This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc?
A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC.
Q5: Why was my image or external link removed?
A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL.
Q6: The map is wrong!
A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.
Q7: India is a superpower!
A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE.
Q8: Delhi is a state!
A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule.
Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport!
A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 September 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
Please read before posting an edit request about changing the country name If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the commonly-used name (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see Turkey, where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 151 million views since December 2007.
The rationale behind the request is: "Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners".
Per WP:FAR, I am providing notice that I intend to initiate the first step of the featured article review process. The main concern I have is the poor prose and bloatedness of the lead. This was initially brought up by me in an August 2024 discussion. Although there have been marginal improvements since then, it is still far from FA acceptable. I note that there may be (and likely are) other issues besides the lead to be discovered in the review process, but for simplicity I will focus exclusively on the lead.
A table detailing concerns is below.
Changes to the second sentence are being discussed above, but it is unlikely that consensus will be reached which resolves the concerns of concision, clarity and redundancy which have been raised.
#
Readability issue found in the lead
Guideline(s) breached
1
Unprofessional and unaesthetic prose. For example, the second sentence chains together three clauses with semicolons producing a long, choppy construction with excessive and semi-redundant information inappropriate for a summary. ('most populous country', 'most populous democracy').
MOS:LEAD (clarity and concision), WP:FA ("well-written")
2
Excessive citations, including for uncontroversial claims.
Several very detailed factual statements (e.g., "Their long occupation, predominantly in isolation as hunter-gatherers, has made the region highly diverse, second only to Africa in human genetic diversity") exceed level warranted by lead, which exists to summarize.
Descriptive flourish and flattery (e.g., “leaving a legacy of luminous architecture”, "a pioneering and influential nationalist movement") introduces a promotional and unencyclopedic tone.
Frequent redundancy. For instance, three near-synonymous modifiers in one sentence – “pluralistic, multilingual and multi-ethnic society” – create redundancy and slow the pace. "Pluralistic" alone could be fine.
The separate distinction of the most populous democracy has been discussed above. "Luminous" is perhaps promotional, but "pioneering" and "influential" seem less so. Point 6 is wrong, those terms are not synonymous. CMD (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussed above but it seems increasingly clear that it will not be significantly changed (that said, if I am later proven wrong and it is changed, you may disregard this). MOS:PUFFERY explicitly lists "pioneering" as a word to watch. Point 6 says "near-synonymous", not "synonymous"; they're sufficiently similar that using three separate adjectives is not very informative and the singular "pluralistic" suffices. JDiala (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FAR is not meant to be a run-around for consensus decisions that someone disagrees with. A word to watch is not a word to never use, and pluralistic does not cover the overlapping demographic complexity here. CMD (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely the purpose of FAR to potentially downgrade articles when editors of that article fail to uphold FA standards. The issues here are longstanding and independent of the above discussion. "Pioneering" is a puffery word and the fact that it was explicitly listed there makes your point look silly. "Demographic complexity" seems like a good thing to cover in a body, not in a lead, which is intended to be concise. JDiala (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed many times. Your view is your view, but a few prose points are not sufficient for a FAR. CMD (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's your call to make. I plan on following the process through as far as I can. I'll be happy to expand on this by finding more issues. Anyways, this is a 2004 FA with its last FAR in 2011, it's overdue. JDiala (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A process in lieu of the FAR had taken place beginning in the summer of 2019, when a two-month review took place in preparation for the Wikipedia front page appearance on Gandhi's 150 birth anniversary on 2 October 2019. At that time not only was the lead revised in the presence of a couple of dozen reviewers including eight or nine administrators, but India#Cuisine and India#Clothing were addes; and during COVID when more sections were added. Among them were India#Visual_arts by Johnbod; India#Education by Rjensen; India#Energy by Femke. SandyGeorgia and and user:Flemmish Nietzsche had discussed what else was needed, but it was not much. Otherwise, I would not have taken on the responsibility of the successful Darjeeling FAR in the summer of 2022. (See here and slowly scroll to the bottom to see the extensive review.)
I have not edited India specifically but I have edited India-adjacent articles extensively, including a substantial copy edit of the Sikhism article last summer. I have also participated on the India talk page extensively.
I haven't seen the 2019 discussion, but I am skeptical that a non-FAR discussion could be had in lieu of a formal FAR. I doubt it could be as rigorous. I would need to read through that discussion to form a solid opinion. JDiala (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The '2019 review' was performed almost exclusively by regulars on the article. That kind of defeats the purpose. JDiala (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how does that defeats it's purpose? These regulars you talk about are half a dozen sysops and other veteran editors who have worked in multiple featured articles and have have conducted FA reviews and GA reviews, with multiple successful FAC and GAC in their cap. That ought to count for something. The article has over 4000 watchers and these edits matter. Those discussions matter. This article is not a random article that is an FA. It has been very thoroughly copyedited and is in this shape right now. So, regulars or not, the opinions of those veterans do matter. When you come out of the blue with zero edits in this article with changes that the consensus doesn't agree to, and accuse those regulars of STONEWALLING and BLUDGEONING, that's simply ain't right and is slowly entering into the CIR territory. — Benison (Beni · talk) 08:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so confident about the editors and the editing history, then a FAR would be nothing to fear. I am sure you will pass with flying colours. My main concern is the experience of the end-user, not chest-thumping on talk pages. In my humble opinion, this article is ugly in a way that FAs like Germany, Japan and Canada are not and I have yet to see a convincing reason why this needs to be the case. I am not saying I am for sure right or that my opinion should trump consensus, but only that other eyes ought to look at the article. That's why the FAR process exists. JDiala (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point (1) is being discussed above. I, like CMD, agree that "luminuous" is probably an overkill (although we'll need to check the sources) but don't find merit in the other points.
Frankly, Jdiala, your participation at this page is increasingly looking to be a response to consensus not favoring you over F&f at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose with this pointy FAR appearing to be further escalation to you not getting your way in the lede discussion. And your rude "look silly" response to CMD, and latest battleground threat to "find more issues" etc (shouldn't you have done that before starting this section?!) is not encouraging. Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Luminous" has been discussed before in these pages, I'm pretty sure. Not only during the summer of 2019, but also once later. Not tonight, but I'll look for the discussion tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. Your theory is directly contradicted by the fact that I made an August 2024 post outlining the identical issue. I can point to similar battleground-y behaviour from other editors (being told to "shut up", worse than anything I might have said). "Finding more issues" is not a "battleground threat"; actually that's literally our job as editors, correcting existing problems. I was under the assumption that a poor prose in the lead is an adequate reason to do a FAR which is why I focused exclusively on that, but CMD hinted otherwise. That was the impetus for my response. I already had some potential non-lead issues in mind which is why I asserted that so confidently (for instance the global article length is exceeding the threshold specified by WP:ARTICLESIZE).
FA status is a matter of a community-level consensus. It cannot be overridden by local consensus. FAR occurs when consensus-building at the article talk page level fails to maintain FA status. It is eminently reasonable for an editor to initiate a FAR when, in his judgement, the local consensus is failing. Bullying or casting aspersions upon an editor for merely initiating this process is indicative of a poor collaborative culture on the talk page. JDiala (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edits are not the only form of contribution. Discussion also is. Generally speaking, I am circumspect when editing FAs and prefer to seek consensus first. This is why I am here on the talk page. I have worked on non-FA India-related articles, like Sikhism. JDiala (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are the changes happened since the last FARGIVEN. I had agreed back then (2023 November) that a rewrite was needed, but I think the article is in decent shape for a Featured Article now. This notice doesn't makes sense, citing MOS issues which can be fixed (if required) by getting a consensus here. JDiala needs to calm down a bit and reasses the situation after taking a step back, IMO. I'm not sure of their history with F&F, but I'm sensing some kind of hostility here, and probably a COI. — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Benison, I have no idea who JDiala is. I doubt I had had any interaction with them on any other page, at least none that I can remember, before I met them on Subhas Chandra Bose a little over two weeks ago. They came riding roughshod into the article, making dubious racial comments, suggesting that the article reflected the viewpoints of White scholars. When I reverted them, and posted on their user talk page (see here), they cited Orientalism, and attempted to connect "White" with "Whiteness studies.
