Talk:India

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2020

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

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

Tamils are not hindu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic Bias

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

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

References

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

Please remove the following line: "The Dravidian languages of India were supplanted in the northern regions.[28]". The lines from the referenced book says the Dravidian languages were probably used in the states of Maharashtra, Gujrat and Sindh. These are considered western parts of the subcontinent and as such a very small section of the Indian Subcontinent in this context. Athosindia (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Athosindia: I changed "in the northern regions" to "in some regions" - but that's probably not the best phrasing. I'm leaving your request open in the hopes someone more familiar with Indian geography can read pages 16 and 24 of the book and make the sentence more precise and accurate. The book is available on Google Books at https://www.google.com/search?q="The+Dravidian+languages+of+India+were+supplanted+in+the+northern+regions"&tbm=bks. Just scroll down to A Population History of India: From the First Modern People ... by Tim Dyson, 2018. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to northern and western regions because "some" is too fuzzy. I think northern was sufficient (because it means "regions toward the north of the subcontinent" not North India) but, hopefully, someone else will figure this out. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: That's exactly the problem I pointed out, the regions mentioned are considered western parts of the subcontinent. Please check the map, the provinces mentioned are all coastal regions and in the western part of Indian subcontinent. I would've preferred "Some", but if we need to be specific, we can mention "western regions". Also please note that the above mentioned states are in the Western Zone as per Government of India. --Athosindia

I guess I'm unsure what that sentence really means. The source seems to say that the language in IVC was proto-Dravidian and the IVC is certainly in the north and the west of pre-partition India. The implication is that Dravidian speakers were pushed southward, which would also support using northern rather than western (parallelism). "Some" is too fuzzy to be retained, we need to be more specific than that. If you say "western", we lose the southward movement. Which is why I went with northern and western. Perhaps we should just remove that sentence entirely but I'll @Fowler&fowler: since he probably wrote it in the first place. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Actually, that's the other thing. The source says that the language used in IVC may have been proto-Dravidian, but it's hard to assess. So technically, it's a conjecture at this point. However what the source says with certainty is that Dravidian languages were used in provinces of Maharashtra, Gujrat and Sindh. Also, the source doesn't mention any southward movement. It just says, Dravidian languages were used in most of the west of the subcontinent --Athosindia

 Partly done: Changed text to "northwestern regions of the subcontinent (Maharashtra, Gujarat and Sindh" which better matches the text cited and does not get tripped up in the official classifications of states/provinces. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Geography

Greetings, I have noticed that "Kanchenjunga", which is world's 3rd highest peak and India's highest peak is missing from geography section. The image below looks fine which can replace the "Fishing boats" image.

Kangchenjunga

LearnIndology (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The pictures were added after a long discussion before the page's TFA on October 2, 2019. They are pretty much all Featured pictures, Wikipedia's vetted best. You may view India-related FPs on my user talk page: starting in this thread. The reason that the boats are chosen is that northern and eastern India were being favored earlier (The Pehlgam valley picture had been in the article for years). Central and western India are favored now. There are pictures of Khanchendzonga on WP, but none are FPs. Also, the Khanchendzonga massif (consisting of five peaks) is shared between Nepal and Sikkim (India). Three peaks lie on the border and two are in Nepal. Your picture is taken from Pangpema, Nepal and shows the Nepal side, not Indian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

India being such diverse in geography cannot be represented by few "Fishing boats" I have constructed a collage representing each region of India. This collage includes the Tibetan Plateau, Himalayas, deserts, beaches, plains, forests. In my opinion this collage is much more educational than "Fishing boats".LearnIndology (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no single picture, or set of pictures, that could capture the geographic diversity within India. Galleries and collages are discouraged per WP:GALLERY. As it stands, this article already has too many images, and doesn't seem to follow WP:MOSIMAGES. It needs to look towards reductions, not additions. CMD (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:GALLERY says absolutely nothing about collages, though I don't like them myself. Nor does it "discourage" the sensible use of galleries. Haven't I caught you misrepresenting this policy before? Please don't do it. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The MOS example of a collage/montage, presented immediately below that section, is a single picture, whereas the above is a collection of different pictures akin to a gallery. As for WP:GALLERY, its whole first paragraph is about typical image placement as opposed to galleries. I welcome a better adjective if you have one in mind. CMD (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What section, what adjective? Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The WP:GALLERY subsection, and an adjective for "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." CMD (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Discourage" is a verb, not an adjective, and the policy does not discourage the proper use of galleries; instead it defines it. Clearly, in this article there is no longer "space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text", so galleries are justified per the policy. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that better images than rundown fishing boats could be used to illustrate India's geography. Actually, many of the images in this article seem strangely chosen. For example, photographs of a modern India seem to be almost entirely lacking. Let me paraphrase an earlier post that got some traction but finally led nowhere [1]... Looking at the whole article, the most recent piece of technology appearing in photographs is an American tractor from the 50s . In the "Economy" paragraph, it's all about milking cows , and women in fields . In the "Industry" paragraph, otherwise mentioning Indian industrial prowesses in telecommunication technology or pharmaceuticals, the illustration is... a traditional tea field in Sikkim (!!!). The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar ... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? In the "Geography" article, the image of clustered rundown fishing boats could be advantageouly replaced by some nice landscape (same comment as above). Also, several of the current photographs are of a rather poor quality, and I am not sure they belong to a featured article, especially those related to clothing (??). Surely, we can do better than that. The general impression of this article in its current version is that of India as a backward nation, stuck in the past. What a difference with the China article for example! So, I suggest we should do justice to some of the more modern aspects of India, by also illustrating some of its more recent achievements. For example:

• Some possible images of modern India
• 
  INS Vikramaditya, the Indian Navy's biggest warship.
• 
  India operates one of the world's largest constellation of remote sensing satellites with 17 satellites in operation as of 2017.
• 
  A candidate for the "Society" paragraph: Market in Chennai
• 
  Mumbai, the financial centre of India
• 
  Hyderabad is a major IT services centre.

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Dear पाटलिपुत्र Haver you done anything on WP that is not copying and pasting? From PLOS articles, from one article into ten other articles, you've been taken to task on the talk pages of several pages for copying and pasting images en masse. You have done it again here. Allow me to refresh your memory and reproduce your post from these archives of six months ago:

Modern images of India

Strangely, in the current version of the article [2] photographs of a modern India seem to be almost entirely lacking. Looking at the whole article, the most recent piece of technology appearing in photographs is an American tractor from the 50s . In the "Economy" paragraph, it's all about milking cows , and women in fields . In the "Industry" paragraph, otherwise mentioning Indian industrial prowesses in telecommunication technology or pharmaceuticals, the illustration is... a traditional tea field in Sikkim . The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar ... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? In the "Geography" article, the image of clustered rundown fishing boats could be advantageouly replaced by some nice landscape . Also, several of the current photographs are of a rather poor quality, and I am not sure they belong to a featured article, especially those related to clothing. Surely, we can do better than that. The general impression of this article in its current version is that of India as a backward nation, stuck in the past. What a difference with the China article for example! So, I suggest we should do justice to some of the more modern aspects of India, by also illustrating some of its more recent achievements. For example: Some possible images of modern India INS Vikramaditya, the Indian Navy's biggest warship. India operates one of the world's largest constellation of remote sensing satellites with 17 satellites in operation as of 2017. A candidate for the "Society" paragraph: Market in Chennai Mumbai, the financial centre of India Hyderabad is a major IT services centre. I also suggest that we remove the cream-colored backgrounds of the photographs, as they give to the article an unnecessary decorative, stuffy, antiquated look, almost never seen elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am not saying that everything in India is modern and beautiful, far from it, but at least we could be more objective and balanced in showing the various aspects of the country: modernity constrasting with backwardness, glamour contrasting with poverty, with a general trend towards improvement and modernization as the economy progresses year after year. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As you did not read WP:TPG, especially:

• Consider checking the archives: If the subject is a controversial or popular one, consider checking the talk-page archives before opening a new thread. (Many talk pages have a Search archives box near the top.) Your concern or question may already have been addressed.

I will refer you to my reply of six months ago, which I will reproduce here:

Please read the talk page archives for numerous earlier discussions. Dozens. All the images you have proposed have been proposed before; some such as the aircraft carrier, launched in Russia in 1982, retired and then refurbished for India, had been in the article. In the days of rotating images, it was possible to accommodate more; but in the lead up to this page's TFA last October the practice was abandoned. India's agriculture sector is its largest employer, constituting 44% of the overall workforce, and 57% of the female. The tractor is a shining new one, its picture was taken in 2014; it is hard to see how it could be from the 1950s. The photograph of women working in the rice field is a featured picture from 2012. India is also the world's largest milk producer the overwhelming majority (between 80- and 90%) of whose milk output comes from hand milking in smallholder farms of herd size less than three. The representative, and iconic, picture of the cow, its calf, and the human dairy farmer, taken by the International Livestock Research Institute, has been in the page for years. All told there are 15 featured pictures in the article. Among them are those of the Indian tea industry, with an annual turnover of $1.3 billion; the panoramic Bangalore, the major hub of India's IT economy; and in the geography section, the fishing boats lashed together and moored in a small inlet in preparation for a monsoon storm. (Those boats are no more run-down than those in the harbor of a fishing town in New England not far from where I live.) None you are proposing are featured pictures, and China is not a Featured Article, it never has been. Discussions take a long time. The last—lasting over a month—was conducted in August 2019. The fullest lasted over six months in 2013. The pictures in this page have to be balanced for region, religion, ethnicity, and economic class. The picture of a mosque in Kashmir, with a 95% Muslim majority, taken in 2011, is more representative of regional society than a market place in Chennai from 2008. The picture of the female healthcare workers, whose stalwart work by the thousands led to India being declared polio-free in 2014, is a picture of heroes. It is more representative of health care in India than one of India's drug industry. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler I have constructed collages. Please do check them below. The collages below cover each region of India, which current images lack. Chipmunkdavis Joshua Jonathan पाटलिपुत्र Johnbod What do you guys think?. LearnIndology (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Images

