Revision as of 06:50, 10 May 2016 editMd iet (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,823 edits →Request for adding IAST of India← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:49, 21 January 2025 edit undoMoxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors130,787 edits →Bringing the article back to FA standard: ReplyTag: Reply |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|ipa}} |
|
|
{{Vital article|topic=Geography|level=3|class=FA}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}} |
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
{{Indian English}} |
Line 10: |
Line 8: |
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|action1oldid=5945311 |
|
|action1oldid=5945311 |
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2date=11 Apr 2005 |
|
|action2date=11 Apr 2005 |
Line 15: |
Line 14: |
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|action2oldid=12191859 |
|
|action2oldid=12191859 |
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAR |
|
|action3=FAR |
|
|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006 |
|
|action3date=15:45, 6 May 2006 |
Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
|action3result=kept |
|
|action3result=kept |
|
|action3oldid=51836931 |
|
|action3oldid=51836931 |
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAR |
|
|action4=FAR |
|
|action4date=14:15, 28 July 2011 |
|
|action4date=14:15, 28 July 2011 |
Line 25: |
Line 26: |
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|action4oldid=441811169 |
|
|action4oldid=441811169 |
|
|
|
|
|maindate=December 3, 2004 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
|maindate=December 3, 2004 |
|
|small=yes |
|
|
|
|maindate2=October 2, 2019 |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-08-15|otd1oldid=5256057 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-08-15|otd2oldid=21044027 |
|
|
|otd3date=2011-08-15|otd3oldid=444882019 |
|
|
|otd4date=2012-11-26|otd4oldid=524820236 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA |vital=yes |collapsed=yes |listas=India|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top |india=Yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=Top |portal=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=Top }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |user=Twofingered Typist |date=21 September 2019}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ipa|protection=ecp}} |
|
|
{{Press|collapsed=yes|date=17 August 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=] |date2=27 August 2009 |url2=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6099890/Wikipedia-Top-20-people-places-film-and-technology-articles.html|title2=Misplaced Pages: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles |org2=] |author2=James Steyn |date3=4 July 2015 |url3=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-vandals-of-Wiki/articleshow/47941452.cms |title3=The Vandals of Wiki |org3=] |author3=Sandhya Soman}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = speedy |
|
|
| text = <big><big><big>'''PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME'''</big></big><br>If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the ] (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see ], where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.</big> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|151}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 report|Aug 11 2013|Oct 20 2013|until|Nov 24 2013|Dec 8 2013|Dec 29 2013|until|Jan 19 2014}} |
|
|
{{Spoken article requested|{{U|Sdkb}}|Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{On this day|date1=2004-08-15|oldid1=5256057|date2=2005-08-15|oldid2=21044027|date3=2011-08-15|oldid3=444882019|date4=2012-11-26|oldid4=524820236}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|class=FA|importance=Top|portal=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject South Asia|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages|India.ogg}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|importance=Top|class=FA|category=Geography|VA=yes|coresup=yes}}}} |
|
|
{{Press|date=17 August 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=]}} |
|
|
{{press|date=August 27, 2009|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6099890/Wikipedia-Top-20-people-places-film-and-technology-articles.html|title=Misplaced Pages: Top 20 people, places, film and technology articles|org=]|author=James Steyn|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{Press|date=4 July 2015|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/The-vandals-of-Wiki/articleshow/47941452.cms |title=The Vandals of Wiki |org=] |author=Sandhya Soman}} |
|
|
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|India}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes }} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
|
|counter = 60 |
|
|maxarchivesize = 500K |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|counter = 39 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:India/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13#ভাৰত}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes: |
|
|
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/India/ |
|
|
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://zsi.gov.in/right_menu/Animal_disc/Animal%20Discovery%202011.pdf |
|
|
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/Pages/default.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|
|
*http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/India/ |