When they emerged from their two-week block (on another matter that same day), the first thing they did was to appear on Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose and wax incredulous about how we could have a viewpoint at such variance to what India's 1.4 billion people believe to be the truth about SCB. Since then it has gone from bad to worse. My citing WP:Sealioning was not done lightly. I have already mentioned this to Valereee to be a major India-topic-area concern. Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask editors to read both this article's talk page and the Bose talk page and make up their own minds. In this discussion, I have provided a detailed box labelling each of my individual concerns with the lead in a neat and professional manner. In the Bose article, which was a WP:OR dispute, I gave a detailed source-by-source analysis in a subsection. F&F, in each case, rather than engaging with the points raised mostly resorted to PAs and aspersions. F&F has a record of this conduct, for instance in a November 2020 discussion with another editor on a similar issue: a new editor to the area suggested an FA review and F&F was notably agitated and BATTLEGROUND-y in the interaction and was explicitly reprimanded by the administrator Femke for his rude conduct. This is just one example. This years-long pattern of WP:STONEWALLING, WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:OWNing by longstanding editors is a major reason new editors are unable to contribute effectively here. The existing 'old guard' editors make it a deeply unpleasant environment. See also comments by Moxy in the August 2024 discussion. This is why getting outside eyes on the article is a good idea. JDiala (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check: new editors are unable to contribute effectively here:
If they want to improve the article, they can. You know that from your own experience - for example, you raised an issue on the talk page,[1] and one of the so-called "longstanding editors" you complain about made the change you asked for.[2]
If they are only here to pick fights with other editors, this is the wrong forum for it – WP:ANI is the place for that.
This is no longer a FAR. This is moving into an ANI case now. I have replied above in terms of the BLUDGEONING and STONEWALLING comment. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 08:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, aside from some flowery language, much of the rest of the concerns you have raised seem exaggerated and overly hostile. For instance, the sixth issue you have raised, of the pluralistic line, doesn't seem to be an issue at all EarthDude (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback, although, given the views you have expressed in the above discussion, you seem to also have some criticisms of the second sentence (in the current status-quo form). JDiala (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead was discussed for several weeks, if not months, in the summer of 2019 before the article's second TFA appearance in October that year. See sections 1, 2, 4 and 6, in Talk:India/Archive_46. No one can say that a consensus was not attempted nor reached. Fowler&fowler«Talk»09:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS Where the current phrasing of the lead is different from the one above in archive 46, long discussions in the months and years after, lasting several weeks in each instance, eg, of Rig Veda, the pioneering and influential nationalist movement, the partition, the summary of East India Company rule in India, took place. I can cite chapter and verse of that history if anyone seriously objects. Fowler&fowler«Talk»09:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See for example, Talk:India/Archive_47#RfC_on_superlatives_sentence on the second sentence in the lead dating to nearly three weeks after the TFA appearance. It was very likely discussed again in later discussions. This reopened above by JDiala.
Talk:India/Archive_55#Wrong_link and this diff for "Its evidence today is found in the hymns of the Rig Veda. Preserved by a resolutely vigilant oral tradition, the Rig Veda records the dawning of Hinduism in India"
Finally, here are my posts and exchanges in thread Talk:India/Archive_60#Bringing_the_article_back_to_FA_standard before a RL emergency beset my work on WP. There are few things that do need to be done, but I did ping several editors and received responses from Vanamonde (and elsewhere from Benison, I believe, on improving the economy section. (Apologies, if it wasn't you.). But someone with no experience on this page, such as JDiala (who, in addition, has COI issues, to use Benison's term) is not the person to spearhead the small unfinished balance of what in effect has been a six-year-long FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS To whittle this down to an achievable task, here is what I can offer. As I wrote the current lead (with some later modifications), and the sections: history, geography, biodiversity, clothing, and cuisine, I am happy to revise them. Could some people please volunteer to review and, if necessary, revise the other sections? Johnbod has written the India#Visual_art section. Could they take a look at Architecture, Literature and Performing Arts? Rjensen wrote the Education section. Could they update it if need be? user:Moxy's image concerns should be addressed (certainly, sandwiching is not good.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Note: I will create a separate section for this content, so please do not respond here further. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the ping above. I took a quick look at the lead and some of the points mentioned are potential useful improvements to the lead, and some are preferences. Bullet points below:
I like cutting words when they are redundant, too much detail, or not needed. However, I think an article of this size can justify its current lead length (although a copyedit never hurts).
MOS:LEADCITE neither requires nor bans citations, so the citelead concerns can be discussed outside of a potential FAR. My personal preference is to reduce citations in article leads, and a routine check to ensure all information in the lead is cited in the article body would be helpful.
I think "pioneering" can be a little puffery: non-violent movements have been used in the past, and if it were to remain I would like a bit more explanation in the lead about what made it pioneering. Similarily, "leaving a legacy of luminous architecture" could probably also be worded better to avoid borderline puffery. Perhaps, "and building luminous architecture such as the Taj Mahal" or something similar.
I added two citation needed tags to the article which should probably be resolved. The article is over 10,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends trying to keep under 9,000 words: I usually recommend 2-4 paragraphs per heading, so sections larger than that could be candidates for reducing the word count. Overall, if I was reviewing the article I would not bring it to FAR, though there are places where the article can be even better. I haven't taken a deep dive into the article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Z1720. I will address some of your concerns by rewording or adding the context.
For example, the Indian nationalist movement was pioneering long before it became nonviolent. All anticolonial nationalist movements are in its debt. See (Marshall, P. J. (2001), The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, Cambridge University Press, p. 179, ISBN978-0-521-00254-7, The first modern nationalist movement to arise in the non-European empire, and one that became an inspiration for many others, was the Indian Congress. But I get your point. Pioneering in this context (for me) is not so much puffery (though it may sound so to others) as imprecision. I will address your other concerns, especially the caution about size. Fowler&fowler«Talk»`
@Fowler&fowler: I'm not against the lead saying that it is pioneering, but the lead should include a short statement on why sources state it is pioneering, which is then expanded upon in the article body. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited bandwidth to participate here. That said, none of the supposed issues warrant an FAR in my view, and some aren't issues at all. "It is a pluralistic, multilingual and multi-ethnic society" is patently not redundant. Citations in the lead are not prohibited, and in a contentious topic they enhance article stability. Contra the above, I don't think this needs extensive revision at all: it needs wordsmithing in some very specific areas (in the lead, I agree "luminous architecture" is odd, and genetic diversity is somewhat tangential, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, Sorry for the delay. I didn't get nuff time to drop by. But happy to see you all working on it. I'll have a look at it this weekend and if the discussions are still up, will add something. Please excuse me by then. Busy IRL. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde and Z1720 I've now addressed your critique of genetic diversity (I've removed its mention) and "luminous architecture" (I've removed the term and made it more precise). Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will start by ensuring that the references in India#History_2 are modern introductry college or graduate school textbooks published by scholarly publishers. For the history section of such a high-level article (similar to Wikipedia's "vital" articles), generalspecialist secondary sources, such as journal articles, are not appropriate unless they provide supporting vignettes to bolster claims in textbooks. See WP:TERTIARY for the role of textbooks in matters of due weight. I will also ensure that the listed references are indeed being cited in the article. Corrections in green added later. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that general textbooks can be removed, although academic sources that are an overview of history are considered high-quality (like a "History of India" book that is published by a university press). I like to improve the daughter articles first, then use the lead of those articles as the basis of the prose in the parent article. Then, I just need to use the best sources from the daughter article in the parent article (and maybe this will allow more articles to be nominated at WP:FA? Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies: I meant we will restrict for the most part to Introductory college and graduate school textbooks (such as the various titles, History of India, by Burton Stein, David Arnold, Peter Robb and so forth, and published by scholarly publishers such as Universilty Presses. Narrow focus sources, such as journal articles or monographs, will be included only when they provide supporting details to assertions in the textbooks. The restriction, which has long been a part of the history section here, ensures due weight in the sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The approach of going from daughter to mother articles has never worked in South Asia. One look at History of India, which is perennially embattled with POV issues, demonstrates that. When I arrived on WP, my mentor Nichalp, who had led the drive of more FAs in South Asia, favored improving the mother articles, and using the sections to be the leads (and NPOV templates) for expanding the daughter articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to bring this up here, but we've had a number of discussions before about some flaws in the lead. I'll copy from Talk:India/Archive 49#Discussion:
