the discussion was either left inconclusively or declined by editors as no alternative text was proposed.

'''Controversial statement''' - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period. {{clear}}

'''Proposed statement''' - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in menial & disgraceful occupations, arose during this period. {{clear}}

:The proposed statement, IMO, using ''menial and disgraceful'' to tag certain occupations sounds very POV and biased per [[WP:WTW]] and shouldn't be used. This entire section seems like a [[WP:BROKE]] discussion. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 15:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::first of all, the Shudra or Dalit were actually involved in ''menial and disgraceful'' tasks. They can't change their occupations based on Wikipedia's requirements. hence it was proposed. '''''If this can't be accepted then the whole sentence must be moved.'''''

::secondly, present text that implies '''the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous",''' sound more biased. And factually incorrect. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::'''Second proposed statement''' - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders, and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in unhygienic occupations arose during this period. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 16:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*{{reply|Makks2010}} The current version of the statement in the article (which you label "controversial") summarizes what is said on p.19 of the 6th edition of ''[https://www.routledge.com/A-History-of-India/Kulke-Rothermund/p/book/9781138961159 A history of India]'' by Kulke & Rothermund, a standard textbook on the subject. Which comparable high-quality source(s) did you use to formulate your proposed revision? [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] Prof Kulke book ''[https://www.routledge.com/A-History-of-India/Kulke-Rothermund/p/book/9781138961159 A history of India]'' is unreasonably prejudice and factually incorrect. I have already wrote him an email with contradicting the text from his book with a number of examples. See the above "feedback on the reference book" screenshot of the email. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*::And also what decides which source is a high-quality or low-quality? Is it the nationality of the writer?

*::Sorry, not acceptable. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::You again are missing the point. Nobody is bringing up this nationality thing except you for some reason. This entire argument is just another case of [[WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT]], it seems. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*:::What is factually incorrect, will always remain incorrect. I am not the only one that highlighted this issue with the word '''"indigenous",''' there are a lot of people have highlighted the same (check archive) including some of the editors too. Yet. the source from a outsider is being considered more reliable. Just because the author of the book is from certain region. This is actually called "slave" mentality, when people can't think rationally rather agreeing to what their master says. Again, Not acceptable!!!. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*:::Makks2010, see [[WP:HISTRS]] for how quality of history-related sources is judged. Your claims/email are not of much value in evaluating the reliability of a textbook written by two recognized scholars, published by an academic press, and whose quality is lauded by [https://doi.org/10.2307/604988 other] [https://doi.org/10.2307/1862211 scholars] in peer-reviewed publications. If you wish to argue otherwise, you can get other opinions at [[WP:RSN]] although IMO that would be a waste of your and other editors' time. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

== "Voice of the Global South Summit" mass additions ==

{{atop

| status =

| result = Article deleted for copyvio and category deleted as empty. Discussion is redundant now. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 18:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

}}

[[User:Makks2010]] has created the [[:‎Category:Countries of Voice of Global South]] in relation to the Modi-initiated virtual summit[https://thediplomat.com/2023/11/at-global-south-summit-modi-urges-unity-for-the-greater-global-good/] and added it to every country that participated in the summit (according to a Indian governmental source), without 1) an article related to it, and 2) without mention of the summit of these articles. When I first reverted some of these additions, @Makks2010 has added some text to [[:Sri Lanka]] to comply with [[WP:CATVER]], but only using a non-neutral source by the Indian government[https://www.mea.gov.in/voice-of-global-summit.htm#:~:text=125%20countries%20participated%20in%20the,and%2011%20countries%20from%20Oceania], and now, they have created the main article (which makes my first objection temporarily moot; the article hasn't been vetted for WP:N and WP:V yet). But still, we obviously need ''independent'' sources which tells us that the participation in the summit is relevant for each country article.

Since this summit is an Indian initiative, I have chosen this talk page to get wider input about these mass edits. [[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

PS: @Makks2010 is re-adding the category, disregarding [[WP:BRD]], e.g. here:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suriname&diff=prev&oldid=1216726034][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1216733447&oldid=1216729261&title=Suriname]. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 17:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:I don't care whether the template and the category exist but they don't belong in the country articles. First, you should not be adding categories that can not be verified from the text of the article. Second, the first can not be rectified by adding it to article text because it is extremely [[WP:UNDUE]] for any country article, it's not even close.<span id="Usedtobecool:1711994810076:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)</span>

:[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]], your ping has failed, FYI.<span id="Usedtobecool:1711994924103:TalkFTTCLNIndia" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 18:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)</span>

:Re-pinging {{ping|Makks2010}} in case you haven't seen this. I assume you have seen it in my talk page. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 18:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}

== Feedback on [[India]] wiki page ==

Here is my feedback on [[India]] wiki page. It is a badly a formatted article '''highlighting "not so positive" side of the country''' (most probably it is by intention of the editors) and '''hiding "almost every positive aspect".''' Hence it requires a major overhauling efforts.

