Talk:India/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

In 'Politics and Government'-> 'Administrative Division' section, the Union territories are not marked correctly on the clickable map. In the table beside it, 'C' should be 'Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu', and 'D' should be 'Jammu and Kashmir' and other subsequent changes accordingly in either table/map. Mohit155 (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Excellent catch @Mohit155:. Thank you. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Official language and national anthem are wrong. Seems vandalism in the name of protected page

22 official language. Vande mataram is being a religious begotry version from hindu extremist novel of Anandamath. I think it refers to different India. SelNit (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

These are well sourced so cannot be removed from the article. Sorry.--regentspark (comment) 15:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Not only hindi and english are official language. Albinsholan (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu.Oct 22, 2019

India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu.Oct 22, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:425:D36C:0:5D:8F68:3001 (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree to this note... this has to be updated... Rajasekhar1337 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do - as far as I can see the official languages are correctly listed in the infobox which also provides links that discuss the recognised regional languages. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I too agree. India has 22 official language. Albinsholan (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Export of South Indian languages and culture to SE Asia in the history section

Both South and North India had exported Hindu and Buddhist culture as well as Sanskrit to SE Asia. Empires in the North and East (such as the Palas, Guptas, or Kalingans) had as extensive trade and diplomacy with the states of SE Asia as Southern States did. Further more, Northern cultural influences such as the use of Sikharas on temples (borrowed from Nagara architecture) are more typical of SE Asian architecture than the Dravidian ”Vimana”. Further more it should be reiterated that the scripts used by both North & South Indians, as well as SE Asians, js the Brahmi Script Bajirao1007 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a high-level article. Information about what scripts accompanied the transmission of Indian culture belong to the pages of the scripts, not here. Thanks for your post. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This high level article still makes a false claim in the transmission of scripts in the history section of the article. Bajirao1007 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Don’t ignore me now that i clapped back Bajirao1007 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

india has any heritages like hampi,etc. Parv n jain (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Parv n jain:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Official name of India before republic

The following is an extract from the Indian Independence Act 1947:

[Section]1.-(i) As from the fifteenth day of August, ninteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

There is no dispute but that India was indeed a Dominion between 1947 and 1949. However, its common name and official name was simply India. Although the term Dominion of India was used sometimes, it wasn't the official name. While moving the Dominion of India article has been rejected on a past occasion, the article itself ought to atleast be correct as to what the official name was. Currently it has confusing mumbo jumbo suggesting the official name was “Union of India” or “Dominion of India”. Has anyone take the time to even look at an Indian passport from the era? Anyway, it would be great if some knowledgable editors took the time to review the article generally. My comments on the official name have been reverted over the years. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

165.225.217.63 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Indian cricket team are two times World Champions. In addition to winning the 1983 Cricket World Cup, they triumphed over Sri Lanka in the 2011 Cricket World Cup on home soil- "A remarkable achievement". They were also runners-up at the 2003 Cricket World Cup, and semifinalists four times(1987, 1996, 2015, 2019).

That's a praiseworthy achievement, but its addition (complete with needed references) would clog up the article, so no. I recommend that you turn your attention to Sport in India#Cricket. This would benefit from attention. Just two examples: (i) Although cricket is the most popular sport in India, it is not the nation's official national sport as India does not have a national sport. If this tells the reader anything of substance or interest, then I don't know what this is. (ii) Today, BCCI is the richest sporting body in the world. Today my computer tells me that it's 2020, but this assertion is sourced to a dubious-sounding document written in 2013. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

2020 population estimate: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ 2020 population estimate is 1,380,004,385. 123jat! (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: User is blocked. Aasim 02:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

why did that get a block? Irtapil (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Official languages

Assamese Bengali Bodo Dogri English[1][2][3] Gujarati Hindi[1]4] Kannada Kashmiri Konkani Maithili Malayalam Marathi Meitei Nepali Odia Punjabi Sanskrit Santali Sindhi Tamil Telugu Urdu (total: 23, including 22 8th Schedule languages and additional official language, English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.139.228 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion to improve the article ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hindi and English are not official languages. There are other languages included Rajini1414 (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

this article confused official language of india with official language of union. official language of india is 22 + 1(English) ,not only hindi and english ,so that has to be corrected Holyrn (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

In the Administrative Divisions section, the table header contains the following: States (1–28) & Union territories (A–I). Since there are currently 8 union territories in India, please change the A-I to A-H. This is a minor edit request. Thank you. Drdebmath (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Bengal Sultanate

Shouldn't the Bengal Sultanate, a major world trading nation be mentioned on the article (including in lede)? The sultanate was described as the richest country to trade with by the Europeans. The empire existed for 3 centuries, so why is not here at all? It should be mentioned in the history section as well as in the lede. If the lede mention about the Vijaynagara Empire then Bengal Bengal Sultanate must be there too. Or the Vijaynagara must be removed since there were numerous kingdoms based on there, including Tipu Sultan Mysore Kingdom. Please let us know. 79.75.60.209 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not in the lede. Maybe in history (Medieval India - Early modern India).--Hippeus (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hippeus in lede is also preferable considering its wealth, power and influence. Why shud Vijaynagara be there? Anywyas, the article is protected, who is going to add something about it at least in the history section? Thanks79.75.56.169 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

I copied this from the Maratha Empire article, "The Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending Mughal rule in India." and I believe it should be added to the lead between the mentioning of the Mughals and British East India Company. Please add it. Thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The sentence may be changed to, " The Marathas are credited to a large extent for liberating most of the Indian subcontinent from Mughal rule. However, they started fighting amongst themselves.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please cite the references I have copied from the original article.—Souniel Yadav (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No one seems to be objecting to Souniel Yadav's suggestion. How long do we wait for someone to object before we conclude that there is consensus & go forward with this Jonesey95?

Prototypehumanoid (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, I object strongly. "Liberating the Indian subcontinent?" They were Indians, the best-known, largest, and richest pre-British empire in Indian history. The Maratha Empire is a highly POV page. Read the lead of Mughal Empire. India is the flagship page for India-related matters. It takes a long time, sometimes months for a consensus to emerge. This is, in any case, is a nonstarter. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Besides, all these publishers are unreliable,

• Capper, John (1997). Delhi, the Capital of India. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 978-81-206-1282-2. (This book was published in 1918. This is a facsimile reprint by a publisher in Delhi, which does this, sometimes without a clear statement anywhere that they are reprinting a book published by someone else.)
• Chaurasia, R.S. (2004). History of the Marathas. New Delhi: Atlantic. ISBN 978-81-269-0394-8. (Atlantic is highly unreliable. Sitush has a list of unreliable publishers on India-related matters, Atlantic, Concept, are in them.)
• Chaturvedi, Prof. R. P. (2010). Great Personalities. Upkar Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7482-061-7. (Little known publisher. The India pages only uses scholarly publishers, preferably academic ones.)
• Chhabra, G.S. (2005). Advance Study in the History of Modern India. (Volume-1: 1707-1803). Lotus Press. ISBN 978-81-89093-06-8. (The same).
• Pearson, is a 1976 article which doesn't quite say what he is being cited for, at least not in any unequivocal sense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

F&f is right. The only good citation in the above list is Pearson 1976, which only says that the Marathas played a role in the decline of Mughal Empire (the size of that role being a matter of varying scholarly interpretations). The subject though is best discussed at Talk:Maratha Empire since the lede of that article is what needs to be corrected. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, you are telling someone to read that {Mughal Empire}? Wow. How will someone be convinced about its greatness, especially an anti-Mughal one, if no so called superlative info is available there, as you've removed all of them?79.75.56.169 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

replace India (Hindi: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) with India (Hindi: भारत), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य) Tsla1337 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry.  Not done: Please read WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Thank you. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I read the section @Fowler&fowler: linked, but it doesn't really justify omitting the Devanagari script. I agree we shouldn't have Devanagari instead of the transliteration, since most people on English language Wikipedia can't read it, but if we are going to have Hindi there it makes sense to include the usual script as well in addition to the Romanised version.