I have constructed two more collages i.e Indian architecture, Indian clothing with Indian geography already being there. LearnIndology (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've put the collages in collapse boxes to make them easier to look at. Looking at the above conversation and the images in the article, I agree that the architecture image could be improved, and that having four farming photos in Economy seems a bit much. CMD (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the collapse boxes CMD. I have included collage of Indian economy, with proper distribution to Agriculture(44%), Industry(25%), and services(31%) sector.Every collage up there is well balanced for every region. LearnIndology (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No more than two image (not gallery) proposals from one editor. They must be at least WP quality pictures, or QP candidates, with a finished discussion, in which we can see the quality of the picture. We have to be fair to all our editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

LearnIndology you have 80 edits, which I'm not disparaging, but it does mean you are new to WP, and you've proposed 18 pictures. To explain: among the pictures are: File:Umiam Lake - by Vikramjit Kakati.png (size 900x500, too small); File:STS008-44-611.jpg (blurred beyond recognition); File:Rajput Sherwani 2014-04-23 04-27.JPG of dubious Rajput "princes"; File:Alia Bhatt at Mukesh Ambani’s residence for Ganesh Chaturthi celebration (20).jpg (in which the lady's stamp is showing); File:New Delhi Temple.jpg (size 800x600, too small); File:Varkala.jpg (1300x900) and blurry, of western tourists sunbathing on a beach in India; and File:Punjab Monsoon.jpg (1000x685, too small), and blurry to boot, which is being proposed to replace the Featured picture of a rice field File:Women at work, Gujarat (cropped).jpg, that is in the article. I'm terribly sorry, but this is not adding up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Expalanation: In other words, and I'm giving these example to demonstrate image quality, so that you can learn and contribute great images someday: Why is the lady with the stamp better than this Featured picture, File:Hindu Bride, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.jpg? why are the anonymous sand dunes better than this Featured picture of the rain shadow of the Western ghats in Tamil Nadu: File:Agasthiyamalai range and Tirunelveli rainshadow.jpg, which used to be in the article? Why is the beach with tourists better than this FP of a beach along the Arabian sea showing traditional boats: File:Puvar 20080220-1.jpg which also used to be in the article? Why is this picture of Khanchendzonga File:Kangchenjunga East Face from Zemu Glacier.jpg better than this FP of Pahlgam valley: File:Pahalgam Valley.jpg, which used to be in the article until last year? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Question 1 why is the lady with the stamp better than this Featured picture, File:Hindu Bride, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.jpg?

Answer 1 Because women don't dress like that everyday. They dress like that only on special occasion. The reason I added the girl with stamp is because that's the normal sari wear one will find. Although I don't have problem with the first one.

Question 2 why are the anonymous sand dunes better than this Featured picture of the rain shadow of the Western ghats in Tamil Nadu: File:Agasthiyamalai range and Tirunelveli rainshadow.jpg, which used to be in the article?

Answer 2 Because I have already added highest peak of South India in collage. And sand dunes shows the Thar desert, which is 7th largest desert in the world and an important part of Indian geography.

Question 3 Why is the beach with tourists better than this FP of a beach along the Arabian sea showing traditional boats: File:Puvar 20080220-1.jpg which also used to be in the article?

Answer 3 Because geography section deals with the geography, not with the boats. So an overall image of an beach is preferred.

Question 4 Why is this picture of Khanchendzonga File:Kangchenjunga East Face from Zemu Glacier.jpg better than this FP of Pahlgam valley: File:Pahalgam Valley.jpg, which used to be in the article until last year?

Answer 4 Wrong! This is image of Mt. Kanchenjunga which is 3rd highest peak in world, that has been taken from Khanchendzonga. And Pahalgam obviously don't have any highest peak in world. So that's why Kanchenjunga.

Few points

• The collages above covers each region of India, which current images on article lack.
• If we need to remove some images we can do so.
• We can add images in any way. Be it individually or in groups. LearnIndology (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's replies

I'm replying here generally to some discussions above: first Johnbod if you mean galleries as of maps in Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#Subahdars_of_Sira,_1689–1760 or of pictures in Company_rule_in_India#Education, they work (in my experience) in low-traffic articles such as those. In an article with 30k page-views/day, i.e. this, viewers see the galleries as a license to add some of their own. There is another reason, a gallery picture is of 200px width or thereabouts; it cannot sustain a relevant caption (see below for definition) without looking like a well. These were the primary reasons that a rotation template was chosen for this article some ten years ago (but done away with before its TFA last October 2 for other reasons). If you mean multiple images, some of the attendant issues were discussed in Talk:India/Archive_46#Could_we_change_background_colour_of_some_image_boxes. I will add some other discussions from the archives in the next half hour, so please don't reply yet. @Chipmunkdavis, LearnIndology, and पाटलिपुत्र: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Here is another discussion from early 2019, discussing some of the same pictures being proposed here: Talk:India/Archive_44#New_Images_-_Proposals (if you are shall be looking to count the votes please be aware that I opposed all but sometimes did not bother to vote; there were others there too). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Captions Most pictures proposed here are of little use to this page. In order to be relevant, the pictures need to be accompanied by a sourced caption (with sources of similar reliability, i.e. largely academic, as the text) and specifically illustrating some sentences in the text, as Moxy has pointed out before, a suggestion implemented in the current text. Thus the picture of a beach showing foreign tourists sunning themselves will need to illustrate something, sand dunes will need to illustrate something in the text. See the pictures in India#Geography or India#Biodiversity for sourced captions.
• Quality We need some independent vetting of the pictures' photographic content; otherwise, a bunch of editors voting during a global pandemic with depleted attendance here has little meaning for an article that has remained an FA for 15 years in part by following a well established photographic practice, that of largely restricting to WP:Featured pictures. See for example the pictures in User:Fowler&fowler/Improved Images in FA India. The pictures with the bronze star are WP:Featured pictures. File:North Sentinel Island.jpg is a NASA satellite picture. Unfortunately as pictures of industry and technology seldom make to FP, we need to be realistic. I would recommend that you search the archives Quality images of India first. You can search there by region, subject, etc. In cities, such as Mumbai or Delhi you will find pictures of industry or technology, You can also look in Commons Quality image candidates, or nominate a picture you are considering there and receive a critique; it doesn't have to pass, but we need some critique of the image content. I hope you will agree that all this is reasonable. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are quality pictures of:

• Architecture in India:

• Buildings in India
• Sculpture in India
• Reliefs in India

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Note; I will propose something new below, which I think will improve the page's pictures appreciably, reliably and fairly. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added caption in Geography section and soon will be adding in other one's too and there is no point adding "Quality Images" when it is of no use in article. Our work should be to give an overall picture of the subject, which current images are lacking and my collages are fulfilling. LearnIndology (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we cannot have these random, ad hoc, discussions in which images with no vetting are being proposed. We don't have that sort of wherewithal right now. And please propose no more than two pictures. We cannot have en mass proposals from one editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We can have a major image discussion in the Fall, say, November 2020. I'm sounding out regulars here past and present: @AshLin, Abecedare, RegentsPark, Saravask, SpacemanSpiff, Chipmunkdavis, MilborneOne, Vanamonde93, Johnbod, Kautilya3, Sitush, Joshua Jonathan, and Moxy:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - and I'll repeat now that my preference is for mini-galleries over collages (of which we have far too many on Indian articles, purely because people like compliing them). Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed to Fowler&fowler's suggestion. Also agree with Johnbod's suggestion because minigalleries are mutable, collages aren't. AshLin (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Followup to my comment: The suggested image galleries of Fowler&fowler's on Clothing, Architecture etc are fine and meets the qualities he has described. A superficial examination of these gave me the apparent impression of bias towards mainland, Hindu, North Indian etc. I'm not criticising Fowler's choice but merely commenting on my impression. I am of the strongly felt opinion that in our final selection we need to bring in equal diversity of regions, cultures, religions, castes/tribes, genders, etc. This has to be done as a conscious choice, even though it may mean only a very few or even an extensive change in the images selected. AshLin (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello @AshLin: I completely agree with your viewpoint. Btw, I have not suggested anything except having a comprehensive image discussion in November. I was only giving some examples of quality images to a new editor (or at least this is what I had thought I was doing). The pictures that are currently in the article, which were added after discussion preceding the article's WP:TFA appearance for Gandhi's 150th last October 2, were done so with the object of displaying diversity, but I'm sure we can do better. All of a sudden there have been so many image threads and galleries opened above and below in a chaotic fashion by various people that my responses to them are becoming hard to understand. I apologize for this. All these discussions need to be done in a comprehensive fashion. Diversity is very important, and I completely agree with your viewpoint. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to clarify here that I am okay with collages, galleries, or individual images. My point is that images should get updated. I hope it clarifies my stand. To new guys here, please compare the images above in collapse box with the current images in the article, you guys will see the clear difference between the two.LearnIndology (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

LearnIndology (talk · contribs) You are a new editor, with less than 100 edits. Please read past discussions on this page and discussions for Featured and Quality picture nominations. Your pictures are substandard. I will shortly propose a comprehensive image addition discussion starting in November 2020. When we have that discussion, you can make your proposals. Please also know that adding picture after picture to this talk page in a chotic fashion after a point becomes disruptive to the goals of a talk page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

AshLin Please check my images again. This is the most diverse gallery, which includes every region of India. In Geography section I have included North, South, East, West of India. In architecture gallery I have included both North and South Indian architecture like Dravidian, Nagar, Pagoda and Khmer. In clothing section I have included attire of both north, South, and typical marriage attire. In Economy section, I have included cities of both North and South India, and both are IT hubs. Now where is bias in this? Please point out.