'''examples '''-

1) Mention of "incorporation of untouchability" in the introduction itself is mis-representation of India. though the fact is that the untouchability is matter of past now (abolished 74 years ago), it must be included in the article but certainly not in the introduction as it does not represent the country any more. {{clear}}

2) Pre-history section is totally missing, where as it is available in many courtiers’ wiki pages. {{clear}}

3) History of 'North-eastern' part is purposefully not included in any section of the history. {{clear}}

4) Geography section did not even mention about any of India's islands. {{clear}}

5) Topography is a major topic that missing. {{clear}}

6) Wrong information given about number of state-level political parties mentioned. Number of listed political parties in the EC is around 2500. {{clear}}

7) List of top metropolis cities / largest urban areas is not written, whereas almost every other country's wiki page has it. (e.g. U.K.) {{clear}}

8) A separate section should be provided to the languages under demographics for one of the most linguistically diverse country of the world. {{clear}}

9) Architecture section more look like an advertisement of Taj Mahal, Though India has many more architectural wonders other than Taj. The section should be re-visited. {{clear}}

10) No mention of India's Transport infrastructure work done in last 10 year. A separate Transport section would be appreciated. {{clear}}

11) No mention of India’s scientific achievements, if they do not represent a country than I wonder what would. Science and technology section should be included. {{clear}}

12) No mention of world's largest media.{{clear}}

13) India's wide diversity should be included in the clothing section, rather than just highlighting saris and Shalwar. {{clear}}

14) World's second-largest education system cannot be summarized just in five sentences. {{clear}}

15) India's contribution in the WW-I & WW-II should also be mentioned under some appropriate section. {{clear}}

16) Healthcare should have been a separate section, considering that India has one of the largest Healthcare infra. {{clear}}

17) India is known for it's Philosophy & Culture. However Wiki page doesn't even consider it. {{clear}}

<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Makks2010|contribs]]) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)</small>

:Thank you for taking the time to make this evaluation..... I would agree the article hasn't kept up to the FA level we expect especially for country articles.... It follows the format of a decade ago. That being said I think we can work on all these points above. First would be proposal of text and changes with sources. Keeping in mind that changes here is very hard.... thus short and precise changes need to be demonstrated here in the talk.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:You may want to look over [[WP:Summary style]], many of your points simply ask for additions to an already not short article. No single page can have everything, but it is perhaps worth looking into whether your mentioned points are in the immediate subarticles. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::@[[User:Cmd|cmd]] of course, No single page can have everything. but basic page size analysis tells a different story that how much info has been included about world's the most populous and the most diverse country. Let alone the accuracy or neutrality of the text included in it. {{clear}}

::1) [[India]] - 311,514 bytes {{clear}}

::2) [[Lithuania]] - 316,496 bytes {{clear}}

::3) [[Vietnam]] - 321,391 bytes {{clear}}

::4) [[Turkey]] - 333,128 bytes {{clear}}

::5) [[China]] - 345,292 bytes {{clear}}

::6) [[Bangladesh]] - 347,376 bytes {{clear}}

::7) [[United Kingdom]] - 361,544 bytes {{clear}}

::8) [[Russia]] - 370,238 bytes {{clear}}

::9) [[Italy]] - 387,194 bytes {{clear}}

::10) [[Pakistan]] - 401,112 bytes {{clear}}

::11) [[Iran]] - 401,682 bytes {{clear}} [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 05:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Those are all lower-quality articles than this one. "Basic page size analysis" suggests that too. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Are we suggesting here that FA like [[United Kingdom]], [[China]], [[Turkey]], [[Italy]] & [[Russia]] are low quality articles? [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 06:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::Not a single one of those is an FA. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::that's a news to me. :D [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 06:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Look for the golden star on top for an article to differentiate between normal articles, [[WP:GA|Good articles]] and [[WP:FA|Featured articles]]. India is one of the oldest articles in English Wikipedia, about 20 years old. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 07:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::::that's exactly my point, Along with the article, it's text and formatting is also decades older, which may not be relevant in 2024 anymore. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

{{od|8}} Yes, it still follows an outdated guideline, but recent changes are updated and incorporated into the article ''after'' gaining consensus here in talk page regularly. So, it's not that bad or it's not like we use the outdated style. You may check the article milestones in the talk page header to see the reviews that are done time to time. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 10:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:In that case, I would like to question the review process itself.

