Talk:India/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Clutter in lead

First, the citations in the lead are excessive. They're best avoided for uncontroversial claims in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Second, there is a lot of information in the lead that's not super necessary; it can be condensed. Will boldly fix these issues myself barring objections but I thought I'd forewarn the regulars here. JDiala (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Fowler&fowler, @RegentsPark, @Abecedare, @The Herald. PadFoot (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala can you provide what specifically in the lead you think is clutter? Such regulars you mention would also likely take objection to any edit you make to the lead, so these should be discussed here first as the lead has been scrutinized heavily over the past 20 or so years. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Flemmish Nietzsche, removing citations for noncontroversial claims in the lead is the most important thing. In addition to that, aspects of the lead are far too verbose. FA guidelines are clear that the lead should be "concise"; this is anything but. Giving some concrete examples, "Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rigveda. Preserved by an oral tradition that was resolutely vigilant, the Rigveda records the dawning of Hinduism in India." No need to discuss how well oral tradition is preserved in lead. This is a specific detail better for the body. Could be condensed as "Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rigveda, one of the earliest scriptures of Hinduism". Another example, "Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also marked by the declining status of women, and the incorporation of untouchability into an organised system of belief." Should be removed entirely or substantially condensed, not clear why the status of women in some medieval kingdom is lead-crucial; furthermore caste system based inequality is already discussed elsewhere in lead. "A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged..." not sure why "pioneering and influential" is needed. In addition to clutter, it's excessive flattery for a encyclopedia. The second sentence is also strange: "It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country with effect from June 2023; and from the time of its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy", why does the second sentence require discussion of two separate metrics with respect to India's democracy being the largest (most populous democracy since '47, most populous country since '23). Just say most populous country. "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", it's not clear why this is lead-crucial. I mean in addition to it not being obvious why a very high "human genetic diversity" is interesting, it's not even first place here!

For comparison, other country articles that do the lead far better include the United States, Germany, Russia. These countries have histories no less rich than that of India yet still manage to keep the lead size under control. JDiala (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP's oldest country FA, soon to be 20 years old. We don't typically follow the US or Russia, which are not FAs. The version in place now was written for the page's second WP:TFA appearance on October 2, 2019, which was Gandhi's 150th. For several months before, several versions were discussed with several dozen editors on the talk page, now in the archives, Please read them. Other sentences such as the one about the Rg Veda and the Partition were added later after much talk page discussion. I for one am opposed to all the notions proposed by you, including the ones specifically about the lead sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that there has been debate on some of the specific issues. Could you explain how a lead with so many citations for claims not likely to be challenged passed the FA review when it is a clear violation of MOS:LEADCITE? Was this aspect ever discussed? JDiala (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We have tried removing them, but the disruption increases exponentially.

Its best that you not template us. Most of us have been on WP for years and know the rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As Fowler notes, it has turned out quite a lot is likely to be challenged. Where we could do better is aligning the lead sources with the body sources, but a sourceless lead is likely to lead to more disruption. CMD (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We do have modern featured country articles that have sources as seen at WP:COUNTRYSIZE...that said the lead could use a modern approach to its layout WP:COUNTRYLEAD.....lots of random stats here. Moxy🍁 11:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