"One reason why Indian scripts are avoided is because often there are too many different languages with their own native script, which can be original names for a topic. Additionally, there are too often problems with verifiability of the accuracy of the non-English spelling. A third reason is frequent disagreements over which native scripts to include; this led to a resolution to avoid all of them."

The issues of too many languages or lack of verifiability don't apply to one of the two official names of the country? You could make a case for not wanting to show favouritism to Hindi, but if it is the official name of a country i don't think that would be biased? and if we're including the Romanised Hindi it doesn't make much sense to leave out the Devanagari script. Indian passports and other official documents aren't written in Romanised Hindi, they're in Devanagari Hindi and English e.g. exactly matches the suggestion above (from @Tsla1337:). We need the Romanisation, but i don't see a justification for leaving out the original script. Irtapil (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to challenge WP:INDICSCRIPTS. The proper venue would be WT:INDIA, please gain consensus there for a new convention. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

Official languages are not only English and Hindi. To be changed to:

Official languages: 22 languages in 8th schedule of Indian constitution.(Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, English, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konjam, Maathiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Maitri, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindu, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu) 2409:4072:40E:98F:B423:F61C:8AA6:1463 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

indian miliray power is not determine in the page. 2409:4063:429B:653:D47F:D598:423:80B5 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, please request more specific changes with this template. CMD (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Government section (Edit request)

Change from: "Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the union, or central, government and the states"
Because there are atleast three issues with the wording:
1. It is not clear among how many units the power distribution is. It may seem that there are three units (a) union, or central (b) government (c) the states.
2. It only refers to union as government and but not the states, even though there are also governments in the states as well.
3. "Commas may seem a bit fussy," as explained by Dhtwiki.
Therefore, Change to: "Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the Union and the states"
Here the sentence is smooth and avoids clutter, the link also leads the reader to the articles of the respective governments.--Ab207 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

2405:204:5022:E9E1:4235:75E:872C:333A (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

India remove and BHARTH add

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Official languages are incorrect

India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu. And it's not Hindi and English alone Prasand27 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Union of India has 2 official language, Hindi in Devnagari script along with English. The references are given in the article itself. All the languages you've mentioned are 8th schedule languages. Manasbose (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Hi

This article states that Mauritius has over 900,000 Indians living there. This is not true as we are nation of less than 50% indo Mauritians. So actually there’s only about 1% of Indians living there. Never met one. 92.1.253.244 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi back, sorry but I don't see how this can be done, since a search for "Mauritius" in this article yields no results. Can you give the exact section or template name where this can be found? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Driving side in India is Right. 2402:3A80:1926:89BD:3277:49EF:6690:AC95 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

See Driving in India and worldstandards.eu. The driving side in India is left. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

National language is Hindi ObaidSir (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

National language : None Change to National language : Hindi ObaidSir (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done India does not have a national language. Please see the note in the article and the FAQ at the top of this page. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

There's no mention of Partition of India in the lead paragraphs. It's an important enough event to write here. I propose at the end of the 3rd paragraph to change:

• "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947."

To:

• "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947, with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India."

Or something else among those lines. Weaveravel (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To editors Weaveravel and Eggishorn:  Already done, and thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How was this done? It needs consensus here. You think this is the first time someone has brought up the partition? Obviously, the consensus remains that it doesn't belong to the lead. I will be reverting it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not knowing the extensive history of this issue in this article, Fowler&fowler. I concluded that since the partition is mentioned at least three times in the article, and since as the requestor mentioned it's a significant part of the history of India, it should be mentioned in the lead. All we did was give it a proper nod. What is so terrible about its brief mention in the lead? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I also support restoration of the edit made by Paine Ellsworth. How it didn't made any sense must be explained, instead of mere reversion. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is, "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged,[43] which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947." It is in the history paragraph in the lead. The history section of the article (which it summarizes) mentions the partition only once: "All were capped by the advent of independence in 1947, but tempered by the partition of India into two states: India and Pakistan" The problem is mainly of significance.  We have a grand scale of history there.  The major historical eras: Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, EIC rule, British Raj receive one sentence each. In that grand scale of history, the influential nationalist movement (which unraveled the British Empire (see the first paragraph of Indian National Congress)) and its trailblazing form of anti-colonial resistance (nonviolence) is the historical era.

Just as the Indian rebellion of 1857 is a transitional event, a feature neither of the previous historical era (Company rule) nor of the succeeding one (British raj), so is the partition. The partition, which became a possibility only in 1940, and a realistic one only in 1946, is also a transitional event, a feature neither of the rise of overall Indian nationalism (1885 to 1940) nor of the Republic of India (1950 onward), though it obviously is not to those whose families were affected by it, especially in Pakistan). The language of the lead was very carefully chosen with the input of dozens of old India-page editors, including administrators, for this page's second TFA appearance in October 2019. Please see the archives. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but you have to understand that every little bit in the lead, every sentence has taken reams and reams of discussions going back to 2007. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

PS I know I have posted this audio before, but listen to what the British thought about that historical era. Here is the British prime minister C. R. Attlee, speaking on the death of Gandhi and saying at the 1 minute mark, that Gandhi "was the major factor in every consideration of the "Indian problem," where by that last expression he means the decolonization of the British Indian empire. What I mean is: that the lead is so concise that we are not even mentioning Gandhi by name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

PPS I will however defer to whatever @RegentsPark: says. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The partition of India is a key event in the history of India. It definitely deserves mention in the lead because independent India was born through the partition. The event also continues to impact the politics of Indian subcontinent today, being regularly discussed and debated. Partition of India carved out territorial definition of modern India against contemporary one in the past. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed the partition was a highly important event hence why I requested it. Regardless, I can't see how a tiny addition of 13 words in an already existing sentence can hurt. --Weaveravel (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should include something. As Dhawangupta says, partition is an important historical moment in that it was what ended up defining the modern state. The act of partition also provides an important context for recent events in India. The addendum proposed by the OP is, however, vague and unclear so not that one. My suggestion is that we modify the lead to something like: A pioneering and influential nationalist movement, noted for nonviolent resistance, emerged,[43] which led to independence in 1947 along with a violent partition <link to partition of india>that also created the state of Pakistan. Not suggesting that this be the exact wording, hopefully Fowler, DhawanGupta or another editor can propose something better. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How about:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947. Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born.

I don't believe there is a need to mention the Partition of India specifically. The partition affected only the states of Punjab and Bengal. The rest of India was unaffected as was most of the rest of Pakistan. Asking a reader to click out to another page will be confusing. It is better to explain here what happened. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The importance of the events still stand. I still haven't been able to understand what is making you assume that mentioning partition leads away from the topic to confusion. I think Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born. would actually not be needed as suggests creation of another state along without specifying the establishment event and relevance. Better would be:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though at the cost of a bloody partition what led to creation of West Pakistan and East Pakistan along as well.

Or:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though with a partition along religious lines.