:e.g. How come <nowiki>'''</nowiki>untouchability<nowiki>'''</nowiki> be the introduction of any country? - Wondering what review was done about it? Is it fair and unbiased? [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

* I would concentrate on one part of your list at a time. The two that ''do'' stand out as being understated in the article are science and philosophy. Note that a number of the topics have their own article (otherwise this one would be far too large), for example [[Architecture of India]] or [[Clothing in India]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*:Let's talk about [[Architecture of India]] or [[Clothing in India]] only for now. -

*:1) May I ask India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India? In my point of view, it is important because they have unique clothing as well as architecture.

*:2) Why only Taj Mahal to be included? Let's have short text about Taj and Also include other wonderful Architecture from ancient India?

*:I have not asking a long assay about India, just would like to have more '''inclusive''' article. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 10:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::* There is no problem with suggesting other important items that would fit into ''this'' article, rather than the sub-articles.; no-one is saying we can't add ''anything'' at all to what exists already. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::*:Assam is mentioned multiple times in Performing arts and media, where Manipur is mentioned too, and the north-east region is mentioned as a group in Sports and recreation. This may or may not be appropriate weight, but it is more than just a line or two. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 10:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::*::@[[User:Cmd|Cmd]] how abut the history of north-east? Not even a single dynasty from north east is mentioned, However Mughals got plenty of text. Though the fact is Mughals were actually defeated multiple times by the Kings of north-east at multiple occasion. I understand the article would become too lengthy to read if we include everything. However, The point i am making is that the Article should be more inclusive than just praising Mughals. which more sound like western point of view of India.

::*::You can go back to article and check yourself, not even a single word mentioned about - 1) Shivaji Maharaj 2) Sikh empire 3) Rajputs kings. Hence I am saying the article should be more inclusive without being lengthy.

::*::Hope, I am making some sense '''without being labeled as "agenda pusher" or "Bhakat"'''. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::*:::Also, do you believe any other part of India is more biodiverse than North-East? Yet, north-east itself is not included in Biodiversity section. I have bee saying that article is not really balanced in nature. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::*::::Those are not directly related to your specific question of whether "India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India", which I answered. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II==

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Algoma_University/Introduction_to_Community_Economic_and_Social_Development_II_(Winter_2024) | reviewers = [[User:Nikhil Kashyap 1|Nikhil Kashyap 1]] | start_date = 2024-01-09 | end_date = 2024-04-05 }}

<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Nikhil Kashyap 1|Nikhil Kashyap 1]] ([[User talk:Nikhil Kashyap 1|talk]]) 22:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)</span>

:{{u|Nikhil Kashyap 1}}, this article is not suitable for student editors. Even an experienced editor needs months to get anything done here, unless you're already one of the major contributors to it. I suggest you pick another topic, or you might fail. My advice is, pick an article that should be detailed but is currently short, or pick an article that needs a lot of copyediting. Is your assignment really due day after tommorrow? And you're starting today? '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 08:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:: The student would not be able to edit the article anyway, as it is [[WP:ECP|extended-confirmed protected]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::I have left a note for WikiEd. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 10:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

== Declining status of women during Maurya and Gupta Empires ==

'''Controversial statement''' - Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit [[Maurya Empire|Maurya]] and [[Gupta Empire|Gupta Empires]] based in the [[Ganges Basin]]. Their collective [[era]] was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but '''also marked by the declining status of women'''.

I really would like to get this statement reviewed, which makes no sense. General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. The reference given with the sentence is actually not open to read for all. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 11:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:Please provide references from reliable sources supporting your claim ''General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion.'' Also, the reference is an open access from Google books. Anyone can open it and see. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::'''Proposed reference link''' - https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Huma/HumaSing.htm

::'''Publisher''' - Boston University

::'''Text to be included''' - The Muslim influence on India caused considerable deterioration in the status of women. They were deprived of their rights of equality with men.