But you, Moxy, appear to be the prime interpreter of that modernity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct as protocols evolves to make articles better so does our advice on what is best for accessibility. Have you looked at how ALL other FA and GA countries articles look? (no text sandwich, no horizontal scrolling etc) We are an active project that spends lots of time on managing our articles FA and GA as standards evolve. FA standards and accessibility problems from 5, 10, 20 years ago have changed alot...thats why the project sets recommendations and links to the protocols that have changed over the years. Accessibility should be the main concern......thus why all the projects recommendations our based/linked to our evolving guidelines or policies. As you can see editor after editor raises different concerns based on protocols here to no avail. JDiala makes some very good points...but basically you tell them and all l its an old FA article and you want no changes.....thus the article looks antiquated. The fact ever edit/change needs a talk is a problem. Moxy🍁 19:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the specific critiques that JDiala has raised, particularly on the human genetic diversity and Rigveda points ("resolutely vigilant"?) The current lead tends towards verbosity and flattery, and should be adjusted. — Goszei (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, flattery? Are you aware that the Rg Veda is the base of all reconstructions of Proto Indo-European, so rigorously was it orally transmitted.? It has no variant readings. There were some dozen different forms and orders of memorization and subsequent proof reading. It is easy to swing by an article and accuse it of verbosity, the usual complaint of WP:Lead fixation. It takes much much longer to learn the content. Please don't make silly accusations of flattery. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm okay with some trimming (resolutely vigilant, for example, could be replaced by "a strong oral tradition" if we want to keep the emphasis). I also think we should give some space to Moxy to suggest changes relating to accessibility. RegentsPark (comment) 20:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Strong oral tradition" is vague. It could mean that India had a long-lasting but infirmly transmitted oral tradition. We are talking about an exceptional tradition of oral transmission.

  Please see: Indian_mathematics#Oral_tradition. Frits Staal and Michael Witzel have both written about this. It is absolutely exceptional. It is not flattery, as someone upstairs seems to have discerned because we also point to the early codification of the caste system and of the subservience of women. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I also think the lead should be shortened by removing excessive details that are just not important or interesting for the average reader who simply wants a concise introduction to India's history, culture and global perspective. I also think that many references in the lead should be removed, at least those covering largely undisputed claims. I mean, just the lead section and infobox alone already cite over 70 references, which is absurd for a featured article. Lead sections (and, to a lesser extent, infoboxes) are intended to summarize the most important key aspects of the article and therefore usually don't have to include references when their statements are cited later in the body of the article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives of the Summer of 2019. This version of the lead was composed for the page's WP main page appearance on 2 October 2019, Gandhi's 150 birth anniversary. It received the input of over a dozen, maybe two dozen, editors including many experienced WPians. This page has some 5000 watchers and receives nearly 40K views a day.

You have not even bothered to read the beginning of this section where I stated that if you remove the citations, people begin to dicker with the lead. Its not like we always had citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In other words, it is easy to wax about generalities, but much harder to actually formulate something. Typically on this page, we propose changes a sentence at a time. Please propose a specific change in a specific sentence and give some evidence of its due weight in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"You have not even bothered to read the beginning of this section where I stated that if you remove the citations, people begin to dicker with the lead."

Yes, I have read that part. And I think the fact that other users frequently challenge statements and add citations to the lead is not a valid argument against keeping it clean. It's very well possible; you can revert those edits, protect the page more strictly, and add comments for editors pointing out where certain claims are already sourced in the body of the article. Numerous other frequently edited and highly visited country articles like United States, Canada, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Russia have also managed to keep their leads clean. Also, I never said that this article has to have a completely sourceless lead: Simply reducing the number of citations would already make the lead much cleaner. For example, the United Kingdom article has approximately half the number of citations in its lead compared to this article, which is still relatively high, but looks already much cleaner. In addition, when the lead is shortened in content, citations would of course also become fewer in parallel. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please propose changes to one sentence, not generalities. Please also cite sources that bear out the truth of that sentence and its due weight in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not my intention to propose specific changes here, and I would open a new thread if I did. I just want to convince and motivate others like you that it's very well possible to keep the lead clean and that we should do it. User JDiala already made some good initial suggestions for it which you opposed for odd reasons. Repeatedly referring to the age, number of page watchers and visitors of the article as well as the history of how the article became the way it is today and how many editors were involved in finding consensuses are no sensible counterarguments. Consensuses, no matter how old they are or how many users have been involved, are neither infallible nor set in stone and can change. We already gave suggestions for changes. Now it's your turn to give concrete and real arguments against them. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, what is the point of offering dime-a-dozen generalities? Propose one specific sentence-change or for that matter one of JDiala's in a separate section. You can coordinate with them and cite some sources for reliability and due weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• General comment and proposal I just looked at the February 2020 version of the lead. As you will see, it was much cleaner and flowed better. But then various Wikipedians appeared and tied the page down in RfC's about one word in the lead that they did not like. So, a compromise was reached to accommodate them and the flow became disrupted. This has happened quite a few times. The version in place now is not how I would write it today.