* Diversity: Dyson (2018) p.28 refers to ANI and ASI; the diversity is due to subsequent migrations, not to the long occupation of India by the first modern humans to arrive in India. * Social stratification: Dyson (2018) p.16 does not refer to "Hinduism," but to the Aryan culture which spread to the Ganges plain. Stein refers to "Vedic times," not Hinduism. The body of the article says "The caste system [..] arose during this period." Remove "within Hinduism" from the lead, and the problem is solved. * Dawn: All three sources used in the article refer to "Aryan culture," not to Hinduism. Calling Vedic culture/religion Hinduism is an interpretation of the sources. Vedic religion is not Hinduism. Jamison, Stephanie; Witzel, Michael (1992). "Vedic Hinduism" (PDF). Harvard University. p. 3.: "... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradictio in terminis since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion – at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism." Stephanie W. Jamison and Michael Witzel are reputable scholars. See Hindu synthesis for an extensive treatment of this topic. My proposal, in accordance with the sources: By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the expansion of Indo-Aryan culture and it's Vedic religion,[1] one of the predecessors of Hinduism.[2]"
Joshua Jonathan: As you know, "hymns" is Wikilinked to the Rig Veda. I have changed "dawning" to "early dawnings," which has been linked to Historical Vedic religion. But beyond this change, I'm afraid I am hesitant to make further changes so early in the lead, in particular to burden a new reader with too much specificity. That includes a mention of "Indo-Aryan culture" and explicitly of the Rig Veda. It had been included for a number of years until recently, but fell victim to exigencies of reducing the lead length. Obviously, India is an old culture, so some leeway is allowed compared, say to, to European settler colonies such as Canada, a much more recent FA, with a much shorter span both of prehistory and recorded history, but we still have to keep the lead length under some kind of control. I will defer to Abecedare and Vanamonde further in this matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A statement in a rulebook that most Wikipedia editors have two hands would not mean that editors with one hand were banned. MOS:LEADLENGTH says The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. It is guidance, not a strict rule. 650 words is not much more than the guidance suggests. But the current lead is very good. Trimming it just to make it no more than 400 words is likely to be reverted on the grounds that the current lead is better.-- Toddy1(talk)12:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I note it says, "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the complexity of the subject and development of the article." Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With a complex, comprehensive article like India, the lead can be a little longer. However, a copyedit is always useful to see if there are redundant words or too much detail, which can be discussed on the talk page. I haven't taken a look at the lead yet because I usually evaluate the lead after the article body is complete. Z1720 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. We'll work on finishing the article body. It would be beneficial to record on the talk page that an FAR, or a process equivalent to an FAR, occurred in 2025. Thanks @Z1720:Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720. I have reduced the word count to 8,997, which is < 9,000. I will read the article a couple of times tomorrow for outstanding prose or sourcing issues. You and others can then have a go at it. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels...... In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used" See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size for conversion numbers. Moxy🍁23:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In many citations, there is a quote from the source stating what is verifying the information (for example, refs 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60). This used to be more common in Wikipedia articles, but now these are usually taken out because of copyright concerns, the fact that it takes up additional space in the article, and because readers can go to the source and verify the information themselves so they don't need it quoted at Wikipedia. Can I delete these quotes in the references? Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to read through this article today just for the sake of learning about the country, when I noticed multiple potential issues with this article, and I felt it was a great time to address these with a newly opened FAR notice.
I noticed a few sentences which seemed poorly written to me. As an example from India#Modern_India: "Economic liberalisation, which began in the 1980s and the collaboration with Soviet Union for technical know-how, has created a large urban middle class, transformed India into one of the world's fastest-growing economies, and increased its geopolitical clout." "know-how" and "clout" are very informal words here. Also, I believe there should be a "the" before "Soviet Union", but I do take a small pause in stating this, because this article is written in Indian English, and as an American I am not aware if it is acceptable to omit the usage of the word "the" in this instance. I've also noticed many sentences that don't have commas where I would typically place them. (Example: In north India Mauryan art is the first imperial movement.) But again, I don't fully understand whether this is acceptable in Indian English or not, so I would like to get a second opinion of this.
As another example, this sentence confused me on first reading: “In the 1989 elections a National Front coalition, led by the Janata Dal in alliance with the Left Front, won, lasting just under two years, and V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar serving as prime ministers.”
I spotted one specific example of a sentence which did not have an in-text citation: "India has played a key role in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the World Trade Organization. The nation has supplied 100,000 military and police personnel in 35 UN peacekeeping operations."
Other sentences that seemed somewhat overly subjective: “Across the north, this became rather stiff and formulaic after c. 800 CE, though rich with finely carved detail in the surrounds of statues” “No doubt the style of these was used in larger paintings” “The dhoti, once the universal garment of Hindu males, the wearing of which in the homespun and handwoven khadi allowed Gandhi to bring Indian nationalism to the millions, is seldom seen in the cities.”
But maybe the biggest thing that concerns me is that there still seems to be patches of the article that should be there, but aren't. For example, while the rest of the articles for the top 25 most populous nations have a dedicated body section on the countries music (I checked), this article does not have any writing on the music of India outside of a singular mention in the lead. If this was intentional because of concerns about the article size, I think it's bad to presume that there ought to be 4 paragraphs on clothing and 3 paragraphs on visual art with images, but 0 on music. Also, there is no mention of things like film (outside one sentence in the lead), performing arts, or festivals at all, which I would consider at least bundling a mention of these things in a paragraph at the top of the culture section. ALittleClass (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that User:Z1720, an FAR regular and administrator, is attending to the FAR concerns. The article has already been extensively edited and shortened; the discussion has long gone beyond objections about unrepresentative images. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I'm not focusing on this article at the moment. If others want to add cited information about music, they are welcome to but they might have to consider what could be trimmed to make space. For an article as broad as this, WP:SPINOUT is a great way to cut down prose. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar. Something more mainstream might be advisable. See proposals
A Hindu wedding ritual in progress. The bride and the groom are seated together, receiving instructions from the priest.
Indian people in Gwalior
Indian Kumbh Festival.
No 2 "Religion"
The current images for "Religion" are a photograph of a Christian church (2.3% of practioners in India) and a Sikhism-related scene (1.7% of of practioners). Something more mainstream might be advisable. See proposals
Dharmaraya Swamy Temple, Bangalore
Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple
Virupaksha temple, Gopuram Hampi Vijayanagar
No 3 "Industry"
The "Industry" paragaph is illustrated by a picture of a tea garden. Something which deals mainly with telecommunications, and automotive and pharmaceutical industries might be more advisable. See proposals
India operates one of the world's largest constellation of remote sensing satellites with 17 satellites in operation as of 2017.
Mumbai, the financial centre of India
Hyderabad is a major IT services centre.
No 4 "Geography"
Image of fishing boats.... Maybe for a "Geography" image something more panoramic or like a landscape would be preferable. See proposals
Panorama in Mudumalai National Park,Tamil Nadu
Himalayan panoramic landscape as seen from Kausani, Uttarakhand in north India
Leh-Ladakh Region, India. (nice for the contrast between various geographical features...)
