Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Change: The economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal Empire. To: According to Angus Maddison[1], a British economist specialising in quantitative macroeconomic history, including the measurement and analysis of economic growth and development, India was the largest economy by GDP output for the first 15 centuries of the Common Era. According to a graph published[2] by him Indian economy started declining by the 16th century. Thrideep J (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
References
I noticed that it is mentioned that Indians drive on left but the fact is that it is right hand drive. Appreciate if the correction can be made ! Anuragrastogi0007 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I love india
Manumohan perumon (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Kokbotok language does not come under the 8th schedule language of the country (india) Sankhadeepdey (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please can someone add the Hindi alphabet for the name of the Republic of India in the country template title : भारत की स्वतंत्रता
I added, inter alia, a gallery of 'leaders of India' with this edit; which was reverted in good faith by Abecedare with this edit, who asked me to gain consensus on the talk page regarding this, so, here I am.
My opinion is that a gallery of Indian leaders won't hurt and would be in line with other articles on nations, such as France, Germany et al. What do you people think about this?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I too agree with Moxy's point about automatically "highlighting individuals" in the main country article by virtue of their current position, without consideration of their "historical significance". That IMO makes the article look more like a GoI brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Also the photo-gallery did not add much informational content beyond what is already presented in the infobox under the Government field. Finally, at least some of the images themselves were of pretty poor quality photographs.
Historically, it has been the convention for this main India article to, as far as possible, limit images to ones that are featured pictures on wikipedia/commons or at least of comparable importance and quality. Given the plethora of images that can be included given the vast scope of this article, and the few available slots, it would be good to restore that standard. Abecedare (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi SpacemanSpiff , can you explain me the double error ?, and also why is it written in Hindi transliteration ? because Hindi is the national language of ? Shrikanthv (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
.the ISO 15919 directive, "Inherent a with a consonant shall always be transliterated." (Clause 8, Rule 2). This, at least, gives us an unambiguous transliteration.
The article should have some mention of scripts used for writing Indian languages.I propose the following: Most Indian languages use scripts derived from the Brahmi script.[1]This includes the Devnagari script used for writing Indo-aryan languages such as Hindi or Marathi and the scripts used for writing Dravidian languages such as Tamil or Kannada. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
References
Each state and union territory has one or more official languages..., after which there could be a brief mention of the plethora of scripts, but only a few words. At Languages of India there is only this, under "Writing systems",
Most languages in India are written in Brahmi-derived scripts, such as Devanagari, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Odia, Eastern Nagari - Assamese/Bengali, etc., though Urdu is written in a script derived from Arabic, and a few minor languages such as Santali use independent scripts.[citation needed]. What's being proposed here in length seems almost equal to that sentence, which itself is in need of a citation. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Best we not add detailed info about poverty to the lead when it's outdated.--Moxy (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It is undue in the lead. The lead already says However, it continues to face the challenges of poverty, corruption, which is more than adequate for the lead section. Details are best left to the body of the article. --regentspark (comment) 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
1. Who decided that the official translation used is Bhārat Gaṇarājya instead of the officially used Bhāratiya Gaṇarājya, and why are the original Sanskrit characters given a miss? 2. Why is a section on Science and Technology missing for a country with arecord of most satellites launched in one go and the world's first country to launch a successful Mars mission? 3. Why is there no section on tourism when India has more than 15 million international tourists each year which brings in more than 10% of India's GDP (world's 6th highest nominal GDP nation)
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.66.220 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there anyone who is able to explain this for a featured article? I wanted to share the article for a reference and am already having a hard time proving Wikipedia as a credible source. If these errors and/or important facts are looked at, would be huge help to understand the credibility. (I am the same person as above with a different device) Thank you 80.215.68.153 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I open this to talk about the (in my opinion) more accurate gallery for the article in the history section. Thank you.--BernardaAlba (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It explains the text. And it goes thtough the main peryods of the history of India, right now it doesn´t. --213.254.68.174 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Pataliputra recently edited the first Etymology paragraph to read:
The name India is derived from Indus, which originates from the 6th century Old Persian word Hiduš (Old Persian cuneiform: 𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐏁).[1][2][3] The latter term stems from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian *síndʰuš (meaning "The river"), which also gave the Sanskrit Sindhu (सिन्धु), the historical local appellation for the Indus River.[4] The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (Ἰνδοί), which translates as "The people of the Indus".[5][6]
References
Kainiraka, Sanu (2016), From Indus to Independence - A Trek Through Indian History: Vol I Prehistory to the Fall of the Mauryas, Vij Books India Pvt Ltd, p. 143, ISBN 978-93-85563-14-0 Dandamaev, M. A. (1989), A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, BRILL, p. 147, ISBN 90-04-09172-6 Serge Gruzinski 2015. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSerge_Gruzinski2015 (help) Oxford English Dictionary. sfn error: no target: CITEREFOxford_English_Dictionary (help) Kuiper 2010, p. 86. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKuiper2010 (help) Mukherjee, Bratindra Nath (2001), Nationhood and Statehood in India: A historical survey, Regency Publications, p. 3, ISBN 978-81-87498-26-1: "In early Indian sources Sindhu denoted the mighty Indus river and also a territory on the lower Indus."