This article has had a long run as an FA—20 years in a month or two. A better option would be to simply have the FA star removed and then you guys can duke it out and take it afresh to FAR or FAC, have six-month long discussions on which images to include and which to not. Frankly, I have lost interest in the article, tired of reading the very predictable manifestations of Lead Fixation. The article needs many pairs of fresh eyes. So, why not have the FA status removed? I can ask Sandy Georgia or Ealdgyth or DrKay at FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

But when I say, "Why don't you rewrite the Politics section, or the Sports section, or the Education section, to raise them to FA standards?" not a peep is heard, or if one peep is, it fades away soon thereafter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Archive after archive page with simple suggestions to no avail. Most experienced editors have simply given up on the paqe. FA ststus in an editor bases data system .....meaningless to our readers so most dont care but can see the problems. Moxy🍁 18:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

I need edit Request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuram123456 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Muthuram123456 Use the template {{Edit extended-protected}} to flag that you're making a request, and then describe what you want to change, as well as the sources that support the change. —C.Fred (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Indian diaspora

Would it be appropriate to address the Indian diaspora in this article anywhere? I am thinking it could perhaps be added as a link as part of the "See also" template at the start of the Demographics section.

Discussing the diaspora would tie into some of the history of India (i.e. the British rule and the contemporary indentured labour system, as well as post-British India's significant emigration) and give a clearer picture of India's relationship to the world. Another way of seeing the diaspora's importance to India can be seen in the following excerpt on economics: "It is estimated that the total assets of the Indian Diaspora around the world is close to $1 trillion, half of which are financial assets [...] And according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) data, by 2017, Indian nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $2.46 trillion, while the annual income of the Indian Diaspora is estimated to be $400 billion, which is around 20 percent of the Indian GDP. India is the largest recipient of migrant remittances in the world, receiving over $50 billion in 2010."[1]

As an example of ways this could be done successfully here, a brief glance has shown me that there are two instances of the Chinese diaspora being discussed in the article for China:

• "(In the History section) In the 19th century, the great Chinese diaspora began. Losses due to emigration were added to by conflicts and catastrophes such as the Northern Chinese Famine of 1876–1879, in which between 9 and 13 million people died.
• (In the Culture section) Offshoots of Chinese food, such as Hong Kong cuisine and American Chinese cuisine, have emerged in the Chinese diaspora."

GreekApple123 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:Fowler&fowler I have three sources that discuss the importance of the Indian diaspora in overcoming American resistance towards the nuclear treaty:

• (the source I already used) "The diaspora then binds India to the West in turn. The most stunning example of this emerged in 2008, when America signed an agreement that, in effect, recognised India as a nuclear power, despite its never having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with Pakistan and Israel). Lobbying and fundraising by Indian-Americans helped push the deal through America’s Congress."
• [2] "Next, it was mainly the lobbying efforts by The National Federation of Indian American Association to crusade to relax the U.S. policy over sanctions on India. As a result, the sanctions Imposed on India by the NSG (after Nuclear Proliferation in 1998) were removed on the U.S. recommendation. The former U.S. President Bill Clinton on his visit to India himself specified of immense pressure by the Indian Diaspora to uplift the sanctions. Another instance is the ID’s notable persuasion towards finalizing of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Co-operation Agreement. This ‘123 agreement’ got confirmed in July 2007 and signed in October 2008 enabled India to enjoy all provisions of the Non- Proliferation Treaty."
• [3] "Lastly, we [i.e. the diaspora] attempt to influence our host country governments to pursue policies favorable to India, such as the intense lobbying by the Indian Diaspora in the US to get a recalcitrant US Senate to approve the Nuclear Treaty."