Partition of India is an important post-war event, even more relevant in case of India as state envisaged by Indian nationalists didn't only cover modern India, nor the common definition of India did what would completely change hereafter. There is no reason why it should not be in history in the lead, you should reconsider. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think your first suggested sentence would be best suitable because it mentions the partition and the fact that it was bloody in contrast to the nonviolent resistance. Mentioning the name of Pakistan is also helpful for readers. --Weaveravel (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also of the opinion that partition should be explicitly mentioned, preferably including a mention of the creation of Pakistan. Both events are seminal, without which modern India cannot be understood. --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, Dhawangupta, Weaveravel, Paine EllsworthSorry, u Upon reflection, I have to disagree have to emphasize one thing. Our individual opinions are meaningless here. The lead is merely summarizing the history section. The history section is merely following the allocation of attention in the scholarly sources to Indian Nationalism, which lies in the sequence of historical periods: British Raj (1858-1885), Indian Nationalism (1883-1947), and Independent India (1947-). Indian nationalism begins with the Ilbert Bill (1883) and ends on the midnight of 14-15 August 1947. I will shortly give evidence in the scholarly sources used in this article for the apportionment of space to the Partition. It is small. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Upldated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Start with Burton Stein: Ilbert Bill and the Origin of Indian Nationalism (page 261) to New States Old Nations (page 357) is 96 pages. The beginning of partition is the League's victory in the Punjab and Bengal in the elections of 1945-46. That is page 350. So the partition garners < 7 pages (if that) i.e. 8%. We are limited in the lead to one sentence for Indian Nationalism, max two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Metcalf and Metcalf: Civil Society and Colonial Constraints (begins page 123) to 1940s: Triumph and Tragedy (ends page 230). Of 107 pages Simla Conference (the beginning of negotiations that led to the partition, not the partition proper) starts on page 211 and the partition massacres etc end on page 223. So it is 12 pages out of 107 = one part out of nine.

I don't believe the others are much different. Please tell me how one accommodates 1/9 scholarly attention in two sentences in anything more than a very brief mention? Anyway, here's another possibility:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into a largely Hindu Dominion of India and a largely Muslim Dominion of Pakistan amid unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life

The first sentence of the next paragraph would be changed from: "India is a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." to "In 1950, India became a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The rest, "but," "though," "at the cost," "bloody" is POV. Twenty-eight (28) times as many people died in India in the influenza epidemic of 1918 (14 million) and a total of 20 million died in the various late Victorian famines; later 3 million died in the Bengal famine of 1943, many in east Bengal dying in their homes too weak or too depressed to seek aid. Those are the subject of just as much literature as the partition massacres. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The rest, "but," "though," "at the cost," "bloody" is POV. Twenty-eight (28) times as many people died in India in the ... I don't think it is going to downplay that still the severe loss of life has been attributed as bloody. If you deem the bloody as a puffery from literature, you may utilize simply something like resulting in great loss of life

and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into.. This version is too verbose, also using vague terms like "the subcontinent was partitioned" (the article is called "partition of India and so is common name for event"). Moreover, the incident can't be transfered to a sentence away from British rule as both were not mutually exclusive given that Partition of India itself was a result of Indian Independence Act, 1947 which ended British rule as well. Weaveravel's version is much much better: "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947, with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India." And its common sense that this deserves mention; to say only Punjab and Bengal were affected is disingenuous. The provinces in what became Pakistan were all a part of India, with this territory being lost after the partition. Moreover, migrants came from all over the country, not just Punjab and Bengal. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Dhawangupta, RegentsPark, Weaveravel, Paine Ellsworth: This will be long, please bear with me. I agree with some points of Dhawangupta. "... it led to the end of British rule" is the wrong choice of words for it can mean leading to the bitter end, to the transfer of power ceremonies, or to the Indian Independence Act. I agree also that the "subcontinent" is imprecise. I will propose an alternative below. Let me first clarify some things here:

• (a) We can make a connection between the Indian nationalism which was known to profess non-violence (i.e. that of the Indian National Congress under Gandhi; the term "nonviolence" is a catchall) and the mandate for the decolonization of the British Raj. The INC and its cohorts had won unanimous victories (even in Muslim majority districts) in the provincial elections of 1937, which were mandated by the Government of India Act of 1935; the decolonization of the subcontinent was now a reality, its time table as yet uncertain, but its fate sealed.

• (b) We cannot make a connection between Indian nationalism (of the above variety), and the Partition. The partition was the British response to a Muslim nationalism, which had been simmering and flip-flopping since the early 20th-century but had become united after 1940. After Jinnah and the Muslim League won unanimous victories in the Punjab and Bengal in the elections of 1945-46, there was a clear mandate for some version of Pakistan; the representative (i.e. in the polls) nationalism in the British Indian Empire was split between the INC and the League. The fate of the partition was sealed. It is another matter that "representative" was not truly representative, but that is what the rules of the game defined.

• (c) We cannot use the full expression "Partition of India" in the highly compressed lead—even though this is the common expression in the literature—and immediately thereafter call the newly partitioned country "India" without causing confusion. We will need more space to be unambiguous. (See below.)

• As for Dhawangupta's points, the difference between "great loss of life" which s/he is advocating and "large-scale loss of life," which I have proposed is that the latter is a little more precise ("having wide scope or extensive proportions" (Webster's)). The other points are POV, the provinces of (West) Punjab, Sind, Balochistan, NWFP, and East Bengal were not lost by the Dominion of India; they became a part of the Dominion of Pakistan, which along with the Dominion of India, was a successor state of the British Raj. We have to be very careful: the notion of "loss" is the official POV of India, its public square, and some Indian sources, implying in the popular imagination a consequent regret; it is not NPOV. Next, Weaveravel's version, "with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India" can leave the unfamiliar reader puzzled: what part? "what former territory?" Anyway, here is a more precise and NPOV version:

  A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life.

(Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.

Note I am using the informal term "British Indian Empire = British India + Princely States as a nod to the political integration of the princely states most of which was accomplished before 15 August 1947. The term "Partition of the British Indian Empire" is used in the sources (See Yasmin Khan's book.) More text than this we cannot absorb in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• This last formulation looks good (excellent, actually) to me. Thanks fowler.--regentspark (comment) 19:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think your wording sounds really good. And it mentions the partition while also explaining India and Pakistan dominions, and Hindu/Muslim majority, it mentions all the important details for readers to know. --Weaveravel (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am fine with Fowler&fowler's version with a couple exceptions. The word "unprecedented" should not be included. It violates NPOV, as it suggest that those who advocated partition would not know the amount of violence that would occur, especially given the violence that already occurred in Direct Action Day. It has been noted that British officials wanted the partition to be done with because they knew the amount of violence that would occur. You must also redirect "nonviolent resistance" to "satyagraha" if you're going to include that link. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  I suggest keeping unprecendented (though feel free to suggest alternative wording). I don't think anything in the past had indicated this level of migration and violence between the two emerging nations (that there would be problems, yes, but this level, no). I also think that non-violent resistence should stay redirected to nonviolent resistance because satyagraha is too specific.--regentspark (comment) 15:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why speculate on whether the violence was unprecedented or not? To include a perspective that people knew the partition would be violent or not is POV so it's best to take a "just the facts ma'am approach" and leave out that word. There are some individuals who argue that Jinnah knew that the partition would be blood (Direct Action Day, which he called for, turned very violent).[1] We're therefore not going to include that word in the introduction. Also, since reference is specifically about Non-violent resistance pursued by Indian Nationalists, Satyagrah is more suitable.