I know that the idea of "India" originating from Indus is a popular misconception, and I have said so in the past. But it is at least a popular misconception. But the idea that Indus originates from Hindush is not even that. The sources supplied don't say anything like it. And what is Proto-Indo-Iranian doing here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC) amended Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors! Please allow me to add a picture of MUMBAI to the the ECONOMY section of the article (directly from Wikimedia commons). This has been done in articles of almost all other countries and even the main article for the subject, Economy of India, follows the format and has a picture of the city as its very first image. Mumbai is India's financial capital accounting for 6.16% of its GDP, and also portrays economic progress.
Regards,
AnotherHomoSapein (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Why is Madrasian culture not mentioned in the (pre)history section? --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
India is not exactly a socialist state, in any definition of the word. The welfare state is not any different from its counterparts in most western countries. Regardless of what the constitution says, it should be a constitutional republic in the infobox. 42.109.232.70 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for startling awake so late, but the reason I object to using socialist in the infobox is that the country can easily be confused for a communist state by a novice reader. At least an explanatory note if you refuse to remove it. I would've removed it myself but the page is protected and I'm through with creating accounts on all websites. (Same person as IP above) 42.109.252.60 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please mention the largest city in india with images.
Template:Largest cities of India Yadavjiias (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I have created following edit: diff, which adds the information of the very defintion of the country, but User:MilborneOne reverted it with the summary: probably true but not for the lead paragraph I would like to know the intention of this revert, because from a logical standpoint the revert reason makes zero sense to me.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
why is similar "trivia information" displayed for the United States article in the lead section in the first sentence itself. That's my reply. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The official name of India is not written in Devnagri Script in the form भारतीय गणराज्य.Instead it is romanticized it should be corrected ASAP. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesnt have two english names.I am a reesident of my country and see Indian passport. It has two headinga:- 1.)Official Name in English:-Republic of India
2.)Official Name in Hindi:- भट्रीय गणराज्य Thus change the script of official name in hindi from Roman to Devnagari scipt. See libya or any other country it has official name in Englosh and then in native script. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
sorry thats भारतीय Regards Srijanx22 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Still my defence is if it is written in भारतीय गणराज्य is written in Indian passports why not in wikipedia.Hindi is our official language. Now in yr defence you cite that since India doesnt have a national language thats why u arent using Hindi script. But why pages of Singapore have thier name in Tamil scipt when Malay is national although Tamil is official language bit same is the case in india. Also Sri Lanka have thier name in Tamil scipt too as it is an official language there. Why only bias against Hindi? Why not with Tamil? Regards Srijanx22 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Some recent edits added the following (references omitted) to India#Ancient India:
That uses {{val}} twice. The first could be justified although I don't see a need to complicate this article with jargon like Ma—writing plain "1.5 million years ago" is more appropriate here, as is done even at Paleolithic which needs it ten times. Writing "30000 yr ago" instead of "30,000 years ago" is definitely inappropriate as this is a general article. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: This edit introduced a typo and changed:
That is completely unnecessary. A search for "30,000 years" shows that text occurs in many articles without needing a template (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). There is no reason to use {{val}} for ordinary text like this—would you recommend changing every occurrence of N years/months/days with val? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of the images in the Economy section are of extremely poor quality. I noticed that the last time a discussion took place regarding these images was way back in 2012 and now, fortunately, we have better images in Wikimedia library. I've gone ahead and added the following images.
Looks like the Economy section is being neglected. Most of the data is almost 7-10 years old and therefore, it does not reflect latest statistics and figures. I've taken the liberty to improve this section and hope other Wikipedians would chip in.