No 5 "Economy"
Currently summarizes India's economy with a tractor, the milking of cows, and women in fields. Some of the economical progress of recent decades and perspectives could be shown. See proposals
There is nothing new here. It is a copy of a talk page post of several years ago (but very likely without the xenophobic aside) which was effectively addressed then. Ask the poster to link the previous discussion here and view the responses of major editors, including admins. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the inclusion of some of the more economically modern/urban images (while not removing all of the rural ones), but some of the non-Hindu religion images should be kept, or swapped with images that still represent the respective religion (definitely for Muslims). Vanamonde93 pointed out on the FAR, there are multiple images representing Hinduism but only 1 image each for Islam, Sikhism and Christianity. Given that 14.2% of Indians are Muslim, this is needed representation (although the image could be moved to the "Demographics, languages, and religion" section). A Sikh image should be kept, because despite making up a smaller number percentage wise, India is the central place for Sikhism (90% of Sikhs live in India). However, although Hinduism is represented in many of the historical parts of the article, there is not as much modern representation, so I would be fine with adding a more modern image of Hindus. ALittleClass (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is substantial representation of India's Islamic history - I'm not concerned about that. I object to the euphemistic use of "mainstream", and to the notion that Hinduism isn't represented - it is, unambiguously. As to the images above - I agree that three agricultural ones is too many, but at least one is essential, it's still India's largest employer by some distance. I would also support swapping the geography image: I agree it's an odd choice. The others are fine, and I specifically object to making a change based on the euphemistic argument above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest use a gallery in religion section (demographics) for all religions in India. Rest in other section we can use neutral images, because aside from religion, culture (clothing, language, cuisine) are almost same for everyone in India. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are recycling old objections, word for word, that were definitively addressed several years ago. An honest thing would be to link the previous discussion here. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: The current images are great. Your proposal calls for removing images of India's diverse religions for the sake of replacing them with Hinduism (even though Hinduism is represented extremely well in the article). Your proposal calls for replacing images of agriculture, which a majority of india's people work in, with that of city skylines, which would give a distorted and false view of the country. Overall, most of your proposals make little sense, other than to be a means for WP:SOAP, a core wikipedia policy. A lot of it is already addressed within the article and you have cherrypicked examples. These changes would violate WP:NPOV as well as WP:SOAP. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 04:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That will just give India's impression as a rural backward country. What I am saying is first remove unnecessary images and then add those images which give both cultural and modern aspects. The image should give good representation. I would create a gallery on my sandbox, where I would put good images. Then from them you can do discussion, where images from that gallery is good and if yes, them image should be chosen from them. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not true at all. The vast majority of India is a very poor country. The past few decades has only seen development for the top 10% to 20% of the country, not the country as a whole. What this image change proposal is doing is hiding and covering up the state of living for most of the country so that the top of the top can be celebrated. Its a gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP and amounts to nothing more than promotional content. Worst of all, replacing images of minority religions and such with the majority ones is extremely exclusivist, ignores India's pluralistic nature, and goes against Wikipedia's mission of creating an encyclopedia. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 10:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, has endured worse than India. But in Wikipedia, there impression is good. What I am saying is fair impression. Not to promote stereotype. Give fair and balanced representation of India India is not only poor, but also a beautiful country too. Show India with good and quality images. Not "only" poor rural backward places. If you look at article, all images show rural backward aspect: And what you say is correct, but you can't just ignore these facts:
Big cities like Mumbai, Bangalore, etc
Unique industrial cities like Jamshedpur, which is first planned industrial city, home to Asia's first steel plant
There are numerous CEOs in foreign companies of Indian-origin like Satya Nandela, Prag Aggarwal, Sundar Pitchai, and Sabih Khan, who have studied and passed out from India
Places like Taj Mahal and all
Bollywood and Indian cinema, which has huge fan following, specially in Middle East and Africa states. If you see in Arab states and Iran, there is huge fan following of Bollywood.
If vast majority of India, then there are also prosperous states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, and whole of South India
and lots of things
what i am saying is good, fair and balanced representation to give good impression, with good images. I will create a gallery and lets have a discussion on this
Also your point about replacing images of minority religions and such with the majority ones is very exclusivist and goes against Wikipedia's mission of creating an encyclopedia is absolutely correct. But I would also suggest to use neutral images, if it goes well
I don't see the issue here though. The article already has a LOT of images showing the beauty of the country, such as the images of the Ajanta cave, the Tungabhadra, the Bengal Tiger, the Golden temple, etc. Adding even more would clutter the article. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 10:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is lot of confusion. Look dear, I will make it clear:
Alignment of images — All images are only on right side. Right side of the article is covered fully with images. Some images must be on left side. So that the texts on right side can be completely flow, not aligned with images
So many unnecessary and irrelevant images to the sections and topics
Images give "Only" biased representation and dull impression
What my point is:
Not to remove already relevant images
Remove irrelevant and unnecessary images
Also add good sides of India too
Even if vast majority of India is poor, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't add good images to show beautiful India
Add some modern aspects too, to give fair and balanced view
Keep minority related images as it is. I would suggest to create a gallery template in demographics which will have images related to all region like this
I propose that the images discussion be removed from the FAR. The images currently in the article were arrived at through a long and rigorous consensus forming process and, because they are consensus generated, do not appear to violate any FA criteria. If necessary, we can update images through a new consensus process once the FAR is completed. RegentsPark (comment) 13:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. The point of Wikipedia is to neither give a positive nor a negative image of anything, the point is to give an accurate representation with reliable sourcing. The article gives a very accurate representation of the India of 2025. For many, life in countries such as Bangladesh is better than for most in India. India ranks lower than Pakistan in the happiness index, and ranks even lower than North Korea in the food security index. India is not a thriving developed country, it is primarily a poor country with extreme levels inequality. If we hide away all the negatives, then this article will only be about the top 10-20% of the country, and not the whole EarthDude (wannatalk?) 06:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To counterbalance the editor's comment, I want to state that you are spot on. I see no agenda here. Except the pursuit of verifiable factual representation. Rackaballa (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bangalore, Chennai, Pune, Bhubaneswar and Hyderabad are leading hub for multinational software and technology companies. It cant be ignored here. Cities like Pune, Chennai, Gurgaon, Ahmedabad and Jamshedpur are hub for automobile industries, including many foreign companies.
If you go to internet and search, then you will states like Jharkhand even doing improvement atleast on domestic level economically.
India is home to first steel plant in Asia, it is home to large mineral reserves, including some reserves which India has highest amount in the world.
I am not saying to whitewashing but giving fair representation. You can't just ignore these many facts. In India, both poverty and prosperity exists. NPOV does not mean showing only the negatives For poverty, you can see:
That is false equivalence. Again, the goal is an accurate national representation. You say that both poverty and prosperity exist in the country. In reality, it is poverty for the absolute majority and prosperity for a very small minority at the top. Making your proposals a reality would equate both of them. For example, around 4% to 5% of India's population are middle class as per the Pew Research Center and the Economist. Mumbai is the economic capital of India, yet almost half of its people live in slums, as per census data. Before this devolves into WP:FORUM territory, the point I'm making is that the article ALREADY gives an accurate representation of the country and your proposals would dilute and misrepresent that very severely. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 12:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
multiple research and surveys are there with different data, conflicting results, and older ones
Highlighting India's accomplishment and propserous parts is not whitewashing. It is accuracy, balance and fair views.
Regarding Mumbai, every city does have these problem. And that census is decade old.
The article doesn't give actual representation at all. It shows India only as rural country, while it totally ignores India's achievements and accomplishment
The article ALREADY highlights much of India's accomplishments, and in great detail as well. Jus reading the article gives an accurate representation of the country, both the good and the bad. Whether it be India's megadiversity, its millenia old tradition of art, the influence of Indian movies and music, etc. I've been saying the same thing over and over again so much. You would know if you actually took the time to fully read the article, which from the looks of it, doesn't seem to be the case. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 16:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude an ordinary person never reads the entire article on Wikipedia that too long. pls read once again the proposal I have made on this talk page, among them what highlights is a subection ok economy titled as "socio economic challenges". this thing doesn't seem right to me. it shows that India is specially known for poverty. better is to mention that content on the lead section of the "economy" section. no any special dedicated subsection. also there problem is images. what user @पाटलिपुत्र proposed I agree all of it except some sensitive things which brings religion and all. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are admitting you are making these proposals without even having read the article? Its not that difficult of a task to simply read. Also, your point makes NO sense. The socio-economic challenges section is what is keeping the economy section neutral. Without it, it would simply be a neoliberal fantasy. Neutral representation is about both the positives and the negatives. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 08:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> So you are admitting you are making these proposals without even having read the article? Its not that difficult of a task to simply read.
my actual proposal is about restructuring and neutral representation by image. Its true that its not that difficult to read the article. But still, images, tables, data, and subheadings are more highlighted and does speak louder than the deep content
> The socio-economic challenges section is what is keeping the economy section neutral. Without it, it would simply be a neoliberal fantasy.