Dhawangupta (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As I have stated above, just as Congress's victory in the provincial elections of 1937, was a mandate for decolonization, the League's victory in the Punjab and Bengal in the elections of 1945–46 was a mandate for some version of Pakistan and there was no going back to an undivided centrally-governed India. The choices thereafter that the British would brook were a Pakistan as a partner in a loose federation, as proposed by the British Cabinet Mission Plan of March 1946, or as an independent nation. Jinnah and the League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. Unfortunately, Nehru who had become the provisional prime minister after these elections, said at a press conference that the Cabinet Mission proposals were preliminary to the drafting of a popular constitution, which, on account of India's overwhelming Hindu majority, Jinnah saw as code for a centrally-governed India. It was at this point that the League called for an independent Pakistan, and Direct-Action Day and the rest followed.

There's a POV that a united centrally governed India was still possible. However, after the elections of 1945-46, there was no possibility of it; the British would not have granted it. Their flaws of governance notwithstanding, they were attached to the results of representative democracy in whatever form they had provided it. Pakistan was a reality, either in a loose federation (as a kind of United States of India and Pakistan) or as an independent country. The representative nationalism that would thereafter partner in the logistics of the now inevitable decolonization of the British Indian Empire had been split. That is essentially the subject of the second sentence; the violence happened after the split; it did not cause the split, only the final form of split governance, if it did that. Plenty of reliable sources attest to this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of what you want to include will be included. I am only asking for one word to be dropped and have given sufficient reason for this. Jinnah as well as the British were well aware and knew that the partition would be violent, given the violence that already happened in Direct Action Day. Omitting that single word would be representative of accurate history. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It says "unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life". "And" is not so powerful as to justify the very awkward and incorrect "unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life" reading instead of the obvious and correct "unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life". "Unprecedented" could be a bit ambiguous depending on context but it is not POV ("unprecedented" is not the same as "unforeseen"/"unpredicted" or "unforeseeable"/"unpredictable"). It is a factual claim which asserts that no similar event in history surpasses the one being discussed with respect to [insert attribute here]. If I am wrong and "and" does have the power to connect two nouns, one with and the other without its own individual qualifier, the claim that it was an "unprecedented large-scale loss of life" is factually incorrect, so whether it's POV doesn't even matter. Finally, if "and" is trying to convey a causal relationship between migration and loss of life, the discussion makes some sense but then what should be changed is the word "and" (as far as I know, this reading of history would be untrue as well). Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: I agree, was thinking the same; I don't think there's any need. The adjectives "unprecedented" and "large-scale" apply to different nouns (or noun phrases). "A red book and green table," does not make the table red. (We could change it to "amid an unprecedented migration as well as a large-scale loss of life." But I don't think there's a need for it.) I'll defer to RegentsPark and Weaveravel. @Dhawangupta: I disagree, for reasons I have already given above. The League had won a mandate for the partition well before Direct Action Day. I will post the citation for the second sentence soon. I think we have discussed this enough. Let us put something in, and continue the debate thereafter, of there's appetite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I prefer "and" over "as well as". Rereading it, the "an" in the beginning is probably the word resulting in the jointed reading of "migration" with "large-scale loss of life" with respect to "unprecedented". So, "an unprecedented migration and a large-scale loss of life" is probably better, or simply drop the "an" if that wouldn't constitute an error. I see no merit to the point that the use of "unprecedented" could possibly imply someone could -or-not-have/had predicted/foreseen the amount of violence and death. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)this reply was posted before I saw the modified version of the preceding comment. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Are we going with Fowler's version above or is there a change to the wording? The discussion above is a little confusing so, if possible, could someone post the agreed on version. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest

  A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid unprecedented migration and a large-scale loss of life.

  (Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.

in which only the latter of the "migration" and "loss of life" gets its own article (grammar), which will hopefully catch the reader's eye enough to leave no room for doubt that the two are separate entities and one's adjective isn't shared by another. "...amid an unprecedented migration and a large-scale loss of life." (both get own qualifiers and articles, to make them equal and distinct), "...amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life." (original) and "...amid unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life" (both get individual qualifiers, neither gets an article, to make them equal and distinct though less "in-your-face") are alternatives. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I like the logic of separating the two (migration and loss of life) but, I think, we do need an article between amid and unprecedented. Still, no article is probably better than the "as well as" version (which, practically no one under the age of 25 uses!). I'm fine with usedtobecool's version. --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Dhawangupta, RegentsPark, Weaveravel, Paine Ellsworth, Usedtobecool I agree Usedtobecool has a point, and have changed to his version with which RP has agreed. I have given plenty of references, with quotes and page numbers. I can give more, but there's no need. (The quotes won't go into the lead, of course; they are only for here.) Please let us not quibble about details. This is the majority opinion among historians. Let us put the two sentences in and move one. They are as below:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life. ... (Next paragraph, first sentence) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good, descriptive addition for the lead. Myself I don't care for the weaker "-ing" words, so I would prefer something like:

A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged noted for nonviolent resistance, which became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and a large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. ... (Next paragraph, first sentence) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.

Also note that I don't agree that "an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life" is anything like "a red book and green table". "Unprecedented" is too easily applied as both an adjective for "migration" and an adverb for "large-scale". The "'a' large-scale" is a must. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the qualifying clause in the wrong place (in both Fowler's and Paine Ellsworth's versions), or am I overthinking this? I've slightly tweaked Paine Ellsworth's version) A pioneering and influential nationalist movement, noted for nonviolent resistance, emerged and became a major factor in ending British rule.--regentspark (comment) 01:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The determiner a/an may only be used with a singular count noun or noun phrase. "loss of life" is not a count noun phrase. People do sometimes say, "Every loss of life," but they mean, "Every loss of a life." Similarly, you cannot say "another loss of life" only "another loss of a life." With "loss of life," you may use the determiner much or little, or the zero determiner (zero article). There was much/little loss of life, or there was loss of life. (The plural of "loss of a life" is "loss of lives.") If you want a reference, it is Carter and McCarthy's Cambridge Grammar of English pages 335-36. Migration however is a count noun.

Hello RegentsPark I forgot that there is already the first sentence in place in the lead. So, there's precedent, and I agree, you could simply change it minimally to: "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule." There is actually nothing wrong with my construction, and I disagree with what PaineEllesworth is saying, but it will take me long to explain it. Maybe I'll put it in a user subpage of mine. So, I'm fine with:

"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life."

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

PS I just made a user page: User:Fowler&fowler/Participial phrases. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then it's a bit awkward with or without the indefinite article. Perhaps if it were turned around?: ...amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of that. The source actually mentions the deaths before the migration. So, fine, I agree. Thanks @Paine Ellsworth: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Comma missing certainly between "Pakistan" and "amid", likely between "1950" and "governed", and possibly between "emerged" and "noted". The reason I originally commented was to defend "unprecedented". The rest of it is syntactical, so please feel free to move ahead assuming my support, I will comment if I have something to say. Best regards to all! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool That is not the final version. See my replies to RegentsPark and PaineEllsworth aboe. This is (in which I have incorporated your commas):

"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. (Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950, governed in a democratic parliamentary system."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, everyone. I am now adding the agreed-to text to the lead of the article. It is

"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. (Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950, governed in a democratic parliamentary system."