Apart from that, my question to every editor here who is talking about "Featured images" or Quality Images", just tell me what's the point in adding those images, when they represent literally nothing in their section.

• Feet of statue representing "Indian architecture"? Really?

• Fishing boats representing Indian geography? Laughable

• Man milking cow representing trillion dollar economy? Phew!

• 14% Muslim population representing Indian society? Hmm.

• Crops representing "Indian industry" Wow!

• Random people walking on streets representing "Indian clothing"? (Thank god someone wasn't in underwear).

And whether we discuss it in November or tomorrow, the images are gonna remain same. Nobody is gonna travel to India in this pandemic and click "Quality Images". So to give a clear picture of subject, we have to add non-featured images. We don't have a choice. LearnIndology (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You can state that during the discussion in November. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Fowler. I am glad to hear that you have indeed looked after that aspect though perhaps I had not detected this during my admittedly cursory glimpse. I do take your word for it. However, I will take up your suggestion and look them over closely and deliberately and will mention my observations, if any. Thanks in advance. AshLin (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article

Despite all the beautiful talk about having high quality pictures, with referenced captions and perfect relevance to the paragraph they are illustrating, the current article has several glaringly inadequate pictures that do not even start to fulfill these lofty criteria. It should be a no-brainer to replace them by better and more relevant pictures. I have selected the seven most problematic pictures and proposed replacements hereunder. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of inadequate pictures
Ranking	Current images (29 August 2020 version)	Comment	Replacement proposals
No 1 "Clothing"		Extremely low quality image. Low relevance. Probably violates children Personality rights. Just not an image for a FA	An actual Indian Ceremonial type (Featured image) Traditional wedding clothing
No 2 "Society"		The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country...	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 3 "Religion"		Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country...	Dharmaraya Swamy Temple, Bangalore Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple Virupaksha temple, Gopuram Hampi Vijayanagar
No 4 "Industry"		A nice picture in an agricultural setting, but totally inadequate to the "Industry" paragraph it is supposed to illustrate (which deals mainly with telecommunications, and automotive and pharmaceutical industries).	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 5 "Architecture"		Quite meaningless for an "Architecture" image (Jain libations at the feet of a statue???). Why not just use.... a famous and obvious example of Indian architecture?	The Taj Mahal, the most famous building depicting the Mughal architecture in India The Lakshmana Temple, Khajuraho, in the northern style of Hindu temple architecture, 10th century. The Mahabodhi Temple dates to the Gupta era, 5th century CE. Marking the location where the Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment.
No 6 "Geography"		Fishing boats?? Quite meaningless for a "Geography" image (might be a better choice in "Fishing Industry"...).	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 7 "Economy"		Summarizing India's economy with an American tractor, the milking of cows, and women in fields is quite a distortion. Despite the continued weight of agriculture, a lot of it admitedly archaic, where is all the economical progress of recent decades (or since the Middle Ages for that matter)?	Market in Chennai Modern market in Kurla. National Stock Exchange of India Construction of Kudankulam nuclear plant Mahindra XUV500, made in India Visakhapatnam Port in the Bay of Bengal.

• It's been a while so, yes, I'm fine with another round of image selection. Keep in mind though that it will be a longish process (six months from start to finish!) and needs to be an organized one since there are likely to be many views on what is appropriate and many images to choose from. Perhaps we could take one section at a time, give some time for image proposals, and then for voting on images to include? --RegentsPark (comment) 12:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Yes, it will take time, but if I learned anything from our past discussions, we will need to impose some conditions in the interests of fairness. I'm leaning towards: a) restricting the pictures to FP or QP candidates successful or not but with a closed image discussion at Commons. We need some vetting from the Commons image folks; otherwise, as you will notice above there are pictures of size 800x300 being proposed, and the discussion will become a mess. If they have a picture they like, they can propose it for QP at Commons now, and we will have a discussion on its quality by the Commons folks that we can read. b) restricting any editor to proposing only two images. We can't have dozens of editors proposing dozens of images, especially not in a chaotic fashion (see above the handiwork of just two, where I cannot understand what I myself wrote in my replies, so buried are they among the images). I will propose something below in the coming days, open to amending of course. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. criteria such as FP or QP are a good way to increase the probability that only good pictures get in. Images are a weak point on Wikipedia (not possible to figure out WP:DUE, and the selections are subjective) and, obviously, no one is ever going to be satisfied with what gets included and excluded. So a process with well defined parameters is important and thanks Fowler&fowler for thinking about how to go about it. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot, your suggestion of restricting to one section at a time is an excellent idea, which I will incorporate as well. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र You can make your suggestions in November during the comprehensive image discussion I will be proposing for then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with User:पाटलिपुत्र that it is a no-brainer that the images should be replaced as soon as possible. Why we should still use outdated images? Santosh L (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think we all agree on that. Unfortunately, like I explain above, it is also a "no-brainer" that the process is subjective and needs to be done in a careful way. In other words, we're not going to simply replace images with whatever the preferences of one or two editors happens to be, but, rather, will go about this methodically, set up a process, solicit community preferences, and then replace the images. This will be completed as soon as possible but that "soon" is a while away. Note that this is how the images arrived on the page in the first place and are, therefore, the current consensus.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• पाटलिपुत्र A comprehensive discussion will take place in November. The Kurta picture illustrates very clearly both the tunic and the Chikan embroidery mentioned in the India#Clothing text. Your pictures don't illustrate anything, except the first picture, but the dhoti is already there as is the kameez the man is wearing; the Hindu bride is not an illustration for clothing, but as I already suggested in my reply to LearnIndology, a possibility for culture or society in the future (as it is an FP). The "Hindu groom and bride" also do not illustrate anything in the text there. The illustrations in that section are very specific: Sari, dhoti, shawls, kurta, shalwar-kameez, churidar, and jeans. Those are all discussed in the text. And what is "an actual Indian" supposed to mean? The section is about clothing. You are treading on thin ice here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Current images in the India page: Clothing 1

Women in sari at an adult literacy class in Tamil Nadu; right: a man in dhoti, wearing a woollen shawl in Varanasi

Current images in India page: Clothing 2

From top left to bottom right (a) Women (from l. to r) churidars and kameez, with back to the camera; in jeans and sweater; in pink Shalwar kameez shopping; (b) a boy in kurta with chikan embroidery; (c) girls in the Kashmir region in embroidered hijab; (d) a tailor in pagri and kameez working outside a fabric shop

@Fowler&fowler: I don't see how you've come to the conclusion that the proposed images don't illustrate 'anything'. Sure they may not be pictures specific to clothing but they definitely showcase Indian attire quite well. Not to mention the difference in quality, the existing image is low res and terribly exposed which makes it hard to discern the Chikan embroidery. If it weren't for the low quality, I would definitely be in favour of the proposed dhoti image which accurately represents what most Indians wear on a daily basis. I'm sure there are plenty of images that could act as suitable replacements for the existing picture but that'll have to wait until we can gather consensus. Prolix 💬 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prolix: Most Indians wear a south Indian style dhoti on a daily basis? Have you read the Clothing section? Please read it. There is a picture of a man in a dhoti there, the north Indian style that the majority by three to one of Indians do wear when they wear them. Who says you can't see the Chikan embroidery? Click on the image. The same model is shown in the Chikan page in a close up File:Kurta closeup sandalwood buttons.jpg, but our imperative here is to show both the garment, the open side seams, the collar, and the embroidery. There is nothing there in the proposed nonsense. Nothing. Images illustrate the text. This is not a random gallery of India. There is Flickr for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC) I have now added the full complement of pictures in the clothing section here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of Indians wear Dhotis, Lungis, Veshtis on a daily basis, what's your point? The picture you linked is not the same as the one in the article so that's out of the question. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the point here. The current image is bad, I'm not claiming the proposals are better either, all I'm saying is that there are better images that can serve as replacements. I agree consensus is required but I see no reason for us to wait till November and draw out the whole process over 6 long months. Prolix 💬 17:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prolix: My point is that there already is a picture of a man in a dhoti; it is the style of dhoti, the north Indian style, that is most commonly worn in India, not the south Indian style being proposed. The pictures in this article keep changing, but they change in an organized fashion. The consensus is for waiting until November. Please see all the pictures from the clothing section above. We can't be held hostage to the random attempts one or two individuals. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Why November? Seems like an arbitrary decision to me. पाटलिपुत्र has made fair points regarding undue weight and It'd be best to correct that as soon as possible. Prolix 💬 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prolix: Because it takes time to organize them. I have. You have not, neither has the person you refer. In fact, he has never made more than a handful of edits here before, never been a part of the India page enterprise. Besides there is a consensus of senior editors, see below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I'll give the benefit of the doubt to you on this one. Prolix 💬 18:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prolix: Thank you. Please also note that before last October, when new pictures were chosen, we had rotation templates for daily rotation and we could accommodate many more. We need a fresh consensus for that as well (the powers-that-be said before the TFA that rotation had to be removed (stability is a must for TFAs)). For example, before last October, we had File:NDRF in Bihar Flood 2.jpg, File:Mt. Kanchenjunga.jpg, File:GSLV Mk III Lift Off 1.jpg (this pic of the Indian rocket is being proposed again!). File:DelhiMetroBlueLineBombardier.jpg (Delhi Metro), File:Bombay Stock Exchange 3.jpg, File:Computerlabxaviers.jpg (Kolkata computer lab) and File:Infosys Leadership Institute.jpg. They were all there less than a year ago. People appear here, but are not aware of the imperatives of the page, or diversity (of religion, region, ethnicity, ....) and they pick something they don't like. Even lungis were there: File:GroupFromNorthEastIndiaAtTaj.jpg. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for informing me about this, I understand the reason behind the inclusion of some of the images in the article and I'm sure most of them are well intentioned. The issue arises when images don't represent changes in the country adequately. I feel a lot of images here have been chosen to represent specific ideas instead of just being visual relief. I think we need to strike a balance between both, images should showcase the beauty and progress of the country while also highlighting the subtleties in the text. The questions raised regarding undue weight also need to be addressed, but that seems to mostly be a result of the diversity of this country. There are plenty of countries where Christianity and Islam are majorities and their culture and traditions are adequately represented in the articles of those countries, people seem to want Hinduism properly represented in India's article given India is one of 2 countries with a majority Hindu population. These issues have cascaded into the Religion in India article as well but I'll leave that issue to be raised in that article's talk page. Prolix 💬 19:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

1) Glaring inadequacies

India FA image?