::@[[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] above text from reference link seem more appropriate without mentioning about the time period, hence there won't be any controversy. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Funny how you see 2000 year old Mauryan and Gupta Empire statement (that was researched and there is a consensus among historians) about women's stature declining controversial and POV, but ''The Muslim influence'' (as suggested by you) as perfectly NPOV and non controversial. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 13:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Could you please provide any '''Indian''' reference where it is mentioned that women status was declining during Mauryan and Gupta Empire? [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::Why does it have to be Indian? [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::here comes the prejudice towards the Indian intellect yet again. Whatever western scholars say is a line on the stone, but who actually went through the situation are the liars. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 13:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Here is second reference which mentions that <nowiki>'''</nowiki> '''With the advent of Muslims in India, the social movement of Indian women was restricted. When Hindu culture came in the clash with a culture far different from its own, the Hindu leaders of the society began to frame rules and laws to safeguard their interest especially the position of women'''<nowiki>'''</nowiki> also "'''With the threats of the invading soldiers roaming countryside, women were prohibited to attend public functions and were placed behind the veil.'''"

::::These were exactly my point of views in my previous statements.

::::https://noteguilty.com/notes/women-law/women-in-pre-independence-period [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 13:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::Here comes third reference which exactly says what i mentioned - "T'''he Medieval period starts with the entry of Muslim invaders in India. The span of this period was about 500 years from the Era of Delhi Sultnate to Mughal era. In the Indian history, the medieval age is considered to be “Dark Age” for the women when many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women’s status.'''"

:::::https://magadhmahilacollege.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Status-of-Women-in-Medieval-India.pdf [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::fourth reference proving my statement - "'''Medieval India was not women's age it is supposed to be the 'dark age' for them. Medieval India saw many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women's status. When foreign conquerors like Muslims invaded India they brought with them their own culture. For them women was the sole property of her father, brother or husband and she does not have any will of her own. This type of thinking also crept into the minds of Indian people and they also began to treat their own women like this. One more reason for the decline in women's status and freedom was that original Indians wanted to shield their women folk from the barbarous Muslim invaders.''' "

::::::https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1867/The-Socio-Economic-Status-of-Women-in-India-Ancient-to-Modern-Era.html [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Fifth reference for the same statement - "'''Unlike in the ancient Indian period, the position and status of woman in the Mughal period was not quite high. Purdah and child marriage had become common. Except those of the lower classes, woman in Mughal period did not move out of their houses. The Muslims woman observed purdah much more strictly than the Hindus. The birth of a daughter was considered inauspicious, while that of a son was an occasion for celebration.'''"

:::::::https://www.govtwomencollegeslm8.org/e_content/English/II%20B.A.%20ENGLISH/NMEC-%20WOMEN'S%20STUDIES/UNIT%20III/ANCIENT%20WOMEN.pdf [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::::::{{ec}}I am an Indian and I do not have any prejudice aganist my fellow Indian historians. If the fact you suggest has reliable references, and you can show it is true ([[WP:VERIFIABILITY]]) from independent sources ([[WP:INDY]]) nothing can stop you from adding it. But if you are trying to achieve something else by removing a well cited statement about Gupta and Maurya empire, and add a POV statement, we can see right through it. Good luck obtaining consensus for the change. Thanks and happy editing. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Already provided links for a paper published at '''Boston University''' as well as at '''Magadha Mahila college''', Patna. located at a area which where actually Gupta and Maurya empires were flourished. both writers are independent and verifiable. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*{{reply|Makks2010}} Please do not flood this page with quotes from low-quality sources and random websites and please avoid unnecessary bolding, which in online discussions is akin to yelling. See [[WP:HISTRS]] for the type of sources that are needed to add/edit history-related content at this FA. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*:How come Indian sources become "low quality" about a topic related to India and western sources are credible. It is like telling a man, who lived whole of his life as man, that he is never been a man. That's how editors are being acted. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*::Please stop bringing up author nationality, no-one else has mentioned it. The sources above read as obviously low quality, they have not even been edited for grammar, and that is with no idea who the authors are. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*::{{ec}} Makks2010, several editors have already pointed out the error of judging a sources based on the nationality of the authors. So please do read [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:HISTRS]], and consult the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] if you wish. Simply [[WP:IDHT| ignoring the feedback]] and continuing this [[WP:TE|tendentious line of argument]] is likely to get you blocked from this page/topic-area. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

*:::feel free to block.... this is pure bullshit. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