I think we have enough consensus for this. Thanks all for a wonderful discussion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Afghanistan in lede

India, as per its official map, considers Afghanistan its neighboring country. In my opinion, Afghanistan must be mentioned and wiki-linked within the first paragraph of the article, because merely the note below is not enough. Khestwol (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because Pakistan actually controls the region in between. Also, even if India had controlled the border with Afghanistan, it would be a narrow border on the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan, which is a sparsely populated protrusion.--Hippeus (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes Hippeus, you are right, but I wonder if Wikipedia has a policy relating to which countries to include in the lede? Khestwol (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As an example, the article on Serbia explicitly states: The country claims a border with Albania through the disputed territory of Kosovo. Khestwol (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy on the matter, but the lead of this article has been debated in significant detail. CMD (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Serbia and Kosovo splitting is more recent. Serbia is smaller and landlocked. India is huge and with sea access on both coasts. Even if it were to get Gilgit-Baltistan (Northern Areas) back, it would be a sparsely populated mountainous border with the end (80 km) of a sparsely populated narrow spur jutting out of Afghanistan. India has a border 15,200 kms long, this is really a technicality, a small detail.--Hippeus (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before. The bottom line is that we can't really go by claimed and that the note suffices. The lead, in particular, should be clear and unambiguous (unless an ambiguity is necessary, in this case it is not).--regentspark (comment) 13:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark and CMD have spoken with their usual perspicacity. To their comments, let me add that Britannica, whose article on India is written by many famous scholars of South Asia, including the geographer Joseph E. Schwartzberg, makes no mention of Wakhan there. Britannica also has a small page on Vakhan (new spelling), which says,

Vākhān, also spelled Wākhān, or Wakhan Corridor, a mountainous region and panhandle in the Pamir Mountains of extreme northeastern Afghanistan. From the demarcation of the Afghan frontier (1895–96), the panhandle formed a political buffer between Russian Turkistan, British India, and China. It is now bounded by Tajikistan (north), China (east), and Pakistan (south). The Vākhān River flows from west to east through Vākhān for 100 miles (160 km), joining the Pamir River near Qalʿeh-ye Panjeh, which is the region’s main village.

Note that its only mention of a successor state of the British Raj is Pakistan, not India. The obscure factoid of a hypothetical border shared with India would loom much larger in the geography of Vakhan than it would in that of India, the seventh-largest country in the world (as Hippeas has wisely observed). Yet Britannica's Vakhan page does not have even a footnote to acknowledge this. So what does that tell you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Devanagari Script

Why is all the Hindi in this article Romanised? Most other pages will have the local scrip as well as a transliteration. After researching it a bit, I now understand why there is no attempt to list all the different names of India in other local languages, there's too many, and it would cause too many debates? But i don't see the problem with using the Hindi script? The article does show the full name in Romanised Hindi, i can see some justification for giving the name in the national language but not all the regional languages, but why only Romanised? Irtapil (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: The transliteration (using ISO 15919) is preferred over using Devanagari or other non-Roman script, because (1) for the general English-reading audience of this article, the former is easier to decipher than the latter, (2) it results in less bloat in the article and fewer debates on which scripts to include on the talkpages. For many languages and countries, it is often possible to provide both the transliteration and the native script, but for reasons you have alluded to in your question, that is not feasible in this and many other India-related article. See also WP:INDSCRIPT and this earlier discussion that the FAQ at the top of this page links to. Abecedare (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

but there's no debate about the official name of a country, it is printed on millions of passports. it's  only even got two official names. the article on South Africa lists all ten. Irtapil (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what specific change you are proposing. Can you specify? Also, if it is anything regarding Bharat or the lede sentence, I would recommend taking a look at the numerous previous discussions of the topic to see if the points you have in mind have been raised before. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I am proposing adding the official name of India in the official script, to places where the Romanized version currently appears, without removing the romanised version. @Tsla1337: suggested above to "replace India (Hindi: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) with India (Hindi: भारत), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य)", but since most people can't read the devangari we should keep the romanized version as well rather than replace it. I have read several of the discussions and guidelines, and they raise some valid points, but as i said above none of the reasons discussed seem applicable to leaving out one of the two official names, or showing it only as an unofficial phonetic version. I didn't just add the official Hindi name myself because i know language is a sensitive issue. But showing an unofficial romanization without the original seems kind of sub-optimal and unjustified as a solution. A better fix would be to show both official names (plus the romanised pronunciation of the devanagari Hindi) and include some properly referenced content explaining the local tensions about the language situation. Irtapil (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC) updated Irtapil (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any particular benefit to the reader of supplementing 'Bhārat' with 'भारत' in the article's lede sentence or a strong enough case for making an exception to WP:INDICSCRIPTS. But I'll let others chime in, in case they think otherwise. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If this discussion is still ongoing, then I would suggest that the name of the country in Devanagari be given either in the infobox or both in the lead and infobox. My reasoning is when you click on "other local names," one of the first things mentioned is that only Hindi is the Official Language and what OP said reflects this. TSAray (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I also support adding Devanagari Script name. Since, articles like Bhutan, Myanmar, Japan, China etc., all include respective country's name in their official script. It is quite disingenuous to write the name in Hindi, but not use the original script. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Change first line of the article to:

India (Hindi: भारत, romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य, romanized: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. Dhawangupta (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-opened edit request to establish consensus via edit and under WP:SILENCE-WP:SOFIXIT. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 It is a Standard Practice on English Wikipedia to include the names of the countries and official names in their official language(s) and official script(s), in the first line of the article. Examples are Bhutan in Dzongkha, Myanmar in Burmese, Japan in Japanese, China in Chinese, Russia in Russian, Greece in Greek, Sri Lanka in Sinhala and Tamil, Iran in Persian and so on, in their respective official scripts. Therefore, it is imperative that India's name and official name, in first line, be stated in its official language and script, i.e., Hindi in Devanagari script.

Discussion referred to by @Abecedare, deals with names of individual people, mainly actors, who are neither geographical entities, nor sovereign-constitutional entities. Hence, doesn't apply here. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read FAQ #1 at the top of this page, and also WP:INDICSCRIPT, which is a guideline about India-related articles. I'm pretty sure that India is an India-related article. Before reactivating this edit request, please establish a new consensus at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics that overturns the eight-year consensus (reaffirmed three years ago) about this issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Demographics, languages, and religion

This section is missing information on the various scripts used for writing in India.We can use the following from the page on Languages of India: "Most languages in India are written in Brahmi-derived scripts, such as Devanagari, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Meitei Mayek, Odia, Eastern Nagari – Assamese/Bengali, etc., though Urdu is written in a script derived from Arabic." We can trim it if necessary.I had raised this issue a number of years ago but did not pursue it further.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I am still waiting for comments and suggestions from other editors on this topic.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2020

India hindi news website 14.142.143.6 (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please be clear in what you want to add to the article. RBBB9911Talk 08:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

The Republic of India is considered one of the emerging superpowers of the world.[1][2][3][4] This potential is attributed to several indicators, the primary ones being its demographic trends and a rapidly expanding economy. In 2015, India became the world's fastest growing economy with a 7.5% estimated GDP rate (mid year terms).[5] The country must overcome many economic, social, and political problems before it can be considered a superpower. Ayushmaan Chakrabarti (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 08:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

About Official Language

I Don't think there is no one particular language as official language, there are various languages spoken across various regions throughout the country . So it seems to be irrelevant to show one language As a official language Snstark (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Snstark, "I Don't think" is simply not good enough. Please see the FAQ above, go over the discussions on this page and its archives and bring forward your proposal for any change backed by reliable sources and well-founded arguments that address results of previous discussions if any. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources are key here. Certainly there is linguistic diversity in India, however national authorities do make use of particular languages.--Hippeus (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

GDP per capita

Don't really know how talk pages work but yeah, i don't really think GDP per capita matters. You should replace them with PPP per capita. Thats purchase power parity. That'd result in a more fair view about the economy, because you do have to take that into account that stuff is over-all cheaper, so you can buy more stuff for the same amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrawlyTheContributer (talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

While you have a point, GDP per capita is more widely used for cross-country comparisons. PPP has more of niche use, for instance in consumer welfare.--Hippeus (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Aryan migration theory

Its fake pls remove it Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

How so? This discussion may be more relevant to the Indo-Aryan migration page.--Hippeus (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

See also - Names of India

Add

See also: Names for India

at the top of Etymology section. Dhawangupta (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Etymology deals only with the origins of the term “India,” not with alternate names for the region and/or country. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

However, contrary to your statement, this section deals with not just etymology, but also with names of India.