I am not saying to wipe off that content, but keeping it separately as a subsection disputes neutrality. There shouldn't be a special subsection dedicated only to "challenges" or else there can be another subsection "Accomplishments or improvement efforts" to highlight economic achievements of India. But that disputes neutrality. An article must be shown neutral. Not "challenges" or "achievements". What I am suggesting here is to remove the subsection "challenges" and keep its content below the main "Economy" section itself as one of the lead paragraphs.
The Anjarle creek boats image, while beautiful, seems out of place to me in the geography section. The focus of the image are the fishing boats rather than a geographical feature. It is also one of four images from Maharashtra included in the article. I understand that images on this article are heavily debated, so I looked through the archives. Apparently the relevance of this image to the section has been questioned by several editors ([3], [4]); one explanation, perhaps the best argument for the image (even if still inadequate) was that it shows "boats in a tidal creek in Maharashtra preparing for a Monsoon storm." But this relation to the monsoon is not well-illustrated neither visually nor through text. At the time this discussion took place, the number of featured pictures from India was significantly lower than today, so I can understand the image being chosen for technical quality more than illustrative value.
The section invokes the Himalayas several times: when elaborating the India–Eurasia collision, when talking about the formation of the Indo-Gangetic plain from Himalayan river sediment, when highlighting the 'strong influence' of the Himalayas on Indian climate, and finally when discussing climate change and retreating Himalayan glaciers. It talks about the Himalayas more than any other physical feature of India, thus I think a picture of the Himalayas would be a better fit.
If nobody has any objection to my proposal, I have carefully selected two images from Commons:Category:Featured pictures of the Himalayas of India, one of which may be good replacement for the boats image. I have also supplied the possible caption they could appear with, written with the geography section in mind.
One image each from Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim and Uttarakhand already appear in the article (in the culture, economy and clothing sections respectively), and there are no FPs from Arunachal Pradesh currently. So I have not chosen images from these states.
Of the two, I prefer the image showing a frozen glacial lake on the boundary between Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh (FP at both commons and here). The other image, reminiscent of a Roerich painting, shows several Himalayan ridges north of Shimla up until the snow-covered middle and greater Himalayan ranges in the distance (FP at commons).(strike withdrawn suggestion) Both images are by Timothy Gonsalves, author of several Himalayan FPs on wiki. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I had seen or commented upon the Anjarle Creek image before you mentioned it but I really like it! It integrates information about the economy, weather and coastal geography in a very beautiful photograph and IMO for this article with its vast scope, it is good to have images/captions that add information to what is contained in the article body rather than simply illustrate existing text.
That said, I also like the Frozen lake image you propose, and prefer it the (admittedly very beautiful) aerial Himalyan image, since at the default scale that the images are displayed, the latter can be easily be mistaken to be a generic image of clouds. One small quibble about both the Himalayan images: I wish there was some element in the frame that helped establish the scale of what is seen. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare: The thing is, at their gigantic scale it is easy to miss smaller elements: in the lake image, if you zoom in the middle, you can see two SUVs on a road freshly excavated out of the snow (this road is a strategically, historically and economically significant route that connects Ladakh through Himachal with the rest of India by land, and a tunnel is currently being built right under this pass to ensure all weather access on this road—the first such road when completed). In the bottom left of the image you can see human footprints in the snow. The footprints, the road and the vehicles give us a rough idea of the size of the lake and the huge Himalayan mountains. What's more is this image was taken not in winter, as the snow may suggest, but in the peak summer of June! In my opinion, it adds more value to the article than the creek boats image, since in this image (unlike the boats image) the focus is the geography while other important information and context is also present. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I had missed the SUVs etc when I quibbled about the images lacking elements establishing the scale (and that happened even though I expected any "human"-related features in the image to be relatively small)! Btw, it would be good to add some of the additional information you note in your reply in the image caption so that the latter is more interesting and informative. I still prefer the Anjarle creek image somewhat but will let others weigh in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now withdrawn the other image suggestion, and named and linked Shinku La in the caption—so that readers could simply move to that page to read more about the importance of the pass. :) UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Since you noted above that you "would also support swapping the geography image: I agree it's an odd choice," perhaps you could participate in this section (which I opened before Patliputra's wholesale image replacement proposal, and which is unrelated to the FAR proposal as well). TLDR: the Shinku La pass frozen lake image (with accompanying caption) is the one I propose replacing the Anjarle creek boats image with, based on it being more focused on the geography, and being from a geographical feature (the Himalayas) which is talked about the most in the geography section (see above for the detailed suggestion). UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support making a change to this image, but the proposed one wouldn't be my choice. It's a beautiful photograph but at 220px even on my large monitor it's mostly white, with little detail discernible. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: It is a frozen lake in a snowy landscape at nearly 17 thousand feet height, of course it is mostly white—but it is also a culturally significant mountain pass with a strategically important road connecting two states of India, and one of them to the rest of the country—I chose the image because of specific significance and the extra bit of information it carries. If a high contrast image is what you prefer, we do have another image from the same locality (File:Darcha Padum Road Below Shinku La Lahaul Oct22 A7C 03533.jpg, featured picture at both commons and enwiki) which has a higher contrast. We also have an entire gallery: Commons:Category:Featured pictures of the Himalayas of India, please have your pick if you would like to make a different suggestion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not criticizing the photography, only pointing out comprehensibility at a resolution for which the picture was not intended...my choice would be File:Ganges Delta ESA22274217.jpeg. It shows the full span of Indian geography, from coast to mountain. If we want a Himalayan image, I'd suggest File:Gurudongmar Lake Sikkim, India (edit).jpg, in which details are still visible at 220px. Ultimately this image is a matter of aesthetic choice among many reasonable options. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanamonde93, for your inputs. I did consider the Gurudongmar image—I had edited and uploaded that image to commons, then nominated and gotten it featured at both commons (nomination) and enwiki (nomination) in April this year—but ultimately decided against suggesting it because another Sikkim image (of Tea gardens in Namchi, well-used imo) already appears in the article. Two images from Sikkim might be overkill. This is also the reason I didn't select any J&K image, because one from there is already used in the article (Srinagar Mosque), and why I thought a Himachal-Ladakh joint image would be nice since no image from either appears in the article. That said, the satellite image (which I annotated last year) is also nice but very low quality. I originally looked for a topographic map of India, but to my sad surprise I found none of feature-able quality on commons. Btw, what did you think of File:Darcha Padum Road Below Shinku La Lahaul Oct22 A7C 03533.jpg? Please be as blunt as you can be, and don't hold back on criticizing photography either, that is how we may find the best replacement. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The road picture is a good one, and I'd take it over the boats for certain, but the satellite image seems to illustrate...more. There must be something usable in commons:Category:Satellite pictures of India, but I don't have the time to look through the category tree at the moment. Your point about not repeating states is fair. The image is also of a significant pass, which is a point in its favor, but I'm not sure how many of our readers would appreciate that fact. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does illustrate more, Vanamonde93 though in my view a full, high quality and unconfusing topographic map (which I did try to find but couldn't) is more encyclopedic than satellite imagery. I went through commons:Category:Satellite pictures of India in May—when I nominated this image for commons FP status—and most of the more than 3,000 images are close-ups/zoomed-in shots taken from the ISS (example). But this all comes down to what type of image we should use. My original suggestion for a Himalaya image was because the section invokes the Himalayas repeatedly throughout it, though this was after I couldn't find a suitable map. (It is just now also occurring to me that there are two maps in the article, and it may have been a deliberate choice originally to not include another.) UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Replacing the tidal creek image with Shinku La better reflects India's geography. The current photo shows a narrow coastal scene with limited topographic relevance. The proposed image shows elevation, terrain, and Himalayan connectivity, which directly support the section. Per WP:IMAGEUSE, images should serve the article's focus. The creek photo fits better in an economy or culture context, if at all. Like come on, a tidal inlet with boats says more about local livelihood than national geography. Rackaballa (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude: Like Vanamonde93 above you also seem to think the geography image needs replacing, as you noted "the only acceptable proposal [for image change] here is for the geography section ..." so perhaps you too could share your inputs here, where we are discussing such a replacement. My proposal is unrelated to the FAR, you can go through the discussion above for how the current proposal was chosen. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disconnect between lead and body on socio-economic challenges
Hello, I've noticed the lead section rightly mentions "gender inequality, child malnutrition, and rising levels of air pollution" as major challenges. However, the body of the article doesn't seem to have any sections that expand on these important topics. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body, so it feels like we're missing some key information here. Suggest creating sections for these to make the article more comprehensive. Thoughts? Rackaballa (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rackaballa, you are quite right! There is only one sentence about child malnutrition. We have a section "Socio-economic challenges" so for a start, information about these challenges can be added to that section. Please feel free to write some text about it, based on WP:reliable sources, and then make an edit request, so we can add that text to the article. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in the body but is in the lead then there's two options: 1) remove from lead or 2) add to body. Considering the topics havesubstantialquantities of academic literature surrounding them I would suggest taking the second approach and creating the relevant sections in the body. Please make sure to adhere to an WP:ACADEMICBIAS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think these should absolutely be added to the body. They are big enough issues with a lot of available reliable sourcing to back it up. I think putting information on gender inequality in the Society subsection of the Culture section, making a new subsection titled "Pollution" in the economy section, and adding information on child malnutrition in the socio-economic challenges subsection of the economy section, would make the most sense. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 04:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I want to point out some important problems in the current India article on Wikipedia. These are based on comparing it with other FA or GA articles (like Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan, Bulgaria, Timor-Leste etc.) and with respect to Wikipedia guidelines like WP:SIZE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:NPOV. Please look at the points below:
1. Government/Politics Section – Visual and Structural Gaps
In almost every country article, there is a small box or image row showing current leaders – President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, etc.