|
|
*https://web.archive.org/web/20110520002800/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/India/ |
|
|
*http://zsi.gov.in/right_menu/Animal_disc/Animal%20Discovery%202011.pdf |
|
|
*https://web.archive.org/web/20130116214754/http://zsi.gov.in/right_menu/Animal_disc/Animal%20Discovery%202011.pdf |
|
|
*http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/Pages/default.aspx |
|
|
*https://web.archive.org/web/20070708223143/http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/hotspots_by_region/Pages/default.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Belated note re my edit of 11:01, 1 April 2016. I noted at that time that there were two non-working, non-archival links, without putting under separate sourcecheck template. ] (]) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alternate name '''Bharat''' == |
|
|
India is known by the name '''Bharat''' by billions people. It's constitution declare the name of country as 'India, that is Bharat' (please refer: ; Indian constitution writes: + "PART I-THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY--1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States"}. |
|
|
|
|
|
The name being recognized since origin of the country cannot be ignored in the lead Para. It is synonym of India and to be read along with India there. |
|
|
|
|
|
The revision done was deleted on the plea that it is making leads clumsy and Sanskrit translation already exist. First of all "bharat" is not at all a Sanskrit translation of India and it is the name in itself being recognized by billions people. ' Bharat Ghanrajya' word is mentioned as alternate of Indian republic. The country's single word name is India that is "Bharat" and this is no where declared in the lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is on the country and it's main name recognized by billions of people in the world justify its inclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is suggested that First letter of the lead Para "India" to be replaced by "India that is Bharat".--] (]) 10:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This seems to be not the first time this has been proposed. While making proposing changes on talk be sure to check the old discussions, for example a in the archives show ], etc.] (]) 12:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks ], There was fruitful discussion and if I am right the point arrived was that 'India' as well as 'Bharat' are name of the country and the only requirement is reliable consensus's secondary source. Let us try to find proper source and add the name 'Bharat' which is a 'personnel noun', being known/called by billions English speaking people, not a property of any particular language.--] (]) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Not sure what is wrong with the current lead sentence which mentions Bharat, it doesnt need any more as it is clearly not the common name in English. ] (]) 21:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for joining discussion. To know the right or wrong thing one has to go deep in the history of the country. To make the lead complete the name of the subject (country here) to be introduced properly. Name is name it cannot be related to one language. When the name is known to billions of English knowing people, to define it common or not is not a difficult task. |
|
|
|
|
|
To make the inclusion justified here are the secondary sources and statement recorded which are self explanatory: |
|
|
{{collapse top|sources}} |
|
|
1.Please refer ‘India, that is Bharat…’: One Country, Two Names |
|
|
Catherine Clémentin-Ojha ; "In 1950, four years after the publication of Nehru’s Discovery of India, the drafters of the Constitution of the larger of the two successor states of British India decided how the country should be known. In the opening article of the Constitution of India they wrote: ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’.Two names: one, India, associated with the foreigners whose rule was coming to an end; the other, Bharat (skt. bhārata, also bhāratavarṣa), perceived as native because it was found in ancient Sanskrit literature. Henceforward no other name besides these two was to be used legally. In this juridico-political conception, India and Bharat were to be interchangeable terms." |
|
|
|
|
|
2. CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME IX |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion in Indian parliament on Sunday, the 18th September 1949: |
|
|
|
|
|
"That in amendment No. 130 of List IV (Eighth Week), for the proposed clause (1) of article 1, the following be substituted : |
|
|
The Assembly divided by show of hands: Ayes: 38, Noes: 51. The amendment was negatived. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.President : There is no other amendment except the one moved by Dr. Ambedkar himself, as amended by his own amendment No. 197. |
|
|
|
|
|
"That for clauses (1) and (2) of article I the following clauses be substituted: |
|
|
'(1 ) India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States. |
|
|
(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be the States and their territories for the time being specified in Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule."' |
|
|
The amendment was adopted" |
|
|
|
|
|
3. Indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-india-that-is-bharat: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The Home Ministry has responded to a few RTI applications in the past wherein applicants had sought to know the official name of this country. In one response, the Ministry had said “no information on the subject”. In another, it had reproduced Article 1.1. - See more at: |
|
|
|
|
|
It also cites Sanskrit literature and scriptures to argue that this country has been known as ‘Bharat’ since for time immemorial. - See more at: , Explained: The India, that is Bharat |
|
|
|
|
|
There were other objections on phraseology, but Article 1.1 ultimately got through in its original form." |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
The above reference clearly state that 'this country has been known as ‘Bharat’ since for time immemorial' and the name part 'India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States', is well debated in parliament as early as in 1949 and further clarified by home ministry in recent years as reported in well known English newspaper 'Indian Express'.--] (]) 16:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:And clearly the lead is fine as it as as Bharat is not a term used in English and as the country did not exist before 1947 then it is unlikely to have been called anything "since time immemorial" as it didnt exist. ] (]) 18:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Reply: Please be serious, Sri Lanka was not a term used in English and not known to outer world doesn't mean that Sri Lanka did not exist before its official name change. Same is the case with 'Bharat', the name is existing 'from time immemorial' but officially adopted since 1949 along with 'India' and recorded as ' India, that is Bharat'.--] (]) 12:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: {{ping|Md iet}} I don't know what you are going on about. '''''Bharat Ganarajya''''' is right there on the first line in bold. What more do you want? -- ] (]) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Dear {{ping|Kautilya3}} I am not trying any thing rocket science. '''''Bharat Ganarajya''''' is right there '''but''' as a alternate word of "Indian Republic" that too under explanatory bracket. This is article on the most populous democratic country known as India/Bharat amongst billion of English readers and clearly written in country's English constitution and well debated in secondary English sources pointed out above. I simply want that Misplaced Pages also as free and fair encyclopedia mention the same at least in the lead para and the lead should start with both name 'India' as well 'Bharat'. This is not something new. Look at other articles, even personnel names are written in full in the lead Para at least.--] (]) 12:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Ok, I added ''Bharat'' there, just like it is done for ]. -- ] (]) 13:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks, Bharat is not a Sanskrit translation of India but name in itself. Now it is better; mentioned in some form or other, but it should have been mentioned as 'India(Bharat)' or 'India, that is Bharat' as mentioned for Myanmar as Myanmar(Burma) in the same lead.--] (]) 11:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Myanmar includes Burma because both are recognizable alternative English names for the country. Bharat is not an English name for India.--] <small>(])</small> 12:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Fact that Bharat is alternative name, understood and referred by billions English literates is obvious and referred in well known sources. RegentsPark, could you elaborate about the recognizing authorities?--] (]) 11:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::]. Reliable English language sources use Myanmar and Burma. However, they don't use Bharat instead of India. --] <small>(])</small> 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)--] <small>(])</small> 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: {{done}}. Md iet, your concern has been taken care of. You need to move on. -- ] (]) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Still dont believe that you had a consensus for the change as we have no evidence that it is a common name in English, big difference in dual-language Indians understanding the word and the rest of the English speaking world who clearly would not understand what you were talking about. ] (]) 07:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The point is that both India and ''Bharat'' are official names of the country. I had assumed that ''Bharat Ganarajya'' mentioned in a separate parenthetical remark was enough. But at least some people don't find it enough. I don't think we have any policy against including the other names used for countrie, irrespective of what the English speaking world understands. -- ] (]) 18:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I disagree. Bharat is not the English name for India. This article is really the ] whose current popular name in English is India. We do mention the Hindi name for the Republic of India. Bharat is not the present-day popular name of the Republic of India in English. This point has come up many times before during the ten years I have been on Misplaced Pages and longer discussions have been held in the past. I noticed too that someone has added Angus Maddison's garbage to the lead. I will throw this in the trash where it belongs. That India was the world's richest, greenest, land of milk and honey is a good fantasy, but you have to realize that the Indian economy was largely stagnant from 1700 to 1757. During the previous two centuries, the European economies were growing. Mr Maddison's historical estimates have been widely criticized, and the critical reviews of which too I have added somewhere in the archives, if you sift through them. (Added later: I found a few. See ].) I am removing both Bharat and the Maddison garbage until there is scholarly consensus here on it. This is a Misplaced Pages ], the oldest country FA on Misplaced Pages. It has had three Featured Article reviews since 2004, when it first became an FA. Please read ]. We too have read the preamble and the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Constitution of India, many, many times, more times in fact than the times people have attempted to enlighten us about the framers' original intent. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If you have a burning desire to add content to Misplaced Pages, this is not the place to start, especially not the lead. Find the millions of articles on India that are languishing in the gutters of neglect and disrepair, and fix them. ]] 03:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Thanks Fowler, for your valuable inputs and advice. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bharat is quite common name in Indian Peninsula having billions of population knowing English and getting advantage of en. Misplaced Pages. If the popular name of the country in English is 'India', we should have alternate name of this in lead rather of 'Republic of India'. I think we don't need any further consensus for this and I am making the correction. |
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose Misplaced Pages just present well sourced material in its articles and works on more with consensus rather then other qualified definitions like garbage, European/ non European or writer specific comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
India/Bharat had enjoyed a great prosperity for centuries together during changeover period from BCE to CE period and "1700 to 1757" or "previous two centuries ..European economies.." do not make any difference to this fact. I am presenting this fact as per well known sources, hope this will be liking of most.--] (]) 04:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Mdjet, you don't have consensus for adding Bharat. You need to make the case that Bharat is an alternative English name for India. You need to provide sufficient numbers of English language sources that use Bharat instead of India to make your case. We can't merely work with what you think is correct. --] <small>(])</small> 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Here at present I am not adding Bharat as alternate English name but as a Sanskrit translation common to billions of people. It was already there as of 'Indian Republic' and now I am making lead more simple by deleting Sanskrit "ganrajya" word which is not required here in lead. Hope this do not need any further English language sources and general editors may agree for this change.--] (]) 01:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== <s>Double standards against</s> Hindi and other Indian languages<s>on so-called neutral Misplaced Pages</s> == |
|
|
<s>अंग्रेज़ी विकिपीडिया पर हिन्दी के विरुद्ध दोहरा मापदण्ड। अंग्रेज़ी विकि पर देशों से सम्बन्धित सभी लेखो में यह चलन है कि उस देश की आधिकारिक भाषा(ओं) में भी उस देश का नाम उपलब्ध कराया जएगा। लेकिन इस लेख में ऐसा नहीं है। क्या ऐसा करने का कोई विशेष कारण है? क्या हिन्दी में भारत गणराज्य लिखने से पृष्ठ सही से नहीं दिखेगा?</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
It is an accepted practise on all English Misplaced Pages articles that in a country article page, name in its official languages is also provided. But in case of this article Hindi the first official language of India has been omitted. Can I ask any special reason for this or it is all an overall coordinated attempt to remove Indian languages? I don't think adding name in India's first official language will break the page while pages on all other countries articles are running smoothly even with their non-Latin scripts. ] (]) 17:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: See ]. -- ] (]) 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a line that say"India has no national language." India's Official Language is Hindi - <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:See the answer to Q9 in the FAQ at the top of this page. --] <small>(])</small> 13:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
==Request for adding translation of India== |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
it is proposed that in the lead first sentence Sanskrit translation of 'India' is to be added and translation of 'Indian republic' can be deleted as translation of word republic is not so important and not required in the lead. --] (]) 04:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{nd}}. This isn't a semi-protected edit request, consensus above is clearly against this idea, unless that changes this shouldn't happen. —]''']''' 04:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Don't be in so hurry to reject the idea just on a first glance. As I was adding the format X to Y , you have documented your judgment, excellent. This is public English encyclopedia, only time will decide what should happen. The above discussion was for the addition of alternate English name but this request is with totally different criteria. Let the people respond and then consensus would be decided. I am presenting the request again as a perfect semi-protected edit request, let the people read it and then decide accordingly.--] (]) 05:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