Moreover, a good counter-example is link to names of Japan in its Etymology section. Dhawangupta (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done! @Dhawangupta: Thanks for the example. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 17:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There is obviously no consensus for adding a highly POV page Names of India in the flagship page of India-related articles. I am reverting it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an FA. We can't just randomly add nonsense; the FA status will be revoked. Please don't do this again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: This is totally uncalled for. I didn't randomly add nonsense. I added a link to a related page. You're talking like I vandalized the page. I'll trust you when you say that Names of India is a POV page (I'm not too familiar with the subject), but this was a perfectly reasonable way for me to answer the edit request. I initially declined but changed my mind after I was given an example of an identical situation at Japan#Etymology. My assumption is that pages on Wikipedia aren't POV – and in this case, I did scan Names of India, which does not have a neutrality template warning. I expect an apology. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Please read WP:OWN#Featured_articles. Do you know how much effort it has taken to keep this article featured over 15 years. This is the oldest country FA on Wikipedia. If you don't know anything about the subject, then why did you make that edit without inviting other editors to weigh in, especially in light of the Talk:India#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_9_June_2020 The consensus there took 14 days. I'm not blaming you personally, but you have to understand that we can't place Wikipedia rules about etiquette and assuming good faith above Wikipedia's foundations of building an encyclopedia with reliable sources. I have just started a vacation. I would not have come back if I did not think great disservice was being done to encyclopedicity by the addition of that link. I understand that you did not know and I apologize for hurting your feelings. But you have to understand that the standards here are very high. They have to be maintained at that level non-negotiably. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: You are blaming me personally, and doing it in an unacceptable way. I'm well aware of WP:OWN. The amount of time that this article has been featured and how much effort you've personally put into it are irrelevant to content discussions. I saw it as a fairly minor addition, so I didn't see the need to actively invite editors into discussion. That's what the WP:CYCLE is for, and it worked well in this instance. I only made a single edit to the article. The other edit request you've linked to, in which you also responded with unwarranted hostility, doesn't appear to have anything to do with this edit request. Furthermore, I never said that I "don't know anything about the subject" or that you were "hurting my feelings." These are very condescending responses and personal attacks. I don't "have to understand" that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are against the mission of Wikipedia. I believe that they are crucial to the project's goal of building the best possible encyclopedia because they foster open discussion. The article's progress is not halted whenever you take a vacation, and no editor needs your permission to work on the article. We should discuss the addition of content based on its merits, and nothing else. I see that you've frequently spoken this way to other editors, so I've started an ANI discussion about what I see as a pattern of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Adding the link seems fine to me. It’s not an FA criterion to omit links to articles that may have bias (there aren’t any issues raised at Names of India via a template or the talk page anyways). It’s a relevant link for the section. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Dear Tartan357 I have added the POV tag to the Names of India page and explained on its talk page why it is POV. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Dear MarkH21 Mith reference to the version of the Name of India page which existed at the time you made your post above, would you like to explain why Melluiha is not more appropriate as an ancient name for Pakistan than India = Republic of India? Very best regards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler: I wasn’t saying that Names of India doesn’t have POV issues. My first point was that any potential POV issues there do not preclude adding a link to it on an FA. My second minor point was that nothing was raised nor tagged at the time, which has now changed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• This article probably links to hundreds of other articles, all of which will keep on changing irrespective of status of this article. Linking to other article is based upon relevance of that article to current article, neither upon featured status of current article, nor upon POV or other issues of other articles. Hence, Names of India is perfectly relevant. Therefore, opening edit request again.Dhawangupta (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please do not activate the request simply to make your argument. It needs to be supported by a clear consensus, since it's been challenged. This discussion is some way from it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Hindi is not the national language of India. Each state in India has its own languages. Don't give false information. Your providing an information about one country, please research urself and do. Don't belive on others. 2405:204:208D:D79E:CCCE:E8CD:D487:C4A5 (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Maps

There are lot of maps in History section and around 19 maps in general in entire article, need suggestions to remove some maps. --Omer123hussain (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2020

Official Language of India is English and India has more than 22 languages. Hindi is not an official language. X Cheselton (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Systemic Bias

This article has been horrendously mishandled and requires correction. The article has systemic bias and projects a selective and contorted viewpoint of Indian history. First, in the articles introduction, the Vedic Period is completely ignored. It should be linked directly after the Indus Valley Civilization as it subsequently succeed it. Additionally, the intro also omitted the Mahajanapadas which rose to prominence right after the Vedic period. This era is referred to the Golden Age of India, so why is it conveniently being ignored in India's own article page? Moving on, the article erroneously conflates the Maurya and Gupta Empires, either as a laughable gaff or as an attempt to also undermine their historic significance. During antiquity, the Maurya Empire was responsible for uniting an empire from modern Afghanistan to Burma. The Mauryan Empire was also responsible for the global spread of Buddhism under the reign of Ashoka. The Mauryans were the most prominent power of its time, and their symbolism is still used today, including by the Government of India. Yet this pathetically construed article tries to undermine both the Maurya and Gupta Empires by accusing them for the proliferation of misogyny and racism. Chandragupta Maurya was Jain and his grandson Ashoka was Buddhist, care to explain how they oppressed women and abused the caste system as this article suggest? There are far more contributions to mention instead of a unrelated far fetched claim. Additionally Gupta Empire came 500 years after the Mauryas, with their own culture and identity. These empires consolidated their own power and ruled as sovereigns by uniting India, they were not "loosely knit". To reiterate this article butchered the history of the Vedic Aryans, Brahmanistic Mahajanapadas, Jain/Buddhist Mauryas, and the Hindu Guptas. While purposefully undermining Indian history and Dharmic culture, this page glorifies foreign invasions and Abrahamic religion. It even incorrectly groups Zoroastrianism with the spread of Abrahamic religions, despite its commonalities and historic connection with other Indo-Iranian religions. Zoroastrian Iran also has had direct contact with the Indian Mahajanpadas during the Achaemenid Empire. The Zoroastrian migrants that settled into India during the early medieval era that the article mentioned were fleeing persecution from Islamic Caliphates yet that aspect was ignored. Instead this article chooses to rewrite controversial topics regarding religious and cultural conflicts. For example the articles introduction only has praises for notorious slave empires such as the Delhi Sultanate, with no criticism as it had for the Maurya and Gupta Empires. This article hides behind an extended confirmed protection, just to spread systemic bias and propaganda against certain entities. How does an article get extended confirmed protection, yet is still so poorly written and managed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra Raja (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. But, do note that waxing eloquently about "pathetically constructed articles" or "systemic bias" is extremely unhelpful. It is far better to confine your talk page comments to specific suggestions, along with reliable, preferably scholarly, sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"Systemic bias" is perhaps a strong term but here are a few parts in the history section that I think can be improved. "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" Wikipedia's own caste system in india page reveals a much more complex picture, it is unclear that it 'excluded' or 'labeled as impure' at least at the time the sentence claims. Perhaps a better way to address this subject would be "The origins of the Indian caste system can be found in this period" with a link to the caste system article. --Danaparamita (comment) 11:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