Also, a sincere request to our veteran Wikipedians to not blindly revert sincere attempts to improve the article. I believe that sometimes senior Wikipedians get too carried away in their zeal to maintain a "good version" of the article. But fact remains, edits such as this by User:RegentsPark are not at all helpful.
Thanks --King Zebu (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Here are the current images in Demographic section
NONE of these images represent the urban population (est. to be 34% by World Bank) and its middle class population (est. to be around 350 million).
The images really need to be more representative of the diverse Indian population. --King Zebu (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
--King Zebu (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Akhileshyadav287 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Largest city of India is Delhi 115.96.198.195 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
So, User:Azuredivay started pushing his agenda / POV in violation MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:NUMERAL, repeatedly ignored pleas to engage in a discussion and build consensus and then engaged in multiple revert wars( .
And what do the Admins do? They protect the article keeping the version which User:Azuredivay wanted - basically rewarding him for his edit warring, for not building consensus and for not following Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines. Wow! Do the Admins even read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines anymore? --King Zebu (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC) King Zebu (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert changes made by User:Azuredivay which I believe are not in sync with MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:NUMERAL and these changes were made without building consensus on talkpage despite repeatedly pleas to do so. --King Zebu (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Changes provide more info and help more people understand the figures being talked about as the said numbers are common for the target readers. That said, for rest the other numbering system is written in parallel so no information is withheld. -Azuredivay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuredivay (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for 49.14.101.189 (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a mathematical problem in the infobox. It should say (for 2016) 1,324,171,354. The same for 2011.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey team wikipedia,kindly correct the population of india written in very starting of the article.Actually india's population is around 121crore(census 2011),but in this article it is mentioned that india's population is 1200 crore insted of 121 or 120 crore.So kindly correct it. Ankit Singh dhannu (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Total population is not rightly quoted. 122.162.29.109 (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is an unofficial version of national anthem with incorrect timing is used in Wikipedia? 1337 siddh (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Which text are you referring to? This one in the lead? Please advise:
The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE — one of the world's earliest civilizations.[1] The Iron Age Vedic period, saw the composition of the Vedas, the seminal texts of Hinduism, coalesced into Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste. Large-scale urbanization occurred on the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the first millennium BCE leading to the Mahajanapadas (large, urbanised states), and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Magadhan dynasties of Nandas, Mauryas and Guptas from the north and by the Satavahanas and Chalukyas in the Deccan; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms, notably Pallavas and Cholas, influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia; while the Tripartite Struggle, centred on Kannauj, lasted for more than two centuries for the control of the Indian subcontinent between the Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Gurjara-Pratiharas in the early Medieval era. Much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. The country was unified in the 17th century by the Mughals, during this period Sikhism arose. In the 18th century, much of the Indian subcontinent came under imperial Maratha and Sikh rule, however, by the mid-19th century much of the Indian subcontinent came under the British East India Company, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.
(Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE. In the following millennium, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism began to be composed. Social stratification, based on caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE, and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Maurya and Gupta empires; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia. In the medieval era, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam arrived, and Sikhism emerged, all adding to the region's diverse culture. Much of the north fell to the Delhi Sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. The economy expanded in the 17th century in the Mughal Empire. In the mid-18th century, the subcontinent came under British East India Company rule, and in the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The Indian subcontinent was home to the urban Indus Valley Civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE.[1] The Iron Age Vedic period, saw the composition of the Vedas, the rise of Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste. Large-scale urbanization occurred on the Indo-Gangetic Plain in the first millennium BCE leading to the Mahajanapadas (large, urbanised states), and Buddhism and Jainism arose. Early political consolidations took place under the Magadhan dynasties of Nandas, Mauryas and Guptas from the north and by the Satavahanas and Chalukyas in the Deccan; the later peninsular Middle Kingdoms, notably Pallavas and Cholas, influenced cultures as far as Southeast Asia; while the Tripartite Struggle, centred on Kannauj, lasted for more than two centuries between the Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Gurjara-Pratiharas in the early Medieval era. The late Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim population, with much of the north fell to the Delhi sultanate; the south was united under the Vijayanagara Empire. In the 17th century, much of the subcontinent was unified by the Mughals, during this period Sikhism arose. In the 18th century, much of the Indian subcontinent came under imperial Maratha and Sikh rule, however, by the mid-19th century much of the Indian subcontinent came under the British East India Company, and by the mid-19th under British crown rule. A nationalist movement emerged in the late 19th century, which later, under Mahatma Gandhi, was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to India's independence in 1947.
(Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) by that logic, how was Christianity or Judaism significant to the history of the subcontinent? I don’t think British considered themselves as Christian power, as they divided Indian history in Hindu, Muslim and British. Why put Judaism here? Isn’t that exaggerating Jewish history in India? If you are impartial, shouldn’t Christianity and Judaism which take a sentence be removed? We can add Sikhs in the same sentence after Mughals. As I have done above. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC))
Really Metcalf and Nehru? Are they secondary sources or tertiary? Primary sources, especially old ones don't count. Here is a tertiary source, Webster's Encyclopedia's India page's history section: "India has been inhabited for thousands of years. Agriculture in India dates to the 7th millennium BCE, and an urban civilization, that of the Indus valley, was established by 2600 BCE. Buddhism and Jainism arose in the 6th century BCE in reaction to the caste-based society created by the Vedic religion and its successor, Hinduism. The first Muslim contact with the subcontinent was in the 8th century CE. Muslim invasions began after c. 1000, establishing the long-lived Delhi sultanate in 1206 and the Mughal dynasty in 1526. Vasco da Gama's voyage to India in 1498 initiated several centuries of commercial rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and French. British conquests in the 18th and 19th centuries led to the rule of the British East India Co., and direct administration by the British Empire began in 1858. After Mohandas K. Gandhi helped end British rule in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru became India's first prime minister, ..." Where are the vaunted Marathas? See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I have reverted large scale edits to this article to the last stable version edited by @RegentsPark:. To the editors engaging in these edits, please note: India is a featured article. Please read WP:OWN#Featured_articles for guidelines on how to edit an FA. For adding anything significant, sometimes even one sentence, you need to gain consensus on the talk page first, especially when an edit has been challenged. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Highpeaks35: You're still adding images without consensus and you can't do that without appearing disruptive. I'm going to revert your edits again, let the discussion below run its course first. --regentspark (comment) 02:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Regent, I cannot restore the last good version of Economy images. We had clearly built consensus here for these images and if Fowler has a problem with these images too, then the ball is in his court to build consensus to remove the Economy section images. --King Zebu (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The FA India has a total of 71 images (including maps). Other than one extra paddy field image that was added without consensus by someone later, the selection was the result of a discussion that lasted over a year with inputs from dozens of editors. It began with admin Saravask's post in section 25, Talk:India/Archive 35, October 2011, and sections below, and continued in methodical fashion to Talk:India/Archive 36, and ended with Talk:India/Archive 37, sections 33 through 38, in November 2012. Please see: User:Fowler&fowler/Images in FA India for a complete list of images. (I say there that many images are part of a rotation group whose displayed image changes every day, so you will not see the images all at once, but only gradually over a week.) I believe no Wikipedia FA has as many images as FA India.
@King Zebu: has declared consensus for a change in images as a result of two responses after one week. Did he ping any of the editors involved in the previous consensus, many of whom are active on Wikipedia, but don't actively watch this talk page? Did he post on WT:INDIA? I didn't see anything. How then is this consensus, especially when the reasons offered are not in line with the facts. Is he aware that as of 2015, 80% of India's milk production was contributed by dairy farmers with one or two milch cattle? How then does a mechanized dairy become more representative? He has claimed that while there are images of the Taj Mahal, there are not enough images of "native Indian architecture style which goes back thousands of years." But this is not in line with facts. As you will see in my list, the article already has Ajanta (Buddhist), Chola temple, Hampi (Vijayanagara), Mahabodhi temple, etc. The Taj Mahal image, moreover, is as much about the clothing (shawl and sarong) of the visitors from Northeast India in the foreground, as about the Taj forming the background. It is claimed that agriculture contributes only 20% of India's GDP, as if contribution to GDP is the critical factor in the choice of images, but it is not mentioned that the agriculture sector employs 60% of India's workforce. It is claimed that India is ranked sixth in List of countries by GDP (nominal), a mark of its progress, especially industrial progress, but not mentioned that it ranks 140 out of 188 countries in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, with average income of $1,983 per year, according to the IMF data for 2017. There are no clear guidelines on how to choose images for a Wikipedia article, but whatever is chosen needs to be representative and relevant and the result of credible consensus. I am not saying that the old images are etched in stone and cannot be changed, but that if it is felt a change is needed, that idea should first be discussed. Second, as India is the flagship article for WP:India, other editors who work on India-related topics, but not necessarily on this page, or have participated in previous image discussions, editors such as Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Vanamonde, Sitush, AshLin, Sarah Welch, Tilo Dutta, RedtiergX, Spaceman Spiff, Abecedare, etc, should be invited to weigh in on the new selection of images. The image selection should also be advertised on various WP venues. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that @Highpeaks35: does not have any consensus yet for adding any images or text. However, @King Zebu: has been claiming that he has consensus for changes he made in November and December. I don't believe consensus had been achieved, either for the content changes, or for the image changes. These editors know very well that this is a Featured Article, in which any significant edits are typically discussed on the talk page first. However, they have done little of that. Here are some examples of King Zebu's text edits:
As for the images changes, editors can see for themselves in Talk:India#Updation_of_images_in_Economy_section, King Zebu did make a post on 2 December 2018, proposing certain changes. He essentially received one response, from @RegentsPark:, for the other was a perfunctory response by a user with redlinked name. On the basis of that response, he declared a week later that he had consensus. Is this how we proceed in editing a longstanding featured article whose images were added after a year long discussion (from October 2011 to November 2012, see section above), filling three talk page archives, and involving the input of dozens of editors? Now that the article is no longer locked down, I am concerned that they will attempt to restore their edits, leading to edit warring again. I have already shown above, that the proposed change in the milk dairy image was based on a false premise, which confused the harvesting of milk, which as of December 2018 in India, was done by hand by farmers with small herd size, with the processing of milk. There are issues with others as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Back in 1st week of December 2018, we had clearly built CONSENSUS on this very talkpage regarding new images for Economy section. We had also upgraded the content of this section - adding latest economic statistics backed by VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE and LATEST sources.
Consensus was achieved, changes were made and the section was clearly stable. Now, Fowler&fowler comes in, pleads that he was away for weeks, and blatantly reverts all the hard-work. Going by the racist and derogatory comments this User has made in this very talkpage, it is clear that he has a clear anti-India and anti-Hindu bias and that explains the intent behind some of his edits to India-related articles.
It is therefore Fowler who needs to build consensus now to remove the Economy section images and content added in early December 2018. --King Zebu (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made some edits in response to user:Vanamonde93 post at the FAR for India. In that context, I wanted to say that in the history section, we largely rely on the material in widely used modern text books published by scholarly publishers or widely cited surveys published by academic journals, as they are best able to make assessments of both what is reliable and of due weight. With mega journals exploding, publishing more than a thousand articles a month, with very quick peer review, we cannot cite a journal article, especially a recent journal article which has not appeared in a text book or survey.
The Ancient India section had a sentence from the time of its last FAR. The sentence is, "Around 7000 BCE, the first known Neolithic settlements appeared on the subcontinent in Mehrgarh and other sites in what is now western Pakistan.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|pp = 24–25}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India."
This text has been changed many times by various later editors. I restored the original version yesterday. Soon after my edit, @Highpeaks35: changed the text to a more recent version:
"Around 7000 BCE, the first known Neolithic settlements appeared on the subcontinent in Mehrgarh and other sites in the subcontinent.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|pp = 24–25}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|p = 2}} with edit summary, "with Lahuradewa, Bhirrana and other sites within India, keeping it as it was previously was the best option."
There are several problems with this edit. First the cited references don't say anything about Bhirrana or Lahurdewa. Second neither site has uncontroversially appeared in a widely used, reliable, textbook or academic survey. See Quote 3 below. Thirdly, it is not accepted uncontroversially that these sites developed into the Indus Valley Civilization. Fourth, repeating "subcontinent" twice in one sentence is not stylistically sound.