== Socio-economic challenges ==

'''Controversial statement -''' Despite economic growth during recent decades, India continues to face socio-economic challenges. I'''n 2006, India contained the [[Poverty in India|largest number]] of people living below the World Bank's international poverty line of US$1.25 per day'''

'''Reference given''' - https://web.archive.org/web/20120514143037/https://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/DPR_FullReport.pdf

'''Proposed changes''' -

1) Even the world bank has raised the poverty line from US$1.25 per day to US2.15 per day back in 2017. Hence data mentioned in the article is way too old. Refer to this https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND

2) Also editor must consider this before updating - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/indias-poverty-rate-declined-to-4-5-5-in-2022-23-sbi-research/articleshow/108029519.cms?from=mdr [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:ET is not [[WP:RS|reliable]] per [[WP:RS/P]]. Also, India haven't published their poverty statistics since 2011. You might want to have a look at [https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/factsheet/2022/05/02/fact-sheet-an-adjustment-to-global-poverty-lines#2 this report] and [https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/september-2022-global-poverty-update-world-bank-2017-ppps-and-new-data-india this post] by WB. But if you could get more data regarding India's standing in terms of poverty in 2024, we can update it in the article. Thanks. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

::How about Point -1? "Poverty rate at '''$2.15''' a day (2017 PPP) (% population): '''12.92'''% in '''2021"'''

::2021 is not that far from 2024. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Also, as per government of India - India has registered a significant decline in multidimensional poverty in India from 29.17% in 2013-14 to 11.28% in 2022-23 i.e. a reduction of 17.89 percentage points.

:::[https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1996271#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Discussion%20Paper,reduction%20of%2017.89%20percentage%20points. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1996271#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Discussion%20Paper,reduction%20of%2017.89%20percentage%20points.] [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:::: There's a big problem with using those dates - Page 1 of the report states "''headcount poverty ratios for 2013-14 and 2022-23 have been estimated based on compound growth rate of the reduction in the incidence of poverty levels between 2005-06 and 2015-16 and 2015-16 and 2019-21 respective''" So I think you could only use the 2005-6, 2015-16 and 2019-21 figures (and they are the ones used throughout the report anyway). Interesting that the Govt press release doesn't mention the data from the same report, that says that the figure fell from 55.34% to 29.17% between 2005-06 and 2013-14, when presumably it was a different Government. You'd have to mention both time-frames. Also, using the MPI measure can be slightly misleading (I think this discussion has happened previously). If you look at the graph on page 9 of the report, 31% of the population are still deprived in nutrition, 43% in cooking fuel, 31% in sanitation and 41% in housing. So I think this can be mentioned, but you'd have to explain in a little detail what it's actually saying (and push the data points back to 2005-2006, as that's where the greatest improvements happened).

[[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

== Administrative divisions section doesn't mention about 29 autonomously administrated areas of India. ==

please include '''Autonomous administrative divisions of India''' link under Administrative divisions section. There are 29 such areas, which should be given some visibility.

'''Present link''' :

{{Main|Administrative divisions of India}}

'''Proposed change''' :

{{Main|Administrative divisions of India|Autonomous administrative divisions of India}}

[[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 13:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:These autonomous administrative divisions are subparts of the main article [[Administrative divisions of India]]. There's no point or relevance to provide a link on India's article. It can be given at the ''see also'' section of the former article as they form a part of the larger Administrative divisions article. The objective of an article about India is not to give all the possible information in the world crammed up in this one article. Pointers are given for each sub section because of this. The hits and the views that these two articles get is vastly different and a general reader doesn't differentiate between these two. Also, Wikipedia is not for giving more visibility to a specific article or to promote one specific group of ideas (see [[WP:SOAPBOX]]). Thanks. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

== add a line about marathas in the (top) section ==

maratha empire is acknowledged by western, british historians (no 1 point) that means it did existed. it also had an area about 2.5m sq km which means it was bigger that 1 m sq km hence a big enough empire to be added in (top) section. it crushed mughal empire by force (but you dont have to write that as it would be equal to indians defeating turks pbuh swt which is not possible so you just write something like "mughal empire was gradually followed by marathas however we dont yet know about how mughals declines"). then add a line stating that three anglo maratha wars resulted in british rule (istead of saying "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed" like if mughals were the greatest before british [[User:Uvrajgupt|Uvrajgupt]] ([[User talk:Uvrajgupt|talk]]) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Kautilya3}}, {{u|RegentsPark}} has reverted my edit which can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=1217758212&title=India&diffonly=1 here] and asked me to get a consensus for the fact that the Marathas ended Mughal rule and established the [[Maratha Empire]] consisting of most areas of the [[Indian subcontinent]] but lost almost all those territories to the English [[East India Company]] in the [[Second Anglo-Maratha War|Second]] and [[Third Anglo-Maratha war]] using the sources mentioned in the diff (about the establishment of the Maratha Empire). Can you start a, 'Request for Comments" for the same?