@Fowler&fowler: regarding your revert, I'll provide exact quotes, but the text in the article is not in line with what the sources say. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean that you should provide new sources, only point out what is wrong with the text relative to the sources used, and on the talk page first. People spend weeks debating the addition of one word in the lead. You can't make major changes in the lead. Please read WP:OWN#Featured_articles. I will correct the page numbers and examine the sources again. This is a busy page. Drive-bys sometime change page numbers in good faith, but incorrectly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I did check the sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: You have disregarded the usual talk page guidelines that we have observed on this page for 13 years. As I said above, people have spent days discussing a change of just one word. You edited several sentences in the lead. After I reverted your edits, you opened a thread above. I replied (at 14:20 25 August 2020) that I will examine the edits. I am mostly on vacation (see my user page); moreover, what little time I have, I am spending at Kamala Harris and at Manilal Dwivedi, where I'm helping a new editor. You did not even give me 24 hours to reply. You opened a number of subsections, in most of which you have misinterpreted the citations. In some instances, you are complaining that the source cannot be viewed online. Why are you asking me to answer questions if you plan to answer them yourself? Anyway, in a section below I will re-post the sentences of the lead with their citations and quotes from July and August 2019. Some editors will be seeing them for a second, third, or fourth time—the silent majority, in MilborneOne's felicitous phrasing of a year ago. To them, I apologize for importuning them again, though I will not be pinging them this time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've explained my edits at the talkpage, as you requested. If you think I misinterpreted the sources, you can explain why you think so. Take your time, make something good of the article on Kamala Harris, and enjoy your vacation; there's no hurry at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, you already did provide quotes, despite your vacation. Do you mind if I move them to the various subsection of this thread, to keep the discussion centralized? I'll respond here anyway. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No I'd rather you answer there in the discussion subsection section. Please also don't add the quotes in green, or any other color. Just tell us in words what your objections are and to what. I'm going to disregard the unfocused discussions below which for the most part are not responses to sources, only to personal opinions of what you have selected for them before I had a chance to tell you what the sources said. Note also, everywhere in the India page, we use only broad scale sources—mostly textbooks about India, or other broad topics, not journal papers, not even monographs, unless we have to. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Diversity

My first edit diff changed

Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago.[24] Their long occupation, initially in varying forms of isolation as hunter-gatherers, has made the region highly diverse, second only to Africa in human genetic diversity.

into

Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago.[24] Subsequent migrations have made the region highly diverse, second only to Africa in human genetic diversity.

References

Strictly speaking, the text says that the long occupation by the first modern humans has made the region highly diverse, whereas Dyson (2018) p.28 treats ANI and ASI as examples of this diversity:

...genetic research points to the existence of some very deep-seated lineages - lines of ancestry which show no mixing with external groups for literally tens of thousands of years [...] the results of genetic research can be seen as tentatively consistent with some of the conclusions from linguistic research [...] most of the suncontinents people appear to be characterized by various degrees of mixing of two major and genetically distinct populations (as well as other elements). These have been called the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) respectively [...] the level of genetic diversity is extremely high. Indeed, only Africa's population is genetically more diverse.

Thus, diversity due to subsequent migrations, and not due to genetic variation within those "deep-seated lineages" - who also mixed with IVC-people and Indo-Aryans, except for the Andamese Islands inhabitants. If necessary, Reich's Who We Are And How We Got Here, could be added too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Re F&f quotes: my point is not the arrival of the first modern humans, but the reason of the genetic diversity. This diversity is due to subsequent migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Social stratification

My second edit diff changed

By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within Hinduism,

into

By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within the Vedic culture of the Aryan people settling the Ganges basin,

References

Dyson (2018) p.16 does not refer to "Hinduism," but to the Aryan culture which spread to the Ganges plain. At 400 BCE, the Hindu synthesis had barely started. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the oldest country FA on Wikipedia. It will celebrate its 16th year this fall. It receives 30K visitors per day. We have a duty of fluency and easy comprehension to our wider readership that trumps recondite nitpicking. Your edits are disruptive, and I don't have time for this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. We have a duty for correct representation of the sources. I've explained what the source says; that's not disruptive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan is absolutely right. The source says "Arya settlements" only: "Hinduism" is not mentioned, so it has to go. Basic Wikipedia policy. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Re F&f quotes:

• Stein: "by the later vedic times of 1000 to 500 bce, the structural elements of the caste system were in place" - Vedic times, not Hinduism.
• Doniger: "Society was already divided into four classes in the Rig Veda [...] a fourth class of servants, the defining ‘others’ who were disenfranchised, not Aryan, but still marginally Hindu.” - see Jamison, Stephanie; Witzel, Michael (1992). "Vedic Hinduism" (PDF). Harvard University. pp. 1–5, 47–52, 74–77.:

... 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.

Doniger is inexact in her usage of terminology.

My point is not about the timeframe of the social stratification, but the term "Hinduism." There was no "Hinduism" yet at that time; the social stratification contributed to the development of "Hinduism." The social stratification was part of the Brahmanical ideology, which attrected support from rulers; this support aided the synthesis of this Brahmanical ideology with local traditions, reinforcing the high social status Brahmins claimed for themselves. But take away "within Hinduism," and the problem is also solved. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dawn

My third edit diff changed

By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India.

into

By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Vedic religion in India.

References

At 1200, there was no Hinduism, only nascent Vedic religion and other local traditions. It's the synthesis of the Brahmanic religion/ideology, having become a trans-local tradition, with those local traditions, which gave birth to "Hinduism." But that proces started at ca. 500 BCE, and so is not recorded in a text from 1200 BCE. It's the smriti that record the "dawn of Hinduism," not the shruti. I'll give more elaborate explanations later, but the essence is that polular misconceptions are referenced with sources that don't support those claims.
[additional explanation 26 august 2020]:

• Dyson p.15: "...the process whereby a dynamic new force gradually arose - a people with a distince ideology who eventually seem to have referred to themselves as 'Arya'"
• Robb (2011) p.46: link leads me to cover; no pagenumbers; can't check the page.
• Ludden (2013) p.19: no pageview; can't check the page.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think dawn of Hinduism is the more accurate. If a vedic religion were dawning, then, since Hinduism is a (the? is there another vedic religion?) vedic religion, it too was "dawning". --RegentsPark (comment) 16:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Hinduism is not a "Vedic religion"; that term is reserved for the early version of the Historical Vedic religion. "Hinduism" is a synthesis of "Brahmanism" and local traditions. The formulation is ambigue, though:

By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India.