GreekApple123 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

For nearly 18 years, the guiding principle of sourcing on this page has been to have as far as is possible only the following kinds of sources, per Wikipedia policy:

1. For reliability, we need WP:SCHOLARSHIP
2. For due weight, i.e. in order to reflect the consensus in 1, or in the absence of a consensus, the notable controversy, we need WP:TERTIARY, especially
   1. introductory text-books published by scholarly publishers as they are vetted for due weight, or
   2. reviews of the journal literature, companions (e.g. Oxford Companion to ...), edited hand-books, etc published by scholarly publishers as they describe the consensus or lack thereof, (but generally not other encyclopedias such as Britannica)
   3. Furthermore, there should be significant coverage in that tertiary sources, not just a sentence of two.

If you examine the history sections, or the visual art, the cuisine, the clothing, they all follow this broad approach. The reason is that our entries not only have to be reliable, but they also have to reflect the overall stable trend in the scholarly literature.

Your first source would be good for an illustration (necessarily narrow scale) of a trend (which on this page is necessarily broad scale). So, if something general, or broad scale, finds significant mention an introductory textbook published by say Cambridge University Press, then its illustration can be occasionally chosen from The Economist or The Economic and Political Weekly etc.—that way a reader does not become engulfed continuously in the prose of generalities.

I have to be away for some time, therefore is as far as I am able to take this discussion forward. Thanks for posting. . All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Super Muthuram123456 (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

A quote from one book

Yes, Moxy, what I added to a new "Further reading" section today is, indeed, "a quote from one book".

It is an interesting review of a book that appears to shed some new light on the role of the over-touted "Silk Road" with respect to the amazing historic influence of Indian culture on Europe and the West.

If it is reinstated, please add at the end a quotation mark, which I forgot.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not the article for a random quote like that....and there is already a bibliography section that's vastly oversized. Moxy🍁 23:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

Change the introduction to add one more detailed paragraph to highlight India's international relations (which has been done for other countries but not for India, Wikipedia is quite biased to India):

India is one of the founding members of the United Nations and a member of several international organizations such as the G20, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Commonwealth of Nations. India is also a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and a key partner in regional forums like SAARC and BIMSTEC. With a rapidly growing economy, India is the world's third-largest economy by GDP at purchasing power parity, and the fifth-largest by nominal GDP. Additionally, India has the world's second-largest standing military, reflecting its significant defense capabilities. It is a middle power, and has been often described as an emerging great power.

The full version of this text can be included in relevant sections of the article body if needed. 2A02:C7C:E318:9F00:965:ECEF:A827:BA34 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead is already quite long, and some of this is redundant. I personally think there is scope to reduce history and add more on the current country, but that would require a longer discussion. CMD (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2024

(UTC)

Extendedconfirmed edit request on 22 September 2024

Why shouldn't India's native name Bharat Ganrajya currently in Latin script be written in Devanagari script in infobox like on wiki pages of other country then write In Latin below it.Edasf (talk) 3:50 UTC 22 September 2024

 Not done: There is a manual of style for Indic scripts that was decided as per consensus to not to use scripts such as Devnagari in the lede and infoboxes. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

Respectable Sir/Ma'am,

Whenever I read any page related to India, be it a state, a cultural heritage, a person, or even the country itself, I have sadly noticed that never is the Devanagari, never is the Bengali, never is the Kannada script, or never has any other script been used for the things written in the script. Instead, the transliteration of the script in the Latin script is used. Please fix this problem across all pages related to the republic of India. Shubhsamant09 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:INDICSCRIPTS; we do not use any of the South Asian scripts you mentioned in the leads and infoboxes of India-related articles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so of course the articles will be in English. If you want to view this article in languages such as Hindi or Bengali, there is an option to do so at the top of the article with the translate button. It can take you to the Wikipedia of those languages EarthDude (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

=

Extended-confirmed edit request on 8 October 2024

I have noticed that that in demographics section a table of largest cities is there in many country pages but not in India.Please add it in demographics section. Edasf (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The page is a featured article (one of the oldest of it's kind) and any such change requires consensus approval from the community. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Correction in Map Depiction

The map shown in the "Administrative divisions" section incorrectly indicates that parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh are occupied by China. According to an RTI response from the Ministry of External Affairs (dated 25-03-2024), the only region where China has occupied Indian territory is in Ladakh. You can verify this through the following RTI document: RTI-information-25-3-2024.pdf.