Rather than get into a controversy about which site is older, I have decided to replace the Possehl citation (published 2003) with a citation based on the textbook of Coningham and Young (published 2015), see quote 1 below from pp 104-105, and change the sentence to, "After 6500 BCE evidence for domestication of food crops and animals, construction of permanent structures, and storage of agricultural surplus, appeared in [[Mehrgarh]] and other sites in what is now [[Balochistan]]. {{sfn|Coningham|Young|2015|pp = 104–105}} These gradually developed into the [[Indus Valley Civilization|Indus Valley Civilisation]],{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|pp = 21–23}}{{sfn|Coningham|Young|2015|pp = 104–105}} the first urban culture in South Asia,{{sfn|Singh|2009|p = 181}} which flourished during 2500–1900 BCE in what is now Pakistan and western India.{{sfn|Possehl|2003|p = 2}}
Quote 1: "With regard to the Indus Valley Tradition, we will focus on selected key sites such as Mehrgarh in Baluchistan and Kot Diji in Sindh, and demonstrate how the archaeological evidence supports their interpretation as precursors of sites belonging to the Indus Civilisation. In modelling the first evidence for domestication, permanent structures, long distance trade, the conservation and storage of agricultural surplus, and analysing ceramic and aceramic traditions, the village of Mehrgarh and its associated communities are the crucial backdrop for understanding the origins and foundations of the cities of the IndusValley Tradition. (p. 104)"
Quote 2: (p. 105) Early food producers timeline (which shows Mehrgarh in Baluchistan as the oldest among various other sites in India and Pakistan)
Quote 3: "Additional evidence has continued to be published, most recently with Rakesh Tiwari's report of domesticated rice and a sedentary village at the four metre high mound of Lahuradewa in Uttar Pradesh from the seventh millennium BCE onwards (Tewari et al. 2006). However, controversy continues over the specific dating and identification of domesticated rice at a number of the key sites as it is accepted by some scholars (Singh 2008: 110) and contested by others (Fuller 2006). (p. 130)"
Note: Coningham and Young makes no mention of Bhirrana. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
pls remove membership column from infobox. -Useless -Doent include all imp organization -Not alll countries in wikipedia page have this Srijanx22 (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
43.245.8.85 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean this sincerely and not as a joke or threat. India became an FA in 2004, and subsequently went through two Featured Article Reviews (WP:FAR), the latest in 2011. It has been an FA longer than any country article. From the time of its first FA run in 2004 (with Nichalp) it has had a high standard of prose, NPOV content, and relevant images, many of which earlier were Featured Pictures (WP:FP). A handful still are. However, it has now got to the point where the editors who had contributed earlier to make it an FA, or for it to retain its FA status, are no longer able to take an active role in maintaining it. A fresh crop of editors have taken to editing it. In my view, under their helm, (see this version of January 1), the article has deteriorated both in prose quality and NPOV/DUE content. It is moreover now subject to edit wars, or disputes over content, that violate Featured Article Criteria 1 (e). One solution to dealing with this dilemma is to request that the FA status be withdrawn and let the new editors take it for an FA run at the time of their choosing. Alternatively, we can let these editors edit the article as an ordinary article, without restriction, and then in one month's time, have them nominate the article for an FAR. If they are able to have the article retain its FA status, more power to them; otherwise, let the article have a Wikipedia imprimatur which reflects its true quality. The best Wikipedia articles are true collaborations, however, what the article had become on January 1 was looking more and more like something falsely piggybacking on earlier work that had brought the article WP recognition. For that version was also violating Featured Article Criteria 1 (a) and 1 (d). It also had image overload with falsely summarized edits, for how does an editor add ten images to an FA in one edit with edit summary, "tweak"? It was not the only such example. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler, King Zebu, and Highpeaks35: I requested a procedural close for the Featured article review, which was accepted by the FAR coordinators. See the "Coordinator note" at the bottom for details. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've created a subpage titled Wikipedia India-related featured pictures. Featured Pictures are Wikipedia's best pictures, in the same way that Featured Articles are the best articles. However, since featured pictures are contributed by excellent photographers, indeed professional photographers, their subjects will depend on the photographers interests as well as the photographic opportunities available to them. In other words they cannot be expected to be balanced with respect to region, gender, ethnicity, etc. But by judiciously choosing from them, balance can be maintained. The India FA has ten, which are not shown in that page.
All the 71 pictures currently in the India page can be seen on another subpage: Images in FA India. The ten featured pictures there are marked with a star. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Could @Frietjes: please explain why you changed (in this edit of 12 August 2015) the cyclic rotation of image groups, which would increment the image in the image stack by one each time the cache was emptied, to a random selection, which in the long run will display all images with the same frequency, but in the short, can result in repetition of some images and the absence of others? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm open to discuss my edit from november. The current reasoning doesn't appear logical to me. The finding is rather recent and hence couldn't be there from the glorious FAR times. What's wrong in completing the stone age period with the paleolithic age? And how can the second oldest human culture in the world not be of significance? Please don't say something like "because it was always like this and that on this page... ", which is barely helpful for an ever evolving community project like wikipedia --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.