Strictly speaking, the sentence is correct, as it says that Sanskrit is the language which recorded the dawning of Hinduism, that is, the language of the sruti and the smriti; yet, it suggests that the Vedas record the dawning of Hinduism; quite unlikely, since Hinduism dawned only 700 years later. If we add the word "subsequent," the sentence would be more correct, especially when "dawning of Hinduism" links to Hindu synthesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"dawn of the Vedic religion" is the best. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, "dawn of the Vedic religion" is historically more accurate. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Jeez, what the heck are you doing JoshuaJonathan. I'm replying but this sort of disruption (of an article that went through a major revision before it appeared in its last TFA in October 2019, watched by dozens of editors, including old India hands and administrators) nedds to be dealt by the noninvolved administrators (@Vanamonde93, MilborneOne, and SpacemanSpiff:
• Not sure I agree that it needs to be changed, but I certainly disagree with the above formulations. First, "dawning(s)" is not quite the same as dawn. Dawning has the figurative meaning of "act of taking shape." e.g. 1710? Newton: "I keep the subject constantly before me, and wait till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light." 1781 E. Gibbon Decline & Fall III. liii. 314 In the ninth century, we trace the first dawnings of the restoration of science. 1843 W. H. Prescott Hist. Conquest Mexico I. i. iv. 92 The dawnings of a literary culture. 1856 B. Brodie Psychol. Inq. (ed. 3) I. v. 198 That principle of intelligence, the dawning of which we observe in the lower animals.

• Second, Dawnings of the same thing can happen in different places and times. I don't see a problem with "first/early dawnings."
• The full sentence makes a complex point, not entirely apparent unless you see the links: How about:

  By 1200 BCE, an [[Proto-language|archaic form]] of [[Sanskrit]], an [[Indo-European language]], had [[Trans-cultural diffusion|diffused]] into India from the northwest, [[Oral transmission|unfolding]] as the language of the ''[[Rigveda]]'', and recording the early dawnings of [[Hinduism]] in India.

  (I'm against mentioning (Historical) Vedic religion by name in the published lead; it is not a widely understood term, found more in WP than most other places. Hinduism is the religion associated with India worldwide. Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra make their first appearance in the RgVeda (not as a trinity, but they do appear). It is unimportant that Brahma is feeling neglected these days, that Vishnu was a minor deity then and Rudra, i.e. Shiva, Mahesh, has a slightly different reputation now. But the names were there. Please tell me which Hindu in India will say, "The Rg Veda is not our book, only the later books are?" Which Hindu will say that the Gayatri mantra is not a mantra of Hinduism, though most Hindus don't know the shloka in the RgVeda that follows the GM, or the one that precedes it.) The Vedic religion was a religious culture that shaped Hinduism, its dawnings are also the dawnings of Hinduism. I mean it could be changed to "the dawnings of a religious culture that shaped Hinduism." But that gets too complicated too early in an article. Wasting community time with fluff is disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Joshua Jonathan and Fowler&fowler: I agree that given the status and visibility of the article, firm consensus here is necessary before further changes are made. I do think JJ's point is not unreasonable though; my (admittedly limited) understanding of the literature about Hinduism is that in the absence of a single founder or center of authority, the coalescence of Hinduism into the religion as seen today was very gradual, and we need to take care not to imply otherwise. I think F&F also makes a reasonable point that going into the complex and disparate history of Hinduism isn't feasible in the lead. I have no opinions as to a precise formulation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you call it disruption? I checked the sources, because the statements are not in accordance with basic knowledge on the origins of Hinduism; the sources do inxeed not support what the article says. That's not disruption. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If there was a problem with page numbers, you should have asked me first. I will give you the page numbers and exact quotes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Quotes would be most welcome; thanks. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Re F&f quotes:

• Doniger: "Hindu texts began with the Rig Veda (Knowledge of Verses’)" - the Rig Veda is an Indo-Aryan text, which was preserved in Hinduism. Vedic religion is not Hinduism. See Jamison, Stephanie; Witzel, Michael (1992). "Vedic Hinduism" (PDF). Harvard University. pp. 1–5, 47–52, 74–77.:

... 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.

• Robb: "The expansion of Aryan culture is supposed to have begun around 1500 BCE [...] It comprises a set of cultural ideas and practices, upheld by a Sanskrit-speaking elite, or Aryans. The features of this society are recorded in the Vedas." - Robb also refers to Aryan culture, not to Hinduism.
• "Texts that record Aryan culture are not precisely datable, but they seem to begin around 1200 BCE with four collections of Vedic hymns (Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Artharva)." - idem.

All three sources used in the article refer to "Aryan culture," not to Hinduism. Calling that Hinduism is an interpretation of the sources. My proposed sentence could be changed and expanded a little bit, 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 in India of Indo-Aryan culture and it's Vedic religion, one of the predecessors of Hinduism.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

First migrations, then Vedas

My fourth edit diff swapped two (parts of) sentences, namely

The Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, were composed during this period, and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain. Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west.

into

Most historians consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. The Vedas, the sacred hymns of the Vedic religion, and the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, were composed and codified during this period. Historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain.

References

First came the migrations, then the Vedas; the first version subtly conveys an indigenous Aryans position, whereas the second version is in line with mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you wasting time? The second sentence is a summing up, a minor point (note there is an also). It is not a description of chronology. By changing it, you are making the migration more emphatic; not everyone is on board with the idea of a major physical migration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I am afraid you are being quite unfair to Joshua Jonathan. He is quite an established user, not a vandal, and his points do make a lot of sense. First you bluntly revert all his edits, demanding that he explains everything on the Talk Page. Then, when he does the explaining, you are just insulting him with "Why are you wasting time?", "Jeez, what the heck are you doing", and "Wasting community time with fluff is disruption". That's not cool. Many of his comments above actually result from a closer reading of the sources. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Both he and you should read WP:OWN#Featured_articles, again and again. Do you think we are idiots that we never edit the page before arriving at a consensus on talk, and have been doing it for 12 years? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I don't think you are an idiot, but I do think you tend to behave terribly when you are being challenged. Most of the points made by Joshua Jonathan here rely on a more accurate reading of the sources... as a mature and highly educated editor you should have the wisdom to recognize his points, and correct accordingly. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler. These are arcana that really should not be in the lead. What's with all the images that have taken over the discussion?--RegentsPark (comment) 17:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's only wasting time if you're not willing to consider the possibilty that this featured article is not fully accurate. NB: these sentences are not in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tamils are not hindu

The Sangam period in Tamilakam (c. 500 BCE to 300 CE) was characterized by the coexistence of many religions: Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Buddhism and Jainism alongside the folk religion of the Tamil people.

In fact Indian religions should be classified as Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Buddhism, Jainism and Tamil Folk religons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.173.208 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Read Shaivism and Vaishnavism both are totally different set of Gods and beliefs and traditions, Today India top twitter trend is tamils are not hindu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.173.208 (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

lol. The missionary from Australia is trying hard to create division with lies. You whites must have taken over the lands of Aboriginals. But this is India. We Indians not only demand that you and your clan restore Australia back to the Aboriginal people and also adopt their gods and ideologies. Enough of your cruelty on Humanity.Wisdomspreading (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And let the missionaries hear it loud and clear. TamilNadu is the Dharmic land from where Hinduism spread far and wide and it will once again wake up the world with wisdom and righteousness eliminating darkness of hatred and spreading Dharma and freedom. Wisdomspreading (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The world has come a long way from the speech of Swami Vivekananda who propagated the message of humanity in his famous speech at World Parliament of Religions. It's time to end the uncharitable feelings towards fellow human beings travelling in the same boat. Time to end the hatred toward the so called Pagan's. Time to end all uncharitable feelings towards indigenous people be it with the sword or the pen. . Watch and Learn. Watch and learn Wisdomspreading (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with 39.33.173.208. Religion section should give a table of Indian religious classification with all above. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)