Strangely, I cannot find many traces of Community discussion for the problematic images listed above in Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article. To the point, many of these images are totally disconnected from the paragraphs they are supposed to illustrate, and several images are very low quality and inadequate (such as the image to the right). How does this reflect "exacting image quality standards"? And how does it reflect "Community consensus" as it is not linked in any discussion for image selection?...
2) Hinduism
There is a bigger problem. Anything visually related to Hinduism seems to have been removed from the India page (appart for the ruins of an 11th century temple in the History section). On the contrary many minor religions are represented, in places which are supposed to illustrate Indian society as a whole: Muslims illustrate "Society", a Christian church illustrates "Religion", a Jain ceremony illustrates "Architecture", a Sikh temple illustrates the "Culture" paragraph. I am afraid this kind of bias is quite shocking for a Hindu-majority country.
3) Delays
We are now suggesting an incredible lot of red tape, hurdles and delays (Commons vetting, postponement until November, FP or QP candidates only, months of discussion....) to correct these fairly obvious defects, which in most cases were not themselves the result of a consensus. Was there any process and vetting to include an image such as the one to the right? Clearly not. We have the responsibility to correct quickly biases and obvious inadequacies, without stonewalling and delaying tactics. We can take more time for the fine-tuning. Obviously inappropriate images should be removed speedily, as are unsourced statements as shown by Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) hereunder. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No Hinduism? What is this? The first two pictures in the article

(Top) A pre-14th century CE manuscript of the Rigveda, which was composed from 1500 BCE to 1200 BCE and subsequently orally transmitted. (Bottom) The "Battle at Lanka," a scene from the Sanskrit epic Ramayana—composed between 700 BCE and 200 CE—was illustrated by Sahibdin, an artist of the 17th century.

No Hinduism? What is this? The third set of pictures in the article. Pleast tell me which other religion has three pictures?

(left) A map of India in 1022 CE; (right) Brihadeshwara temple, Thanjavur, completed in 1010 CE

• Number 2 You say >> "This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..." << You are treading on even thinner ice. India is a secular society. A multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society. People praying in a mosque in Kashmir, which they do several times in this region, every day of the year, is much more a reflection of India's diverse society than one more picture of a Hindu wedding (we have already had two in the top row), or an unfocused picture of a Hindu Kumbh festival, the Naga sadhus no less, made possible courtesy of the British organizing the pilgrimages (see Kama Maclean's Pilgrimage and Power: The Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, 1765-1954) not a immemorial practise. But it is the middle picture File:Indian people, Gwalior, Jan Satyagraha 2012.jpg that interests me most because I am very familiar with it. You call it, "Indian people in Gwalior." It is actually a picture of a small cross-section of the crowd in the Jan Satyagraha of 2012. But we already have a similar picture of the article in India#Politics a famous Featured Picture File:Rajagopal speaking to 25,000 people, Janadesh 2007, India.jpg of the Jan Adesh satyagraha march from Gwalior to Delhi, 2007. What is the point of having two similar pictures? Any why would you picture be in society, and not in Politics, as it is that of a protest movement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• No 6 You say, >> "Fishing boats?? Quite meaningless for a "Geography" image (might be a better choice in "Fishing Industry"...)." << Another drive-by edit with no thought to examining the text of India#Geography section. It is not, again not, about fishing boats, but a Featured Picture showing boats in a tidal creek in Maharashtra preparing for a Monsoon storm. The monsoon is discussed in detail in the Geography section. The other image in the geography section shows a peninsular river with its rocky outcrop, described in the text. The readers need to see an example. What is the point of vanilla pictures of the Nanda Devi from Kausani or a close up of a hill in Ladakh? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• You say, >> "Summarizing India's economy with an American tractor, the milking of cows, and women in fields is quite a distortion. Despite the continued weight of agriculture, a lot of it admitedly archaic, where is all the economical progress of recent decades (or since the Middle Ages for that matter)?"<< But you have shown only three pictures without the captions. Here are the pictures:

Main article: Economy of India

Clockwise from top: (a) A farmer in northwestern Karnataka ploughs his field with a tractor even as another in a field beyond does the same with a pair of oxen. In 2018, 44% of India's total workforce was employed in agriculture. (b) Women tend to a recently planted rice field in Junagadh district in Gujarat. 57% of India's female workforce was employed in agriculture in 2018. (c) India is the world's largest producer of milk, with the largest population of cattle. In 2018, nearly 80% of India's milk was sourced from small farms with herd size between one and two, the milk harvested by hand milking.

A panorama of Bangalore, the centre of India's software development economy. In the 1980s, when the first multinational corporations began to set up centres in India, they chose Bangalore because of the large pool of skilled graduates in the area, in turn due to the many science and engineering colleges in the surrounding region.

You are proposing to replace them with a 583x388 size dark picture File:VizagPort.jpg of a port; a Mahindra car on a street in Chile File:Mahindra XUV 500 W6 2014 cc (12510496555).jpg, a nuclear plant, whose page says, "KKNPP ... built in collaboration with Atomstroyexport, the Russian state company." All I see in your pictures in the Hindu nationalist India shining. Nothing else. That is unfortunately not what India is about. Finally, as for your contention that there is nothing about Hindusim in this article, what are the first pictures in the article, which I'm reproducing on the left? The very first pictures of the article. You have to be better prepared if you are going to make an argument here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Its not up to you to decide what India should or should not be about, that is up to the editors to decide. The images are outdated, especially the sections relating to economy, industry, architecture and religion. They need to be updated and you're stalling for reasons that can only be presumed to be nefarious given how most editors here right now don't agree with your viewpoint. Prolix 💬 17:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Prolix I alone am not deciding it. It is the consensus of senior editors, among which are AshLin (who was the chief judge at the last Wiki loves monuments India), admin RegentsPark, and Johnbod an expert on art, among which I am including myself. All these editors have had some experience on Talk:India. The images were just changed last October for this page's second WP:TFA for Gandhi's 150th. I know you will attempt to Wikilawyer me, but I've been minding this page with a handful of others for 13 years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Prolix For the last 13 years, we have never let individuals propose their edits outside of a collective image discussion. Those can take time and have. Why should we make an exception now because it doesn't sit well with a handful of editors, when each time before, we have given ample warning, many people have made proposals? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably because it seems like your image change proposals don't seem to work. How could it have been 13 years and the only three images dedicated to Indian economy are related to farming? Prolix 💬 18:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Images have changed several times but always within the context of an organized discussion, with plenty of lead time, and with notice given in other India-related forums. Many people are away right now. This is a time of a global pandemic. People are stressed. Everywhere on Wikipedia, more time is being allotted for normal activities. I will soon post a notice for the next image discussion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is an unprecedented time for everyone. Covid-19's already thrown a wrench into a lot of activities world over, let it not affect Wikipedia the same way. Let's hope for a more constructive and mutually agreeable solution. Prolix 💬 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Which policy says we must wait? I am not getting why we need to wait till November. There is no deadline on Wikipedia and since we all are actively attending this conversation it is easily possible to discuss now since everyone (except Fowler) seems to be agreeing with the image changes proposed by पाटलिपुत्र because they reflect the image of India better than the current version. Santosh L (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Santoshsatvik, the relevant policy is WP:CONSENSUS. Since the images were arrived at through a long consensus discussion (you can search the archives to see how that was carried out), replacing them without another consensus discussion will be disruptive. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: In theory, yes, of course. But strangely, I cannot find many traces of Community discussion for the problematic images listed above in "Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article". For example this image is not linked in any discussion for image selection, so probably was not the result of "Community consensus" at all. Apparently, most of the problematic images we are discussing above (inadequacy to the paragraph they illustrate, poor quality in some cases, undue bias) were not actually selected through Community consensus, but seem to be the result of a choice among many possible candidates, or sometimes a completely personal choice, by one single contributor. As a community, we have the right to challenge such personal choices, especially if they are clearly problematic, as most of us seem to agree. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I will answer this inaccurate characterization in a little while, one I gather the data. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the clothing image ought to be swapped out, if only because I'd much rather have a picture of an adult. The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for. The article discusses religious pluralism in India at great length; the images in question are entirely appropriate, and if they're removed, it should not be for the reasons given above. Also, agriculture remains the largest sector by employment, and I see no reason at all to remove those images from "economy". I don't have opinions about the rest of the images at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comment. The image of the child was just removed by RegentsPark earlier (sigh of relief!). Actually, I am all for religious and cultural diversity, but it seems that images related to Hinduism have been almost entirely removed from this article (too much "Hindu garbage", I guess). To me, it is just a matter of accurately representating the mainstream aspects of a society in a short paragraph, and avoiding undue weight: if we had to choose one image, I don't think we would illustrate the "religion" paragraph of Saudia Arabia with a Buddhist Temple for example. I am also surprised by the lack of images representing a modern India. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing 8 images currently in the article that are featuring explicitly religious content (Rig Veda; Ramayana; Thanjavur temple; Ajanta; San Thome Basilica; Golden Temple; Gomateswara; Srinagar mosque). Three relate to Hinduism; one to Islam; one to Buddhism; one to Christianity; one to Sikhism; and one to Jainism. Given the history of the Indian subcontinent, and the large role each of these played, I don't see how you can seriously argue that Hinduism is being underrepresented. Your argument about Saudi Arabia is a straw man; are you seriously suggesting the influence of Islam in India is comparable to that of Buddhism in Saudi Arabia? I strongly suggest you drop that line of argument. The one replacement I think would be reasonable is the geography image; a high-quality image of the Himalayas, or the Ganges, or the Indian Ocean ought to be available. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Other proposals