==Request for adding ] of India== |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes }} |
|
|
Please change ‘X’: |
|
|
|
|
|
'India, officially the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.' |
|
|
|
|
|
to ‘Y’: |
|
|
|
|
|
'India (IAST: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India , is a country in South Asia.' |
|
|
|
|
|
] of ’India’ is only required then of the ‘Republic of India’. This will make the sentence less clumpsy and more fruitful.--] (]) 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please stop misusing semi-protected requests, your behavior is becoming disruptive now. Establish consensus, that's all there is to it. —]''']''' 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Thanks for making me aware of the use of this template. I request editors to please go through the above change request and contribute with your valuable comments. --] (]) 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
==Request for adding ] of India== |
|
|
If there is no further improvement suggested to the change proposed just above, can we presume consensus on above?--] (]) 04:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:The consensus above is clearly against what you are proposing, nothing has changed, no new reasons have been put forth to support your proposal. —]''']''' 04:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As reasoned above, the new change proposed is : |
|
|
|
|
|
Please change ‘X’: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024 == |
|
'India, officially the Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia.' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
to ‘Y’: |
|
|
|
India's population is 1,457,248,665 as of Friday, December 27, 2024<ref>{{cite web |last1=2024 |first1=India Population |title=India Population 2024 |url=https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ |website=morldometer |publisher=worldometer |access-date=27 December 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: Worldometer is unreliable. ] (]|]) 10:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
'India (IAST: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India , is a country in South Asia.' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Ref-talk}} |
|
Explanation which was not discussed at all is: |
|
|
I am not adding 'Bharat' here as alternate English name but as a ] common to billions of people. It was already there in term 'Republic of India (IAST: Bhārat Gaṇarājya)', now I am making lead more simple by deleting Sanskrit translation "ganrajya" which is not required in lead sentence, in place required translation 'Bharat' is added for India, in beginning itself. Hope this do not need any further English language sources for justification and, editors may agree for this change.--] (]) 02:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. —]''']''' 02:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is no specific objections to this simplification suggestion so far, making the first sentence of the lead short and less clumsy. Any further comments if any are welcome.--] (]) 03:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Hope by now I can presume having consensus for doing above simplification, and proceeding for the same.--] (]) 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)--] (]) 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Reordering sentence in the lead == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. ] (]) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. --> |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I '''support''' this. The current sentence framing has stayed the same since before India surpassed China in terms of population. I think its due for a change now ] (]) 19:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
|
:I '''support''' this aswell. ]] 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 05:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Support expressed by two editors is not consensus. Please don't change the order. Please see ] ]] 12:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Blank request — ] <small>(]'''·'''])</small> 06:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016 == |
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2025 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit extended-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
|
] (]) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. --> |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
Vital to India's self-image as an independent nation was its constitution, completed in 1950, which put in place a secular and democratic republic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same |
|
needs to be changed. remove the secular part. India isn't a secular state, Not all religions are allowed to practice their methods. For example the Beef Ban in states of India. |
|
|
|
: Not done. Edit requests should be uncontroversial and backed by RS. ] (]) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 07:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:This article isn't for rants, it's meant to document what reliable sources consider important and have to say about it. —]''']''' 07:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== {{small|<s>Minor</s>}} changes to discuss per ] == |