-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

:{{cite book|last=Naravane|first=M. S. |title=Battles of the Honourable East India Company: Making of the Raj|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bxsa3jtHoCEC&pg=PA79|year=2006|publisher=APH Publishing|isbn=978-81-313-0034-3|ref={{sfnref|Naravane|2006|pp=79–86}}}} can be used to show that the EIC seized control of India from the Marathas?-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

::Hey, may you please explain more about "request for comments", i would really love to help you out.

::Making the Raj is good enough (ive only read first few pages) but it doesn't tell you that marathas ended mughal rule, we need another one for the same, we need to find some good source, these days im really busy but will surely look into them in a week or maybe after three or four days, till then if you find something similar, do let me know and tell me more about request for comments, i never heard of it and the web is showing different results for the same [[User:Uvrajgupt|Uvrajgupt]] ([[User talk:Uvrajgupt|talk]]) 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024 ==

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

ADD to initial description after

"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."

Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.<ref>{{Cite web |title=IZA World of Labor: The labor market in India since the 1990s

|url=https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long |access-date=2024-04-06 |website=www.wol.iza.org |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Vuquiz|Vuquiz]] ([[User talk:Vuquiz|talk]]) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

{{rlt}}

== Adding some more context to per capita income rise in short description ==

In the '''short description''' it states the following:

"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."

I suggest adding some more context in a new sentence after this one, giving more context to the suggested rise in nominal per capita income. While this number may very possible be true, this lacks some important context for readers.

For one, about 90% of India's workforce works in the informal sector of the economy (which contributes about 50% to India's GDP).[https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long [https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_vol_4_final.pdf]https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_vol_4_final.pdf (in the foreword, page 5) Since this is, by its very nature, not monitored by the government, its about impossible to give an accurate depiction of average incomes in the country as most workers would not be taken into consideration for this statistic.

Secondly, the per capita income statistic is reductive in itself. It doesn't give the reader an idea on how these incomes are distributed, by the nature of how averages are calculated.

Hence, I suggest adding the information that about 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal economy.

Furthermore, it might be useful to give an example of the development of incomes of an actually formal sector of the economy where accurate data exists. I suggest referencing the findings of a paper by the IZA World of Labor journal. They analyzed the development of real wages of workers in the organized manufacturing sector. Their findings were that wages have stagnated over the last several decades. [https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long#izawol.425-figure-000012]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long#izawol.425-figure-000012

Otherwise, it might be useful getting rid of the nominal per capita income number in the short description in general. It's a very reductive term that lacks crucial context (inflation, distribution of said incomes etc.).

<u>Put together into a coherent text, the addition to the short description may look like this:</u>

Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.

Please let me know what you think. [[User:Vuquiz|Vuquiz]] ([[User talk:Vuquiz|talk]]) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2024 ==

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

India's Nominal GDP is 4.11 Trillion Dollars according to IMF forecast for 2024 you can check the official website please change it [[Special:Contributions/49.205.121.76|49.205.121.76]] ([[User talk:49.205.121.76|talk]]) 17:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

:I would say to wait for the WEO in three days (full report) before changing GDP. [[User:Flemmish Nietzsche|Flemmish Nietzsche]] ([[User talk:Flemmish Nietzsche|talk]]) 17:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

== Update per capita rankings ==

(nominal) Per capita income is 136 not 139 [[User:Anon-ymousTrecen|Anon-ymousTrecen]] ([[User talk:Anon-ymousTrecen|talk]]) 04:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

:Do you have a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to back up that claim? [[User:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#ff6600;">'''''The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1'''''</b>]]^{[[User talk:The Corvette ZR1|<b style="color:#0a0a0a;">''(The Garage)''</b>]]} 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

::Check on [[List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita]] it is new data released by imf on 16 April 2024 [[User:Anon-ymousTrecen|Anon-ymousTrecen]] ([[User talk:Anon-ymousTrecen|talk]]) 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)