Indian Geography

File:Varkala.jpg Clockwise from top: (a) East face of Kangchenjunga, as seen from Thalem just below the Zemu glacier in Sikkim. Kangchenjunga is world's 3rd highest peak shared by India and Nepal. (b) Varkala beach situated in Kerela. Varkala beach is the only place in southern Kerala where cliffs are found adjacent to the Arabian Sea (c) Anaimudi peak can be seen from the Naikolli Mala ridge. Anaimudi peak is the highest peak in South India with an elevation of 2,695 metres (8,842 ft) (d) Pangong Lake in Ladakh. Ladakh is the highest plateau in India with much of it being over 3,000 m (9,800 ft) Clockwise from top: (a) Typical crop fields in India during monsoon. Indian monsoon, is the most prominent of the world’s monsoon systems, which primarily affects India. (d)Sand dunes in Thar desert. Thar desert is the seventh largest desert in the world. (e) Umiam Lake in Meghalaya. Meghalaya is the wettest place on earth

Indian Architecture

Clockwise from Top: (a) Dravidian architecture in Meenakshi Temple. Meenakshi temple is dedicated to Meenakshi, a form of Parvati, and her consort, Sundareshwar, a form of Shiva.(b) Kedarnath Temple constructed in Nagar style of architecture. Indian Prime Minsiter Narendra Modi offering prayers at Kedarnath Temple. (c) Hidimba Devi Temple in Himachal Pradesh. Hidimba devi temple is an example of Pagoda architecture. (d) Angor Wat Temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu. It is the architecture of the Indian rock-cut temples, particularly the sculptures, were widely adopted in South Indian, and Indianised architecture of Cambodian, Annamese (Khmer) and Javanese temples (of the Greater India). (e) Kailasa temple in Ellora. Rock cut temples in Ellora has been described as 'magnificent' and 'finest' ones.

Indian Clothing
(left)Indian women in Sari. (right)Indian man in Dhoti. (left) Hindu couple getting married in traditional Indian wear. (right) Rajasthani man with turban.

Indian Economy
Top from clockwise: (a)View of Gurugram city. Gurugram, one of the biggest IT hub in Asia Pacific has the 3rd highest per capita income in India, after Mumbai and Chandigarh. (b) View of UB City, Banglore. Banglore is also known as IT capital of India. and Silicon Valley of Asia and India(c) View of Mumbai, capital of Maharashtra. The economy of Maharashtra is the largest in India

Dear Ser Amantio di Nicolao Koavf BrownHairedGirl Rich Farmbrough BD2412 Tom.Reding Materialscientist Waacstats Lugnuts Hmains. You guys are the top editors of Wikipedia. It is my humble request to you guys to please look the current images in article and compare it with the collapse box above. Before you guys open that, I will breakdown some notes for you guys.

• The first section is Indian Geography which has an image of Fishing boats in article. Just a recap, that Indian geography ranges from 0 ft to 28,000 ft. Now please compare article's current image with collapse box of Indian geography above.
• The second section is Indian Architecture. Please look at the article's image. It's an feet of an sage. Is that Indian Architecture? Now compare it with collapse box above.
• The third section is Indian Clothing. Current images in article shows random people in random clothes, like jeans and Hijab which in any way doesn't represent Indian clothing. Now compare it with the collapse box above.
• The fourth section is Indian Economy. Indian economy is trillion dollar economy and the images in articles are of people milking cow's? Now compare it with the collapse box above.

• Notes

• I have included every region of India. i.e North, South, East, West in every section, i.e Geography, Architecture, Clothing and economy.
• I have captioned the images properly with citations.

• Bias

• Editor Fowler&fowler is biased here and have abused Hindus. See this link which Fowler recently posted here.[3]. Let me quote here for you guys "What is all this Hindu garbage. The Hindus wore only draped clothes before the Muslim conquest of India.

• Authority

• Editor Fowler has taken authority of this page, Fowler is commanding me to wait till November for discussion. I don't know why should I wait till November.

• Counter arguments

• The main counter argument is that these images are not "Featured or Quality Images". My argument is that, what is the point of these Featured images, when they are totally worthless in article. It is like pasting an image of cat in dog's article. Doesn't matter if the cat's image has won any international award. It is worthless in dog's article. So we have to use non featured images here. We don't have a choice here. Thanks. LearnIndology (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, LearnIndology (talk · contribs), you are a new editor with less than 100 edits. You have not bothered to examine the numerous talk page discussions on images. This article is Wikipedia's oldest country FA, shortly to celebrate its 16th anniversary. In has remained so in part by having exacting image quality standards. The majority of pictures in the article are Featured pictures. Your explanations both about India and the text content the current set of images purport to illustrate are off the mark. You can make proposals when we have comprehensive image discussions starting in November. Please also read WP:Main article fixation. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• LearnIndology, Thanks for soliciting but just because I (we) have made a lot of edits that doesn't necessarily make us best suited for figuring out which image(s) should go on this page. The best course of action is for users who are interested in editing India to talk among themselves and determine that on this talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversity

My first edit diff changed

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

into

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

References

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

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

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

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

Social stratification

My second edit diff changed

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

into

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

References

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

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

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

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

Re F&f quotes:

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

... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradictio in terminis since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion – at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism.

Doniger is inexact in her usage of terminology.

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

Dawn

My third edit diff changed

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

into

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re F&f quotes:

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

... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradictio in terminis since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion – at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion. However, Vedic religion is treatable as a predecessor of Hinduism.

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

All three sources used in the article refer to "Aryan culture," not to Hinduism. Calling that Hinduism is an interpretation of the sources. My proposed sentence could be changed and expanded a little bit, in accordance with the sources:

By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the expansion in India of Indo-Aryan culture and it's Vedic religion, one of the predecessors of Hinduism.

References

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

First migrations, then Vedas

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

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

into

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some sentences of the second paragraph with citations and quotes

Please respond if you have to only in the discussion section at the end.

• Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago.

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 1, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8

• Quote: "Modern human beings—Homo sapiens—originated in Africa. Then, intermittently, sometime between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, tiny groups of them began to enter the north-west of the Indian subcontinent. It seems likely that initially they came by way of the coast. ... it is virtually certain that there were Homo sapiens in the subcontinent 55,000 years ago, even though the earliest fossils that have been found of them date to only about 30,000 years before the present. (page 1)"

• Michael D. Petraglia; Bridget Allchin (22 May 2007). The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-4020-5562-1.

• Quote: "Y-Chromosome and Mt-DNA data support the colonization of South Asia by modern humans originating in Africa. ... Coalescence dates for most non-European populations average to between 73–55 ka."

• Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, p. 23, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2

• Quote: "Scholars estimate that the first successful expansion of the Homo sapiens range beyond Africa and across the Arabian Peninsula occurred from as early as 80,000 years ago to as late as 40,000 years ago, although there may have been prior unsuccessful emigrations. Some of their descendants extended the human range ever further in each generation, spreading into each habitable land they encountered. One human channel was along the warm and productive coastal lands of the Persian Gulf​ and northern Indian Ocean.​ Eventually, various bands entered India between 75,000 years ago and 35,000 years ago (page 23)"

• Their long occupation, initially in varying forms of isolation as hunter-gatherers, has made India second only to Africa in human genetic diversity.

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 28, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8

• Quote: "Genetic research has contributed to knowledge of the prehistory of the subcontinent’s people in other respects. In particular, the level of genetic diversity in the region is extremely high. Indeed, only Africa’s population is genetically more diverse.113 Related to this, there is strong evidence of ‘founder’ events in the subcontinent. By this is meant circumstances where a subgroup—such as a tribe—derives from a tiny number of ‘original’ individuals. Further, compared to most world regions, the subcontinent’s people are relatively distinct in having practised comparatively high levels of endogamy. That is, there is strong evidence of sexual interaction and breeding within rather than between groups—groups here being mainly tribes and castes. One consequence of this is that it leads to relatively high rates of recessive disease.114 Overall, the antiquity and variety of the subcontinent’s genetic landscape is broadly consistent with what has been gleaned from archaeological, linguistic, and other research.115 In particular, and beyond the major contrasts between ANI and ASI ancestry, and Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the exceptional genetic diversity of the region’s people corresponds to the fact that there are a multitude of different castes and tribes, and that many different languages are spoken. It also accords with what was discussed in Chapter 1 concerning the likely nature of the subcontinent’s hunter-gatherer prehistory. For many thousands of years many small groups seem to have existed in relative isolation from each other."