|
== Request for updation of Neighbouring Country == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#{{xt|The railway network provided critical famine relief, {{red|notably}} reduced the cost of moving goods...}} |
|
Afghanistan is also India's neighbouring country |
|
|
|
# {{xt|{{red|No doubt}} the style of these was used in larger paintings.}} |
|
:India and afghanistan don't share a border so it is not a neighboring country. --] <small>(])</small> 00:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The lines above could be found in subsection ] and ] respectively. The words 'notably' and 'no doubt', although informative the first glance, bring in unnecessary editorialisation. In the first sentence 'noted' puts a subjective emphasisation over the second part without attributing it as an opinion. Similarly the second sentence could also be reframed to remove 'No doubt' which is an clear example of "editoring", but also ironically produces a subtle doubt. Thanks, {{User:ExclusiveEditor/Signature}} 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"Notably," in the modern India section has the meaning of "especially," or "in particular," not "in a notable manner," or "strikingly," which perhaps could be a form of editorialization. |
|
== Indians == |
|
|
|
:With "No doubt," in the Visual Art section, perhaps, I have more sympathy with your concern, but in this instance too, the expresson can be used with the meaning of "with certainty," or "with good likelihood." In a signed paper encyclopedia article, say, in ''Britannica'', where an expert is writing and has some leeway in the use of idiomatic language—contrasted with the formal for making the article more readable for an ordinary reader—examples abound. Thus, in the article in ''Britannica'' art historian ] writes, "Moreover, he was no doubt enticed by Duke ]’s brilliant court and the meaningful projects awaiting him there." I tried looking in , the cited source, at achive.org, but lack the knowledge to make any judgments. In this instance, I would defer to ], who wrote the Visual Arts section, and who is our resident arts history expert. Perhaps, they might have something to say. |
|
|
:Thank you ] for bringing this up. Not too many editors notice these things. I wouldn't however call your proposed edits "minor." This article is WP's oldest country Featured Article, now 20 years old. This gives me a chance to remember those who have brought it to where it is, in particular ], administrator and arbitrator, who began the drive for more featured articles on ]-related topics and inspired many of us, including ] and ]. Also, in September 2019, in preparation for this article's second ] appearance on 2 October to mark Gandhi's 150th, it was copyedited by the late ], the Lead Coordinator at the time of ], and a member of the ] ]] 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::On "no doubt": it is a common thing in the art history of older periods that a whole class of objects such as wall-paintings have vanished, but smaller works such as miniatures have survived. In cases where some large as well as small works have survived (egt European ]), their basic styles are normally very similar, so the presumption that this will be the case is often made. Sometimes discoveries are made that confirm this. Some editors think that it is possible to write about the art history of the fragmentary remains from remote periods with the same precision and certainty as (some) subujects from, say, science or geography. It isn't. I don't know what you mean by "editoring", but as we are "editors", this is presumably a good thing. An element of "subtle doubt" is also ok, as no actual examples have survived. We could say "probably", "presumably" etc, but I see no need for a change. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
==Bringing the article back to FA standard== |
|
|
I have just read ]'s caution in ] of late November 2023. I have also noticed that nothing much has happened in its wake, for no fault of anyone but my own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although my heart is not in this article any more, I have had such a long history here that I feel a certain amount of responsibility for not letting it go to dogs. |
|
{{edit semi-protected|India|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. --> |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
1. Mahatma Gandhi |
|
|
2. Sunder Pichai |
|
|
3. Satya Nadella |
|
|
4. Indira Nui |
|
|
5. Sachin Tendulkar |
|
|
6. Amitabh Bachchan |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 04:07, 1 May 2016 (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.<!-- Template:EP --> <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I won't formally begin an FAR process just yet, but I will improve it so the FAR itself is not fraught with people pointing out the very obvious things we all know we should have done. Please bear with me. ]] 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== Representation of territories == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:*I have reduced the lead from 751 words to 656. I don't think it can be reduced much further, unless one wants self-satisfied descriptions in blue-linked simple sentences like other country articles, including FAs. India's ancient history alone has a longer span than the histories of many nations. ]] 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