Example: Look at Germany, Japan, Australia, etc.
In the India article, this is missing. It looks incomplete.
The section is also split into “Politics” and “Government”, which is not needed.
In other articles, both are under one heading “Politics”.
Also, the "Politics" part here focuses too much on history, like giving a full list of past governments. That should be in a different article.
2. Foreign Relations & Defence – Should Be Separated
Currently, foreign policy and defence are written under one heading, which causes confusion.
These are two very different topics.
In most countries, they are given separate sections.
Also, the foreign policy part talks mostly about past government policies:
Like “support for decolonisation in Africa” — which was during Nehru’s time, not today.
There is no proper detail about the current government's foreign policy under Modi.
Most other country articles update it to reflect the current regime’s positions.
3. History Section – Poorly Organized and Incomplete
The section has only one part called “Modern era”, which mixes everything from 1600s to 2020s. That is too vague and confusing.
Operation Blue Star, 1979 Jamshedpur riots, 1984 Sikh riots
The Emergency (1975–77)
India’s military actions abroad: Sri Lanka (IPKF), 1988 Maldives coup attempt
Suggestion: Divide the history into three clear parts:
British Colonial Period
Independent India (20th Century)
21st Century India
4. Image Layout – Too Many on Right, Poor Quality
Article has too many images on the right side – all small in size.
Even though they are small, it still looks cluttered and untidy.
Many images show outdated or stereotypical scenes:
Villagers in huts, people only in traditional clothes, poor settings.
Some faces used are not visually balanced or diverse.
This gives a wrong impression of India as only rural and backward.
Need images showing modern cities, middle class, urban youth, etc.
5. Demographics Section – Weak and Lacking Depth
Title is “Demographics, languages and religion” – but it should just be “Demographics”, with proper subsections:
Religion
Ethnicity
Languages
Largest Cities (Missing! Other countries have a proper table or map.)
Healthcare (Missing)
Education (Right now wrongly placed under Culture)
India is one of the most diverse countries, so it deserves a better and more detailed Demographics section.
6. Economy Section – Misleading Structure
There is a full subsection called “Socio-economic issues”, which is not needed separately.
This should be just a paragraph in the beginning of the Economy section.
Giving it a separate heading makes it look like India is mainly about poverty.
Also missing important economic sectors:
Technology and Innovation
Water and Sanitation
Infrastructure
7. Culture Section – No Mention of Cinema or Music
India is globally known for Bollywood, music, festivals, and cultural exports, but these are not mentioned at all.
Every other country article gives space to their cinema and music.
8. Politics Section – Missing Key Subtopics
No subsections or mentions of:
Human Rights
Law and Order
These are standard in almost all major country articles, especially those with democratic setups.
9. Biased and Stereotyped Images
As already said above, most of the images show:
Only villagers
Dark-skinned, traditional-looking faces
Unmodern and poor backgrounds
There should be a fair and balanced visual representation of:
Urban India
Middle-class people
Modern buildings, technology, universities, etc.
India should be presented in both its modern and traditional dimensions. Even if traditional aspects are highlighted, they should be shown in a respectful, dignified, and positive way — not through outdated or stereotypical images. Ideally, there should be a balanced portrayal of India's modern growth, urban life, technology, and also its rich cultural heritage and traditions. Striking this balance is essential for fair and accurate representation.
Lastly, it's important to mention that this article is still listed as a Featured Article, but in reality, it doesn’t meet even the basic expectations of FA quality anymore — except for some superficial formatting. According to WikiProject Countries – Size Table, India is not listed among either the FA or GA (Good Article) entries, which means it’s no longer being tracked as a quality benchmark even within its project scope.
I have to say your points are valid but not sure the criticism on "dark-skin" representation helps your case. It takes away from your well stated summary of what can be improved. I suggest dropping that. Rackaballa (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I seek apology for my statement. I don't intended to target anyone with "dark skinned'. Instead of dark skinned, I am saying peoples' images in this article is totally of dull personality and representation, which fuels the stereotypes against Indians. Image of people either dark-skinned, fair skinned or normal-skinned, must be giving good impression and representation. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This request proposes replacing two outdated or regionally narrow images with broader, more representative visuals of Indian clothing culture from Wikimedia Commons. It also suggests adding two high-quality, freely licensed images to better illustrate the diversity of Indian cuisine in the "Cuisine" section.
Change:
Just collapsing this for readability - click on Show to see images
Women in sari at an adult literacy class in Tamil Nadu
To:
1928 illustration of different styles of sari, gagra choli & shalwar kameez worn by women of South Asia.
Change:
Women (from left to right) in churidars and kameez (with back to the camera), jeans and sweater, and pink shalwar kameez
To:
The last Nizam of Hyderabad wearing a sherwani; all the men accompanying him in the picture except the one in a cream coloured garment to his right wear sherwani of differing styles.
Add the following images in the "Cuisine" section:
I would suggest to add images with context of India's dressing and clothing that gives good impression and representation. Better is to add image of a traditional wedding ceremony or any other traditional event, with fair and balance presentation. User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's better to have real photos to display things rather than paintings, when it comes to things like clothes. I think the current images are fine as they are EarthDude (wannatalk?) 04:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My previous message was removed due to my content generated by a large language model (LLM). Therefore, now I will try my best to convey discussions following as per guidelines. I would like to point out many issues on this article, after comparing it with other FA and even GA article — Japan, Bulgaria, Timor-Leste, Australia, and Canada. The main things are — This article doesn't follow the FA/GA trend anymore, it doesn't follow general structure of country articles in terms of headings, subheadings and contents (see Wikipedia:WP Structure and guidelines), and the images in this article gives stereotypes and dull impression of India. I would like to discuss the issues detail by detail:
Government / Politics section— In every country article, there is a "Multiple image" template, which contains images of the current leaders of the country with their names and designation. This is a trend, followed in structure of almost all the countries' articles on Wikipedia. This section have two subsections — "Politics" and "Government". There is no need of such separate subsections. The lead part of main section would be better. Also the "Politics" subsection focuses too much on history, giving info from the very 1st government to the current one. This is main section covers about politics, not history. It should be in a different article. Subsections missing are — Law and Order and Human Rights. This is the standard observed in almost all countries' articles.