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

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, pp. 14–15, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8

• Quote: "Although the collapse of the Indus valley civilization is no longer believed to have been due to an ‘Aryan invasion’ it is widely thought that, at roughly the same time, or perhaps a few centuries later, new Indo-Aryan-speaking people and influences began to enter the subcontinent from the north-west. Detailed evidence is lacking. Nevertheless, a predecessor of the language that would eventually be called Sanskrit was probably introduced into the north-west sometime between 3,900 and 3,000 years ago. This language was related to one then spoken in eastern Iran; and both of these languages belonged to the Indo-European language family. ... It seems likely that various small-scale migrations were involved in the gradual introduction of the predecessor language and associated cultural characteristics. However, there may not have been a tight relationship between movements of people on the one hand, and changes in language and culture on the other. Moreover, the process whereby a dynamic new force gradually arose—a people with a distinct ideology who eventually seem to have referred to themselves as ‘Arya’—was certainly two-way. That is, it involved a blending of new features which came from outside with other features—probably including some surviving Harappan influences—that were already present. Anyhow, it would be quite a few centuries before Sanskrit was written down. And the hymns and stories of the Arya people—especially the Vedas and the later Mahabharata and Ramayana epics—are poor guides as to historical events. Of course, the emerging Arya were to have a huge impact on the history of the subcontinent. Nevertheless, little is known about their early presence."

• Doniger, Wendy (2014). On Hinduism. Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-936007-9.

• Quote: "In the earliest preserved text of Hinduism, the Rig Veda, the people who referred to themselves as ‘we’ defined themselves in contrast with the ‘aliens’ or ‘slaves’, who spoke non-Indo-European languages, had dark skin and blunt features, and had been in possession of the Indian subcontinent before the Indo-Europeans (the ‘Aryans’) entered it from, most probably, Central Asia. (p 6) ... Hindu texts began with the Rig Veda (Knowledge of Verses’), composed in northwest India around 1500 ce; the first of the three Vedas, it is the earliest extant text composed in Sanskrit, the language of ancient India. "

• Robb, Peter (2011), A History of India, Macmillan, pp. 46–, ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2

• Quote: "The expansion of Aryan culture is supposed to have begun around 1500 BCE. It should not be thought that this Aryan emergence (though it implies some migration) necessarily meant either a sudden invasion of new peoples, or a complete break with earlier traditions. It comprises a set of cultural ideas and practices, upheld by a Sanskrit-speaking elite, or Aryans. The features of this society are recorded in the Vedas. Firstly, they imply warrior-leaders, deified in the form of Indra - possibly marking the subjugation of the Dasas, meaning either separate tribes or lower social orders who resisted the Aryans. Secondly, the Vedas imply specialist priests (brahmans, those who pray), their role demanded above all by the fire-sacrifice (yajna), and reflected in a pantheon of gods, sun-worship and other rituals, especially those involving the hallucinogen, soma. Thirdly, the Vedas recognize traders, craftsmen and other workers. At some stage these roles ceased to be necessarily occupational but became hereditary."

• Ludden, David (2013), India and South Asia: A Short History, Oneworld Publications, p. 19, ISBN 978-1-78074-108-6

• Quote: " In Punjab, a dry region with grasslands watered by five rivers (hence ‘panch’ and ‘ab’) draining the western Himalayas, one prehistoric culture left no material remains, but some of its ritual texts were preserved orally over the millennia. The culture is called Aryan, and evidence in its texts indicates that it spread slowly south-east, following the course of the Yamuna and Ganga Rivers. Its elite called itself Arya (pure) and distinguished themselves sharply from others. Aryans led kin groups organized as nomadic horse-herding tribes. Their ritual texts are called Vedas, composed in Sanskrit. Vedic Sanskrit is recorded only in hymns that were part of Vedic rituals to Aryan gods. To be Aryan apparently meant to belong to the elite among pastoral tribes. Texts that record Aryan culture are not precisely datable, but they seem to begin around 1200 BCE with four collections of Vedic hymns (Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Artharva)."

• The Dravidian languages of India were supplanted in the north.

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 25, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8

• Quote: "There are more than 300 functioning languages in the Indian subcontinent today. However, the region’s linguistic geography is dominated by the division between Indo-Aryan languages, which are spoken throughout most of the north and the west, and Dravidian languages, which are spoken throughout parts of the east and most of the south. Indo-Aryan tongues constitute a branch of the Indo-European language group. They include Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu, Gujarati, Marathi, and Bengali. In large part, these languages evolved from a predecessor or early form of Sanskrit. Dravidian tongues include the four main southern languages, i.e. Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, and Tamil. Dravidian languages were once spoken throughout much of the subcontinent. Indeed, Harappan symbols have been interpreted to suggest that the language of the Indus valley civilization may have been ‘proto-Dravidian’.95 This suggestion is hard to assess. But it is certainly conceivable that some of the communities associated with the Indus civilization spoke Dravidian tongues. Without doubt, Dravidian languages were once used in most of the west of the subcontinent—including Maharashtra and Gujarat, and stretching as far west as Sind.96 Indeed, even today the Dravidian language of Brahui is spoken in southern Baluchistan—although whether it is a ‘survival’ from an earlier time when Dravidian languages were very widely spoken, or has been carried there by the migration of a community north-westward out of Gujarat, remains unresolved. The distribution of Indo-Aryan languages almost certainly reflects the emergence of the Arya as a force in the north-west and the subsequent expansion of cognate influences throughout the Ganges basin and beyond. It seems likely that Indo-Aryan languages were being spoken throughout most of the area north of the Narmada River by 1 ce. The process whereby these new tongues supplanted those of the pre-existing peoples has been termed ‘language replacement’.97"

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 16, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8

• Quote: "In the next millennium, swathes of the upper Ganges river valley were deforested for agriculture, In any event, the settlement of the Ganges basin by Indo-Aryan speaking people was an extremely long and arduous process. The texts of the Vedas refer to Arya victories over dasas, their darker-skinned enemies. And the process of settlement well may well have involved driving communities out, appropriating women, and the enslavement of pre-existing peoples. Anyhow, the Arya used fire to help with forest clearance, and the later introduction of iron axes must also have helped."

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

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 16, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8

• Quote: "However, underpinned by a growing population, a widespread process of urbanization—sometimes referred to as a ‘second urbanization’—began to occur in the Ganges basin between about 600 and 400 BCE. Thus, by the latter date, there were a number of significant—mostly riverside—cities scattered throughout the basin. From west to east, they included Indraprastha (perhaps in the vicinity of what is now Delhi), Mathura, Kausambi, Ayodhya, Kashi (i.e. Varanasi or Benares), Vaisali, Pataliputra (i.e. Patna), Rajagriha (i.e. Rajgir), Champa, and the trading outlet of Tamralipti on the Bay of Bengal. While some of the Indus civilization’s more peripheral towns (e.g. in Gujarat) lingered on, these new cities in the Ganges basin were the first sizeable urban centres to have appeared for more than a thousand years. Most of the new cities were fortified. And, as one would expect, they became the centres for social, economic, political, and religious developments. They were also places of evident social differentiation. Thus, by 400 BCE, the essential structural features of the caste system already existed. 47 (Stein 2010)"

• Stein, History of India, 2010

• Quote: "Subjects of the raja of later vedic times and servants of the elite for whose protection he was selected, praja, were divided into ‘shudras’ and ‘dasas’. Dasas are described as unattractive and uncultured, with broad, flat noses and black skin, speaking a strange language and practising ‘crude magic’ in contrast to the prestigious vedic ritual of the Aryans. However, many dasas were said to have been captured in wars among Aryan clans as well as between Aryans and non-Aryans, so it may have been only defeat that set them apart in reality, and the negative descriptions are simply the victors’ insults. Dasas were set to working the lands and tending the herds of lower Aryan clansmen and other vis. Another designation for a people despised by Aryans was mleccha, a term meaning ‘one who speaks indistinctly’, in later times connoting a barbarian whose origins were not in the subcontinent. Those called vis adopted the title of vaishya, which at first designated the leading households of farmers, herdsmen or merchants. The heads of such households were called grihapati in some later vedic sources and gahapati in Buddhist texts; they were sources of tribute to Aryan rajas and fees to brahman priests. Thus by the later vedic times of 1000 to 500 bce, the structural ele ments of the caste system were in place, summarized as well as canonically accounted for in the ‘Hymn of the Primeval Man’: the four varnas (colours or castes) of brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. the shudras; the term varna reinforced these ranked differences: brahmans were supposed to wear white, kshatriyas yellow, vaishyas red and shudras black. Another invidious distinction made manifest by Buddhist times was that between the three highest varnas, who were considered twice-born (dvija), and the shudras. The former participated in a ritual ‘second’ birth (upanayana, initiation) while the latter did not. In addition, there were groups ranked even lower than shudras; to them was attached the stigma of untouchability, supposedly because their occupa tions were deeply polluting. These included leather workers, who disposed of sacred cattle when they died. ... Intermarriage and eating together were determined by the smaller units into which all the varnas were divided; (pp 51-52)

• Doniger, Wendy (2014). On Hinduism. Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-936007-9.

• Quote: " Society was already divided into four classes in the Rig Veda: the priests (Brahmins) who ruled the roost of the first class, the warrior-kings of the second class, the merchants and landowners who made up the third class, and a fourth class of servants, the defining ‘others’ who were disenfranchised, not Aryan, but still marginally Hindu.” Later, other groups below even the servants formed the ranks of the ‘not-us’ who were only questionably Hindu or not Hindu at all. The largest 'not-us’ group comprised the castes of people once called Untouchables, now called Dalits, whose deep-rooted pariah status was reinforced by their performing jobs, such as scavenging and sweeping cremation grounds, that higher-caste Hindus, ‘the twice-born’, did not do."