The map shows the portion of Kashmir under the occupation of Pakistan as "Pakistani territory claimed by India". That is an incorrect description. The correct description should be "Indian territory occupied by Pakistan". Here is the reason: |
|
|
|
:<s>*:@] Everything which had a little positive thing about India and Hinduism, you removed all in last many edits very cleverly without any discussion. Looks like you owns the India page that how it should be presented to the world. You removed Rigveda, Spiritual teaching, ISRO mention without discussion. ] (]) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</s> |
|
In 1947 when the British left India, the nation was split into Pakistan (East and West), India, and Kashmir was an independent state. The King of Kashmir had a choice to make to join one of the two nations and chose to join India (or was persuaded). After that Kashmir became one of the states in India. It is known that when this happened the population of Kashmir had a slight Muslim majority and the King was Hindu. However, that is beside the point. |
|
|
|
::* While the length is what it is, the more it could be pared back, the more that could be said about the current country. SandyGeorgia mentioned a need throughout to shift to sub-articles, there do seem to be obvious options. We probably don't need the specific list of endangered species here for example, but it's not on the subarticle. Might put duplicating biodiversity down on my to-do list. ] (]) 15:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
After this Pakistan launched a series of invasions into Kashmir and when the last war ended, the two sides agreed to a "Line of Control". So there is a large piece of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan. The Indian government still recognizes this part to be part of India but, controlled by Pakistan. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
::<s>*:@] Even India's involvement in G20, Brics, QUAD etc is not mentioned in lead. Lead is completely not up.to the bar as per India's importance to the world right now. ] (]) 16:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
::*::Possibly those are examples of information on the current country, although we'd have to get those into the body first. ] (]) 16:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::*<s>:::@] Evaluation of India page lead is much much needed. ] (]) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
::*::: is the version of the article that appeared on the Misplaced Pages front page on Gandhi's 150th anniversary on 2nd October 2019, after a two month discussion on the talk page which was both commented on and overseen by dozens of editors, including administrators. The list of G20, etc, passing associations of the moment, have never been a part of the lead of this page ]] 11:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::*::::''Britannica'', for example, makes no mention of G20, or the rest of the fluff, in its article on India, last updated a few days ago. ]] 11:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::*:The endangered species in the Biodiversity section have been a part of the article since 2007. I doubt they can be removed. ]] 11:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::*::I do not feel the individual species and the occasional longer explanation, for the endangered and the extinct species, significantly contributes to reader understanding of India. The broader statistics, description of human encroachment, and government initiatives provide a succinct overview. ] (]) 12:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::*:::The <s>article</s> {{tq|section}} is about biodiversity, not Homo sapiens-managed biodiversity, and especially not elected government advertised biodiversity. ]] 13:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}Welcome to Misplaced Pages {{user|Itsjustme555}}! I have pared the lead down a little. ] had suggested a 400-word limit somewhere. It is 650 now. Next, I will revise the history subsections and look for higher-level descriptions of the two history paragraphs. ]] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Note''' Unfortunately, just as I was sitting down to plan the revision, I received news of a family health emergency requiring me to take time off Misplaced Pages for at least several months. I am sorry. Perhaps others will work on this article. Soft pinging ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and many others whose names I can't recall this very minute. Best regards, ]] 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:The article takes a more balanced view of the situation as covered by reliable sources rather than just Indian ones, have a read of ] and ] for more background information. ] (]) 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:I'm sorry to hear of your emergency. Having read the notice, I agree that those issues need handling, but most of them are matters of summary style and formatting that most editors are capable of handling, and even the dated information that I have seen is relatively straightforward. The biggest challenge might be summarizing recent political developments. The posts above from a blocked sock (Itsjustme555)d can be entirely ignored. ] (]) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Thank you {{re|Vanamonde93}}. Before I log out, I wanted to say that there's an old saying: "Man proposes. God disposes." As a neo-Darwinian agnostic of some shade, I take that to mean that purposefulness in humans (or other organisms) functions within an unpredictable external and internal environment. All the best in this revision. ]] 16:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::'''Notes''' about the page's history. (A day later, what I face is still a health emergency though not my own, but taking my cue from ]'s example, I will be around to attend to some urgent tasks. With this in mind here are a few notes): |