Geography – Geography section is too long, with one lead and one subsection.
Foreign Relations & Military — this two things are currently under one subsection in "Politics". These two things are entirely different topics. In other countries' articles - the contents related to them are mentioned in separate subsections. Also the foreign relations information here is mostly of old era. Like "India supported decolonization movements in Africa", this happened during Nehru's time. There is no mentioning of India's foreign policy under the current leadership, which is led by Narendra Modi. The foreign relations section must be updated with major points
History — This section is poorly written, specially the modern history. The "Modern India" mixes everything from 1800s to present. Many important things are missing here: 1857 uprisings, British atrocities in India such as Chauri Chaura and Jallianwala Bagh massacre, freedom movements, specifically mentioned India-Pakistan and India-China wars, other unrest or instability movements, Operation Blue Star, Sikh riots, Jamshedpur riots, The Emergency period, India's foreign intervention in Bangladesh movement, Sri Lanka civil war, and Maldives coup attempt. I would suggest to create three new separate subsections in the Histroy — "British colonialism", "Independent India (1947 to 1999)", and "21st century" (2000—present).
Demographics — This section in this article is named as "Demographics, languages and religion". It should be named just as "Demographics". There is no subsection dedicated specially to Religion, Ethnicity, Language and Cities, which will give more structured content about India's diversity in religion, ethnicity, language and population. There is also a temple called Largest Cities, which is found in every countries' articles, that too is missing here. Healthcare subsection is missing here, which is usually come under Demographics main section, seen in other countries' article. Also Education is listed wrongly under Culture, it should be in Demographics section. Look at above mentioned FA and GA articles.
Economy — In "Economy", there is a full subsection called "Socio-economic issues", which is not needed separately. It shows that Indi is known only for poverty, which is not true at all. In India, there are large number of states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, and Tamil Nadu, which are known for their prosperity. Also missing subsections are: "Science and Technology", "Transport", "Water Supply and Sanitation", and "Infrastructure".
Culture — no mentioning of music, media and cinema. India is widely famous for its film industry, be it Bollywood (hindi) or South Indian film cinemas (tamil, Kannada). They have a large fanbase, specially in the MENA. Every countries' articles have content related to their cinema and music
Images — Too many images, that too only on the right side of the article. Unnecessary images which are irrelevant to some sections, such as Rajagopal P. V. and Obama Addressing the parliament in "Politics" section and Maharajah Ramanuj Pratap Singh Deo with dead cheetas in "Geography" section. This all are totally irrelevant
Biased representation — This point is maybe sensitive but needed to be addressed. Images in the article fuel stereotypes against India, that it is mostly of villages and people here are poor and only traditional and cultured. This article give India very dull personality, bad impression and biased representation. Need balancing showing traditional dress worn with good impression, beautiful heritage sites, urban life in India and all mixed and balanced. The article should present India in balanced way - both traditional, cultural and modern aspects. Traditional and cultural things should be mentioned without dull impression and good and unbiased positive way of representing, and also showing modern face of India. Otherwise it will give stereotypical and bad impression
What version of the article are you looking at? " Foreign Relations & Military — this two things are currently under one subsection in "Politics"." This is not true at all, there is no section with that header, and definitely not one within the Politics section. (The two are at any rate not "entirely different topics", militaries generally exist to pursue foreign relation goals.) CMD (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned "Foreign, economic, and strategic relations". Actually its different main section itself. I maybe mistaken in understanding, but military and foreign relations are different. In "Politics" section, there should be one subsection called "Military", which will covers up India's military strength like how many personnel, military organization, structure, ranking, capabilities etc. It shouldn't contain any foreign related contents. The "Foreign Relations" section should cover up all foreign relations, trade relations, defense ties, etc. and that too under current leadership and some points of older era, which has been continuing. Best examples:- See Japan, Australia and BulgariaKharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Defense ties are military. In a very short summary of India, why is the structure and ranking of the military due a subsection? CMD (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel defense ties are not an aspect of foreign relations, and why has that changed since your last comment? I do not get the impression from the initial comment or the hatted one above that it comes from a clear reading of the article, lots of quotes that aren't the actual quotes of the article and some very odd suggestions. CMD (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for misunderstandings, actually I got confused what you said. My clear point is that — Military should cover up India's military strength, nuclear capabilities, and defense ties (only defense like buying weapons from Russia and Israel) — Foreign Relations should cover up India's foreign relations (not just defense one), foreign policy under current administration like Narendra Modi's de-hyphenation policy in Israel-Palestine, etc. Defense ties are aspect of foreign relations, but foreign relations as a whole are not aspects of military. Mentioning both under one section is overlapping. Also both separately should be under 'Politics' section Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Defense ties are part of military, but foreign relations are not part of it. Defense ties can come under military, but not foreign relations. Let me clarify here:
Under the "Politics" main section, these content should be two subsections:
Military — This will cover up India's military strength (no of personnel, ranking of India military in world, no of weapons, nuclear capabilities, etc.), defense ties (weapons buying from Israel, Russia and France), and you may be mistaken that "why military structure (like ranks/personnel) should be detailed here.". I am saying "Ranking of Indian military in world" should be mentioned and no of personnel. For example:- India has Xth largest military in the world. It has over XXX,XXX active personnel and XXX,XXX reserves.
Foreign Relations — It should cover India (specially current regime) foreign policies, policies on different countries. Things mention here could be trade partners of India. E.X - India's energy supplies comes from Muslim countries in the MENA, under Modi India has adopted de-hyphenation policy on Israel-Palestine etc. These things are not military.
Strong oppose: This proposal seeks to whitewash all issues of this country so obsessively. Every negative is deemed "to show only bad sides of the country and should be removed" which is a massive violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. The most egregious of the proposals is the removal of the socio-economic challenges subsection from the economy section. The sole thing I agree with is making some images on the left side of the article, which would help with better readability. But, for all other proposals, I strongly oppose them. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is to make this article have structure and give a fair and balanced view of India, which should be as per Wikipedia guidelines, Layout, NPOV, SOAP.
I definitely see the merit to KG's criticism insofar as the structure is quite unusual. A singular large section titled "Foreign, economic, and strategic relations" without subsections is strange, as those are separate topics which should have separate subsections. As KG notes, this is how most other FAs do it, and rightfully so since the expectation is that the organizational structure of FAs is of a very high quality. JDiala (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From "Clothing" section: "The dhoti, once the universal garment of Hindu males, the wearing of which in the homespun and handwoven khadi allowed Gandhi to bring Indian nationalism to the millions, is seldom seen in the cities." This sentence seems to not be from a neutral point of view and uses rhetoric to promote a specific view. Can it be removed? ALittleClass (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Too wordy, too sentimental. It reads like a history essay, not an encyclopaedia entry. Needs clean facts, neutral tone, and sharper framing. Rackaballa (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone not very familiar with Indian clothing, I take from this sentence that the decrease of the dhoti is a bad thing, which is an inappropriate moral claim. By interjecting information about Gandhi, a beloved figure, a reader could infer something like "The decrease of the wearing of the dhoti represents the decrease of Indian nationalism, and both are bad" or "City people have devalued their Indian identity", which is too much. The source [5] which the paragraph in the article derives most of it's information, while being a usable source, also has parts that are more of a subjective essay from the author, which must be taken into account (I will try to get another source for this section).