Discussion

I've added the original citations and quotes from August 2019, supplemented with two cites from Wendy Doniger and Burton Stein. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, despite your vacation. I hope you're staying at a nice - and safe! - place. I have responded above, to keep the discussion cetralized. NB: the replacement of the Dravidian languages by Indo-Aryan languages is not in question. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No, as I've stated above, please reply here, without quoting again, and in simple words what your objections are and to what. The above discussion with numerous sections was opened in less than 24 hours after your original post, i.e. before I had had a chance to respond in what is a reasonable time. I'd like to hear arguments, not see voting to rehashes of quotes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Note also, everywhere in the India page, we use only broad scale sources—mostly textbooks about India, or other broad topics, not journal papers, not even monographs, unless we have to. It is the imperative of WP:DUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

PS Sorry, about the Dravidian languages quotes, I think it that discussion has taken place in another section above. Pinging @RegentsPark: for his attention if he needs the quotes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Response by JJ:

• 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, one of the predecessors of Hinduism.

References

It's up to you what you do with these suggestions to improve the article. But this is what the sources say. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, @Joshua Jonathan: they are legitimate questions. I'll think about them and reply in a week or two, but here are a few quick replies.

• First, by "modern humans" we mean the behaviorally modern humans of the Upper paleolithic, not necessarily the first band of migrants who arrived on the subcontinent. For example, if we had said, "homo sapiens first arrived on the subcontinent in ... Their long occupation ..." we would not be talking about the first migrants, but the entire population. Second, the expression "genetic diversity" he is using (and perhaps that is not the best expression) is Human phenotypic diversity, for that is what is increased by Founder effect, genetic drift, and endogamy whether enforced by environmental isolation or by behavioral or ritual isolation as in Caste. I will need to think more about this.
• As for "dawning" (in the lead) we are talking in very general (broadly inclusive) terms. ( Btw, We use only broadscale sources (textbooks on India or another broad topic), not journal articles, not even monographs. I have of course been aware of Witzel's writings, even used them myself on WP, but he has never written anything broadscale about India. WP rules and regulations aside, there is an encyclopedic tradition here. Britannica's article on the Rg Veda says, "... the oldest of the sacred books of Hinduism," Its article on Hinduism says in its History of Hinduism section: "The history of Hinduism in India can be traced to about 1500 BCE." Its article on Vedic Religion sums it up: "It was one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism.") "Dawning," as I've explained above, has the figurative meaning of the "act of taking shape;" and in this aspect, especially in the plural, it is a little different from "dawn." ( Think of it in the meanings of: 1710? Newton: "I keep the subject constantly before me, and wait till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light." 1781 E. Gibbon Decline & Fall III. liii. 314 In the ninth century, we trace the first dawnings of the restoration of science. 1843 W. H. Prescott Hist. Conquest Mexico I. i. iv. 92 The dawnings of a literary culture. 1856 B. Brodie Psychol. Inq. (ed. 3) I. v. 198 That principle of intelligence, the dawning of which we observe in the lower animals.) Let me think about it some more, but I would agree to

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

  That to me would be a perfect broadscale characterization. It is using dawnings to indicate the acts of taking shape, the first strands; we are not using the definite article, i.e. "the," but "early," so we are leaving open the possibility of similar (even earlier) dawnings having taken place in IVC, Central Asia, etc.
• I need to think more about "social stratification" some more.

Thanks for bringing these topics up. They are valid discussion questions. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd change the last link to "early dawnings of Hinduism in India"; and add a source to cover for dawnings. I've given Jamison and Witzel ("predecessor"); you mentioned Britannica: "It was one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism." Otherwise: Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism , p.16: "The many traditions which feed in to [sic] contemporary Hinduism can be subsumed under three broad headings: the traditins of brahmanical orthopraxy, the renouncer traditions and popular or local traditions." Replying in a week or two is totally fine; there's no need to hurry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding mentioning Emerging Superpower

Greetings! I was going through the article and saw that the article missed out on an aspect that should have been mentioned in the para alongside the sentence stating India as ‘a nuclear state, ranking high in military expenditure’; Republic of India is considered one of the emerging superpowers of the world. Just a suggestion, I saw that countries such as China, Brazil etc had that mentioned in the last para of introduction. Thanks! Harshv7777 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Good find. I also support the inclusion. Santosh L (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Images in the article and the forthcoming comprehensive discussion in November 2020

I am being accused by पाटलिपुत्र of disregarding WP rules and sneaking in pictures undemocratically into the India page. A repetitive aspect of the allegation is that the picture of a Kurta with "chikan" embroidery File:Kurta_traditional_front_sandalwood_buttons.jpg is not that of "an actual Indian." The picture was taken 13 years ago to illustrate the Kurta, not the model; there were other pictures such as: File:Kurta closeup sandalwood buttons.jpg

Some images were indeed changed for this page's last WP:TFA on October 2, 2019, but the process was far from undemocratic. Here is a five-month history of the lead-up to that time.

History of revisions starting May 10, 2019 for India's appearance on Wikipedia's main page

On 10 May I made a poposal on Talk India about revising the page for is 15 Anniversary as an FA (16 September 2020) (You see how much lead-time it take? 4 months in this instance; and you are proposing a shotgun wedding for this page with your images.) Anyway, there was discussion, and in response: On May 21, 2019, I began to revise the page by restoring some edits that had been deleted and removing unilaterally introduced POV On July 12, 2019 there was a post by @Moxy, [Talk:India/Archive_45#Edit_request|critiquing the rotation template for images in the article], an artifice (adopted by a previous consensus) that allowed us to have many images, up to 72, in the article. His post begins with, "BUT the reader not aware we have that horrible rotation of images.....this still needs to be fixed. Why on some days is there good images and others pure junk." He also pointed out that the images need to be relevant to the text and their captions cited to high-quality reliable sources. Please also note: three of the pictures being discussed there are Featured Pictures, and two were retained in this article when the rotation was eventually stopped, albeit for another section because a later consensus was that we cannot really have pictures of people in Demography, only maps, or some other sympolic picture. On July 23, 2019 I made a post Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/Archive_11#India at TFA asking the folks there about featuring India for September 16. Wehwalt replied querying, "Is the article up to date?" meaning with today's standards. Jim Bleak suggested I look in the more recent country FAs, especially in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places On July 23, 2019 @Moxy began to tag the pictures for lack of relevance, context, sourced citation, blurred pictures in this edit On July 23, 2019 In response to @Moxy, I began to add captions in this edit On July 25, 2019 I formally started the revision with the post Talk:India/Archive_46#History and by pining: @RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan and later @Moxy On July 26, 2019 I made a second post Talk:India/Archive_46#The_remaining_sections pinging: @RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Moxy: I made a special note in that post about four images, Talk:India/Archive_46#Biodiversity I was proposing to add because the Biodiversity rotation template was four images short. Of the four images I proposed , three were Featured pictures and one was a NASA satellite photo of North Sentinel Island in the Andamans. Eventually, when the rotation was disallowed, only one was retained, the Featured picture of a deer in Nagarahole National Park in Karnataka. On July 28, I added those images to the India page in this edit. There were no objections then or for a full year (13 months) thereafter. On August 4, 2019, I a tentavite proposal of the lead with citations with quotes from the various books: Talk:India/Archive_46#Version_final-draft-f_of_the_lead pinged to even more people: @RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Moxy:, @Johnbod: among which were at least 4 admins. Talk:India/Archive_46#Final_proposal pinging even more people: @RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Moxy:, @Johnbod: On August 6, 2019, Talk:India/Archive_46#Final_proposal I made the final proposal pinging: @RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Moxy:, @Johnbod: Earlier on August 5, 2019 a discussion had begun: Talk:India/Archive_46#Discussion had begun with responses from @Johnbod, @Moxy, @Vanamonde93, On August 14, I added the revised version of the lead to the India article in this edit. On August 14, 2019, I made a revised proposal in Archive_46#Gandhi's_150th_and_TFA to revise the page instead for Mahatma Gandhi's 150th anniversary which was to fall on October 2, 2019. I pinged:@RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Neil P. Quinn:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Moxy:, @Johnbod:, among which were at east 4 admins I received assents from @Vanamonde93 and @Abecedare, both admins. On August 14, 2019, there was a discussion Talk:India/Archive_46#Remove_out_of_Africa_THEORY in the lead; @Vanamonde93 and @MilborneOne answered that. On August 15, 2019, I balanced the rotation template in the Geography section by adding three Featured pictures (it was three short of modulo 8 processing) in this edit. This was done in the public square in plain sight, with more than a dozen pinged earlier, and with @Moxy watching with the eyes of a hawk. On August 19, 2020, in response to @Moxy and the standards in the other FAs (suggested by Jim Bleak) I changed a blurry picture of a rice field File:Salt field worker.jpg to File:Marakkanam Salt Pans.JPG an FP of rice planting in this edit. On August 21, 2019, there was a discussion, Talk:India/Archive_46#Help_request, about adding a map of "Mahajanapadas" and a picture of a Gandhara Buddha. I answered that, explaining why we could not do it. On August 21, 2019, I changed the image File:Children eating kheer and puri, Chambal, India.jpg of children eating a mid-day meal in the Economy#Socio-economic-challenges, which had been in the article for many years with File:The Children being served the food under the Mid-day Meal Scheme at a primary school, Wokha district in Nagaland.jpg with the mid-day meal in Nagaland in this edit. I did not post on the Talk page because dozens of people knew I aws revising the page and making a post there all the time was becoming tiresome. But no one ever objected. Eventually, when rotation was stopped before the TFA neither picture was chosen. By August 23, 2019, it became clear from my examination of the other country FA, and Moxy's posts that a rotation template was not sustainable. A multiple image format was introduced. See this edit. Also, the other FAs had Cuisine, Clothing, Education, sections. Wehwalt had given me a deadline of September 16, 2019 for the TFA, and after that I had to get GOCE approval. On September 18, 2019, DreamLinker made a post on this page: Talk:India/Archive_46#Could_we_change_background_colour_of_some_image_boxes. The main conclusion of that discussion was that the maps had to be increased in size because handicapped users and mobile users could not view them. So I did just that.