|
|
*:::*] has rewritten the ] section within the last few years. |
|
|
*:::*] has rewritten the ] section within the last few years. |
|
|
*:::*] has added the ] subsection within the last few years. |
|
|
*:::*I have: |
|
|
*::::*added the ] and ] sections in September 2019 for the page's ] appearance in October that year. |
|
|
*::::*have written and occasionally rewritten the ], ] (with ]) and ] (also with ]) sections over the years. |
|
|
*::::*rewrote the lead over the summer of 2019, with new citations and quotes, the latter to help with the rewriting especially of the history sections, which never took place. This explains the disparity between the two history paragraphs of the lead and the ] sections. It is the latter content that has to be rewritten in light of the newer sources, and then reduced. |
|
|
*:::Here is what I can see doing (in this morning's altered horizons): |
|
|
*:::*I can rewrite the three ] sections; update the ], ] sections; and reduce the ] and ] sections. |
|
|
*:::*The remaining sections, however: |
|
|
*::::*] |
|
|
*::::*] (Hmm. Not sure the "strategic" was originally there. Please check with other country FAs) |
|
|
*::::*] |
|
|
*::::*] |
|
|
*:::*and also subsections: |
|
|
*::::*] (unless ] got to it, but I doubt it ...) |
|
|
*::::*] |
|
|
*::::*] (overlong and semantically chaotic) |
|
|
*::::*], and |
|
|
*::::*], will all need the work and input of others. |
|
|
*:::Perhaps ] could take the lead in organizing this task, with the help of ] and ]. Others, such as the editors I have soft-pinged above, and also ], ], ] and ] could perhaps help out. I am sure I am forgetting some valuable others. Please excuse. ]] 12:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Thanks for the update. My RL commitments continue to be large and unpredictable - I am incapable of taking the lead on anything, but I will chip away as I can. {{pb}} The demography and religion sections seems largely fine to me, as is literature, society, and biodiversity - nothing there is changing terribly quickly. Ditto politics and government, unless someone feels that democratic backsliding now needs to be covered (in a section that has about 3 sentences for any administration, I'm not sure that it does). Perhaps a post at INB would be useful for updates to Economy? ] (]) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::looking good...do we need source clutter in lead? and ....need to fix the huge image problems...that is whole article horizontal scrolling and sandwiching. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Symbol infobox in government section == |
|
== Removal of Disputed Territories == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm uncertain of the utility of this infobox. It seems to me that if a national symbol is important enough to be in this article, it should be in the primary infobox at the top, as indeed many (currency, language, national anthem, song) appropriately are. Does it make sense to have a secondary infobox, though? ] (]) 17:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
As per a recent Government of India directive, depiction of PoK and Arunachal as disputed territories would mean jail time for the editor who puts up the image. Here's the complete source: http://www.businessinsider.in/PoK-and-Arunachal-as-disputed-territories/articleshow/52129850.cms <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think there was consensus in a recent talk page discussion for removing the infobox altogether. The symbols are the work of the governments of the day, which have their own axes to grind; their notability is not subject-specific scholarly. The flag, anthems and other major symbols have had secondary- and tertiary source attention. But these other symbols have had little or none attention as ''symbols''. ]] 12:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Perhaps needs to be mentioned at ] but not really relevant here. ] (]) 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::PS Some, such as the ], a highly endangered blind river dolphin, could appear in Biodiversity, but its status as a national symbol should play no role in that appearance. ]] 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. IRN-Dumas (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same
Although my heart is not in this article any more, I have had such a long history here that I feel a certain amount of responsibility for not letting it go to dogs.
I won't formally begin an FAR process just yet, but I will improve it so the FAR itself is not fraught with people pointing out the very obvious things we all know we should have done. Please bear with me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm uncertain of the utility of this infobox. It seems to me that if a national symbol is important enough to be in this article, it should be in the primary infobox at the top, as indeed many (currency, language, national anthem, song) appropriately are. Does it make sense to have a secondary infobox, though? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)