I would use a separate sentence about the historical link between the dhoti and Indian nationalism. As an example from the Dhoti article: "During British rule in colonial India, the dhoti remained a national symbol of resistance and cultural identity when worn without a shirt." Information about how western clothes are becoming more common in the cities is already explained earlier in the Wikipedia article's paragraph. ALittleClass (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a split for clarity is reasonable, but calling it an NPOV violation is a stretch, I'm struggling to read the sentence that way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence does violate NPOV by presenting interpretive symbolism as fact. Calling the dhoti “universal” among Hindu males is a sweeping and unsourced generalization that ignores regional, caste, and class differences. The framing around Gandhi romanticizes a specific political moment and embeds a narrative of cultural decline tied to urbanization. This isn’t neutral encyclopaedic writing, it’s nostalgic editorializing. Rackaballa (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, for festive occasions, traditional clothing are used. While for normal day people use modern clothes. In India nowadays, specially among women, there is a trend of mixed styles. Such as jeans with short kameez or dupatta, or any other Indian dress. I don't know whether its relevant or not, but I think is useful info here. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re sidestepping the actual point. Mocking the critique with a legacy flex doesn’t make the sentence better. It’s a weak response disguised as wit. If the sentence stands on its own, defend it. Rackaballa (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling for the sentence to be removed entirely. I am simply calling for it to be reframed. It seems unnecessary and kind of irrelevent to talk about nationalism and Gandhi when the subject is the dhoti. In my opinion, just saying it used to be extremely common and no longer is, or something along those lines, would be enough. EarthDude (wannatalk?) 04:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a white boomer historian trying to sound thoughtful but ends up projecting Gandhi cosplay onto a whole country. Calls the dhoti “universal,” ignores regional and caste differences, and romanticizes decline as if cities killed culture. It’s not reverent, it’s reductive and colonized. Rackaballa (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded this page because I'm not fully sure if NPOV is the current description of the issue. That being said, I do believe that the way the sentence is constructed creates hidden implications (that Indian nationalism has declined, or that city livers specifically have devalued traditional culture). And as others have mentioned the tone is sentimental and non-encyclopedic. ALittleClass (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence fails Wikipedia’s core content policies. “Universal garment of Hindu males” is an overreach. Even within Hindu communities, clothing varied by region, caste, class, and time period. The dhoti was not worn by Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, farmers in Punjab, or tribal Hindus in the Northeast. Calling it universal erases that diversity and lacks a source. “Allowed Gandhi to bring Indian nationalism to the millions” is a speculative causal leap. It credits the garment itself with mass mobilization, which oversimplifies complex political dynamics and has no direct attribution. “Seldom seen in the cities” is vague and unverifiable. Which cities, which timeframe, what data? Wikipedia requires precision, citations, and clear separation of fact from interpretation. A sentence can sound polished and still violate core standards. Rackaballa (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence "is seldom seen in the cities" needs improvement. It reads like we are lamenting over a decreased amount of significance of dhoti in the cities. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is seldom seen in the cities" by itself has no connotations of lament, that's all weakly in the preceding text. CMD (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separate from the ongoing tone/accuracy/POV discussion, there is also a straightforward argument for removing this sentence on the grounds of redundancy. The "Clothing" section already introduces the dhoti in the first paragraph.
For men, a similar but shorter length of cloth, the dhoti, has served as a lower-body garment.
I would also support this, and honestly I would mark that entire paragraph for review. It almost exclusively cites 2 pages from one source (Bollywood's India: Hindi Cinema as a Guide to Contemporary India, pages 244-245), and at that, it's not a source that's particularly focused on Indian clothing. The section mainly focuses on how Indian clothing has changed in the present day and western clothes have become more prominent, and I believe this could be summarized in maybe only 1 or 2 sentences. ALittleClass (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the society subsection of the culture section, the following is the information on the caste system:
"The Indian caste system embodies much of the social stratification and many of the social restrictions found on the Indian subcontinent. Social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jātis, or "castes".[384] India abolished untouchability in 1950 with the adoption of the constitution and has since enacted other anti-discriminatory laws and social welfare initiatives."
This seems biased, and omits the true societal entrenchment and continued dominance of the caste system. I think we should add a statement on the persistence of the caste system and caste based inequality, violence, segregation, etc., as per the Caste system in India article. Thoughts? EarthDude (wannatalk?) 06:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current wording risks misleading a casual reader into thinking the caste system is merely a relic that has been outlawed, rather than a deeply entrenched social structure that continues to shape lived realities across much of Indian society, even in 2025. Rackaballa (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After cordial relations initially, India went to war with China in 1962. India was widely thought to have been humiliated.
I propose replacing it with:
After initially cordial relations, India suffered a humiliating military defeat to China in the 1962 war.
Reasons for revision:
Vague attribution: “Widely thought” lacks precision. When a view is supported by multiple scholars, it can be stated directly without hedging.
Awkward phrasing: “After cordial relations initially” is clumsy. “After initially cordial relations” is clearer and more idiomatic.
Improved alignment with sources: Scholars such as Ganguly (1997), Raghavan (2019), Medcalf (2020), Chubb (2021), and Guyot-Rechard (2017) characterize the outcome as a humiliating military defeat or describe India as humiliated in its aftermath. The proposed wording more directly reflects this consensus.
This is a style and tone improvement, not a sourcing or content dispute. Feedback welcome. If you oppose, please explain why so the issue can be evaluated on substance. Rackaballa (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change seems reasonable, but if you want evaluation on the substance please provide full sources rather than ambiguous inline citations. CMD (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair ask regarding the inline sources. I tried to include them here but I am struggling with Wikitext. Nevertheless, those inline citations are the same that are attached to the current sentence in the article. Rackaballa (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned this before, but I believe that this article currently has gaps in it's culture coverage. This is a proposal for correcting this and giving a wider coverage of Indian culture, without causing the article to be too inflated in size.
My main two concerns are: There is no writing on music outside of one mention in the lead, there is no writing on film outside of one mention in the lead. All of the top 25 most populous nations have a dedicated body section on the music of the country, and India is home to the second largest film industry outside of Hollywood (actually, the largest in terms of total ticket sales and the amount of movies produced), so to me these are glaring omissions. Here are my proposals for how to change this and also introduce coverage on other areas.
A) Convert the "Visual arts" section into a general "Arts" section
This would involve adding details about music, performing arts, and potentially literature and architecture (although there some implicit coverage about architecture scattered around the article). To account for this, we would trim some of the current detail about visual arts, and convert the gallery into traditional sidebar images (Galleries are also generally discouraged per WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE)
B) Add a "Media" section
This section would cover movies, television, newspapers, magazines, and more modern forms of media allowed by the internet. This would add to the article size, but below I've added some proposed trims to make space, and I don't think this section needs to be very long.
C) Add a few sentences at the top of the Culture section summarizing broad aspects of Indian culture
This is probably the least necessary change, but I still think it could be beneficial. Looking at the other featured article countries, 6 out of 7 (all except Cameroon) have a general paragraph at the top of the culture section. Things to mention here could include the diversity of India's cultures and traditions (this is really only mentioned once in the lead, characterizing India as a "multi-ethnic" society), influences from other regions on India's culture and the influences India exerts on other cultures, and any movement to create a cohesive Indian identity. This is a lower priority addition though.
Making space
How would we make space for these proposals? Well, I see 2 other sections in the Culture section where detail could be trimmed: Clothing and Cuisine. They both expend 4 long paragraphs to describe their sections. Looking at the other featured article countries, at most they seem to have at most about half as much writing about cuisine (Australia and Japan), and some don't include a dedicated cuisine section at all. And surprisingly, only two of the other FA countries (Cameroon and Madagascar) have any mention of clothing at all. I'm definitely not suggesting we cut the clothing section altogether, but these are two areas where trims could be made. In fact, there is one paragraph at the bottom of the "Clothing" section that essentially cites two pages of one source (and a relatively weaker source), which essentially amounts to multiple ways of saying "In the last 50 years, Indian clothing has changed and more people wear more modern or western influenced clothing", which could be cut wholesale.
I certainly appreciate the good work done to make the introduction comprehensive and relatively short, given the enormous complexity of the subject of the article. I think to say that Christianity was established in the Early middle ages on the west or south coast is a bit tendentious. Significant components of the Christian community in India claim that Christianity arrived in the first century CE through the Apostle Thomas. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:A835:70C1:5804:EBEC (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Not done for now: Image changes here have generally benefited from discussions. CMD (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The redirect India. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29 § India. until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)