• On September 19, 2019 @TwoFingeredTypist the Coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors, began to copy edit the article in his low-key wondrous style.
• He ended on September 21, 2019 in this edit
• Between July 23, 2019 when RegentsPark reverted Moxy's tagging (and I began to follow some of Moxy's image advice) and October 1, 2019 some 650 edits were made to India to prepare for the TFA. Of these, I haven't counted, but I'm guessing 500 edits were mine.Two brand new sections India#Clothing and India#Cuisine were written; a new lead was added.
• On October 2, 2019, Mahatma Gandhi's 150 birth anniversary, India appeared on Wikipedia's main page. Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/October_2,_2019
• The same day on this page @Airbornemihir made a post: Talk:India/Archive_47#Nice_to_see_this_on_the_main_page. There were complaints by a few editors, but MilborneOne summed it up as: "It is worth a note that if all the hard work that is done recently by User:Fowler&fowler is not following consensus or not improving the article there is a over 4,000 watchers who would have made a lot of noise but prefer to support with WP:SILENCE. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)"

• We will have a comprehensive image discussion in November. I will shortly post a proposal that will include a condition on image quality, on the number of images one editor can propose, displaying a committment to what this page has always stood for, what AshLin in a post above has called: "equal diversity of regions, cultures, religions, castes/tribes, genders, etc." But I'm sorry we cannot jump the gun and force hastily picked images on this page now. Pinging @RegentsPark: @Vanamonde93:, @MilborneOne:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Kautilya3:, @Abecedare:, @Sitush:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Moxy:, @Johnbod:, @AshLin: There must be typos above, but I'm tired. I apologize. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

For those who are interested, the above post by Fowler&fowler is in response to this discussion higher on the page: Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

***********

• I for one am happy to wait. We should probably do this slowly, a section or two at a time. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• While I agree that it is less than ideal if we have non-consensus images in the article, I think we should stick to the plan proposed by Fowler. Images are fraught with subjectivity and I'm not sure if it is a good idea to start replacing single images with other ones without considering the entirety of images. Let's wait, there is no rush, take one section at a time as JohnBod says. India is not an easy country to capture in a few images and seeking maximal input is our best option. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Fundamental problem with image selection here....should be based on text in the article...not best image to display information not in the article. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.--Moxy 🍁 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Why I wasn't pinged despite my multiple messages above discussing this issue? I object to selective WP:CANVASSING by Fowler. I still don't see why we have to wait until November 2020 when everyone is in favor of changing images except Fowler. पाटलिपुत्र has already described above in detail that why images should be changed. I still think we should agree to his changes than wait until November 2020. Santosh L (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Only those who were a part of the discussions that led to the page's TFA in 2019 were pinged. No one else. You have made your first post on this page on August 31, 2020 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Also please do not misstate the support above. A number of people among whom are AshLin, Johnbod, RegentsPark have expressed support for waiting until the comprehensive image discussion in November. And Moxy has pithily expressed the rationale for good images that they should be based on text. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• It's good to see that everyone seems to be ready to revisit the choices that have been made last year for the illustration of this article. It is indeed a good idea to go progressively, paragraph by paragraph, and to obtain a reasonnable consensus for the choices that are made. I'm not sure about the rationale for postponement to November 2020 though: is it just a question of convenience for one of the contributors? Since the problem with the photographs is fairly obvious, waiting months before even starting to work on a solution doesn't make much sense, and most of all would be a disservice to our community and a display of contempt for our readership. If there is a problem, let's solve it, without procrastinating. Saying "people are too busy with Covid 19 right now" does not make sense either, and the problem will be even worse in November anyway. On another note, I also doubt that limiting our selection to Featured Pictures or Good Pictures is a good idea: looking at a first list here, it seems fairly obvious that Featured Pictures or Good Pictures are aesthetic before being informative: we need good pictures of real India which are relevant first and foremost, before being "pretty". पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that we should revisit the images, I don't see any serious issues that absolutely must be attended to immediately. We can wait (see WP:NORUSH). Fowler has done this before in an exemplary fashion so just hang on for a bit and you'll get your chance to weigh in with your preferred images. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the portion about content disputes in WP:NORUSH is entitled "Don't postpone dispute resolution". I'd say it's pretty commonsense... Past mistakes should be corrected by a proper and consensual process of image selection for once, and we can move forward in a slow and organized manner, but I don't see the rationale and appropriateness of waiting until November to start. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this a dispute? I thought we were talking about a consensus building process. Labeling the current set of images "past mistakes" is not correct, because the images were installed after a long consensus building process and WP:CONSENSUS is one of our core policies. There will be few examples of better consensus formation processes than the one you're labeling as a "mistake". --RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do dispute the way many images are used with bias and without relevance to the paragraphs they illustrate, as presented in "Glaring inadequacies for a Featured Article". I also dispute your statement that "the images were installed after a long consensus building process", as it was certainly not the case for several of the most problematic ones, such as this one, which does not appear in any discussion, as far as I know. And you are still not explaining why the improvement process and the consensus building has to wait until November, inspite of the very guidance you have pointed me to, which says "Don't postpone dispute resolution". पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You may dispute the way images are presented but the reality is that they were added, in the manner that they are presented, by a consensus building process (and, as I continuously point out, a particularly detailed process). We tend to favor a consensus on Wikipedia and, here, we're saying that a consensus (that has been in place for years) will be revisited in November, two months from now. I don't see what your problem is. Meanwhile I've removed that particular image (I'm taking your word that it was not a consensus addition). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your removal of this image. But, again, why wait until November for the rest of the discussion? What's the rationale? (and I am not the only one asking this question, see above) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Citations to Dyson in the lead

The lead is horrible to edit because of the really ugly and repeated citations to Dyson (2018) A Population History of India. Each time it is used, and sometimes twice or more in the same citation, the entire {{cite}} template is repeated in a vertical format despite ref names being defined and each individual page is formatted as a separate cite. I was about to try reducing this but I quickly found that doing so would lead to errors. Is anyone willing to streamline the cites in this section a little? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, @Eggishorn:, the reason that they are in that format is that they all once had quotes, different ones. After the quotes had served their purpose, they are removed, but we were in such a mad rush before the TFA that tidying up was not done. As I did the adding, I'll fix them. But please give me a few days. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to raise the issue because answering an edit request to the lead was more difficult than it normally would have been. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I should point out, though, that changes to the lead beyond the obvious typos—even one word—require an extended discussion and consensus. See for example Talk:India/Archive_45#"Also_known_as"_the_Republic_of_India? or Talk:India/Archive_48#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_9_June_2020. The discussion above Talk:India#Suggestions_regarding_mentioning_Emerging_Superpower, in similar forms, has been proposed at least a dozen times before, to no avail. Two posts by two new people (to this page), with little feeling for the quality of sourcing in the lead of this longstanding FA (nearly 16 years), are of little value here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in policy or ArbCom decisions or discretionary sanctions requires "extended discussion and consensus" for every change. Any change that is challenged should be discussed because that's the normal editing cycle and revert restrictions apply in ARBPIA, but stating it as above is overstating it. The change was made with consensus anyway -- see "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2020" above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. Sorry, but it was poorly (incorrectly) phrased. Gujarat, Maharashtra and Sind are in the west, not northwest. The Punjab, and Northwest Frontier Province are in the northwest. Also, that discussion above (of 15 August) is not complete. I didn't realize that RegentsPark had pinged me. I will suggest something there soon. As for Wiki rules etc, I don't know them. But I do know the convention (and precedent) of this page dates to long before there was ARBIPA. There are nearly a dozen administrators who watch this page. (I won't ping them, but they include RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, Doug Weller, MilborneOne, ...) You are welcome to dispute the rules with them. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I can only echoe User:Eggishorn's sensible words. The statement according to which "changes to the lead beyond the obvious typos —even one word— require an extended discussion and consensus." is, as far as I know, false. WP:OWN#Featured_articles, which has been repeatedly invoked as ground for reverting, only says: "Featured articles are open for editing like any other" and "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." So it is just a recommendation, mainly for the most significant changes, and certainly not mandatory. We should just go with the normal Wikipedia process of editing, and discuss when problems arise. Systematically reverting contributions and demanding that any little change be approved beforehand, has never been a Wikipedia policy. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa"

"Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago": a pretty strange sentence, which could be easily understood as modern humans arriving directly from Africa to India (by boat?). This could be said of the people of (Western) Madagascar arriving directly from Africa, but modern humans, on the other hand, had to disseminate through the Old Continent for thousands of years before reaching India, which is hardly a direct process. It is also not what is said in the source: Dyson says, cautiously separating the two events: 1) Modern humans originated in Africa 2) Modern humans entered India between 60,000 and 80,000 YA [4]. Hence my proposal, which is closer to the source and less misleading: "Modern humans, who originated in Africa, arrived on the Indian subcontinent no later than 55,000 years ago." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)