I kindly request the removal of the incorrectly marked China-occupied regions from Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh on the map. Vaibhav Naik 26 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It indicates claims only, all white coloured land is controlled by India. CMD (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding about Bharatiya Model of Development

I propose to add to the article, to the section about economy, the next text:

"India promotes the Bharatiya model of development considered different from western models. The Economic Survey for the year 2024, noted that often solutions to address climate change “are fuelled by a market society, which seeks to substitute the means to achieve overconsumption rather than addressing overconsumption itself”. The report argued that India needs a different approach and a “Bharatiya Model of Development”, linked to the principles of sustainability and to the Indian philosophy, can help."

The sources:

https://www.policycircle.org/economy/the-bharatiya-model-of-growth/

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/climate-change/bharatiya-model-of-development-tackling-global-climate-change-the-indian-way

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/economic-survey-2024-why-india-must-look-at-climate-change-problem-through-indian-way-ditch-western-solutions/articleshow/111921114.cms Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

These sources read more as marketing spin than a different economic model. The same debates about sustainability are happening everywhere, in the west, India, and elsewhere. CMD (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I went through the refs and they seem more like advertisements than reliable source EarthDude (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The release of the economic survey and what it has said is a fact, not fiction. It is possible that the government of India do not do really what it is declaring, but the declaration itself is a fact. We can write instead of "India promotes the Bharatiya model of development" "The Indian government claims it promotes the Bharatiya model of development" but the declaration itself is enough important fact for being mentioned. Especially if the release of the economic survey speaking about it created such an effect like it is written in the second link.

This is an official link from the site of indian government saying, among others:

the proposed solutions to climate change, which serve as the basis for criticising India, ignore how sustainable living is built into the Indian lifestyle. Rooted in the principles of sustenance, India’s ethos emphasises a harmonious relationship with nature, which is in sharp contrast to the overconsumption prevalent in other parts of the developed world. Solutions to address climate change are based on the principles of a market society, which seeks to substitute the means to achieve overconsumption rather than addressing overconsumption itself. Such an approach thus gives importance to the label under which their lifestyle can continue instead of bringing about a change in their lifestyle.

Over the years, this has produced a slew of policies that have unintended consequences for the planet, resulting in little or no reduction in carbon emissions. If India, with its large population, chooses to go down this path, the climate consequences for the country and the world will be hugely negative. Therefore, India needs to follow its own path and look at the problem through its own lens if the nation is to empower its citizens through economic development while simultaneously addressing the issue of climate change.

These considerations served as the foundation for Mission LiFE, a unique initiative announced by the Hon’ble Prime Minister at the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference. Mission LiFE seeks to bring individual responsibility to the forefront of the fight against climate change. Deriving its principles from ancient Indian philosophy, the tenets of this approach are based on making pro-planet choices without compromising on quality of life. It is about making deliberate choices in the present while remaining conscious of the generations to come. Mission LiFE seeks to address the ‘wants’ of the people without letting them hurt Nature. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/eschapter/echap13.pdf

I think such declaration worth mentioning. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please find peer reviewed academic papers from respectable journals that explicitly state that the model of economic development in India is particularly indigenous, is known as Bharitya, and that this model is notable in its own right. RegentsPark (comment) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is one:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/176144/1/icrier-wp-122.pdf

Except for write about declaration of government an article in a well known news site is enough as far as I know. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a marketing paper and is not a peer reviewed one. Also, to your second point, declarations of governments are not notable by themselves. Other reliable sources need meaningfully comment on them. (I've re-threaded your response so that it correctly appears as a reply.)RegentsPark (comment) 14:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

Pune is also an urban agglomerate as per the 2011 Census of India, kindly add that ASAP JustAadvikThings (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (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. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Add a new image of Rashtrapati Bhavan

I think in the Government section the image of RB is no longer in use on its main article itself and we should use the image on its main article here as well. Edasf (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)