This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 'Politics and Government'-> 'Administrative Division' section, the Union territories are not marked correctly on the clickable map. In the table beside it, 'C' should be 'Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu', and 'D' should be 'Jammu and Kashmir' and other subsequent changes accordingly in either table/map. Mohit155 ( talk) 08:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
22 official language. Vande mataram is being a religious begotry version from hindu extremist novel of Anandamath. I think it refers to different India. SelNit ( talk) 14:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Not only hindi and english are official language. Albinsholan ( talk) 13:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu.Oct 22, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:425:D36C:0:5D:8F68:3001 ( talk) 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree to this note... this has to be updated... Rajasekhar1337 ( talk) 14:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I too agree. India has 22 official language. Albinsholan ( talk) 13:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Both South and North India had exported Hindu and Buddhist culture as well as Sanskrit to SE Asia. Empires in the North and East (such as the Palas, Guptas, or Kalingans) had as extensive trade and diplomacy with the states of SE Asia as Southern States did. Further more, Northern cultural influences such as the use of Sikharas on temples (borrowed from Nagara architecture) are more typical of SE Asian architecture than the Dravidian ”Vimana”. Further more it should be reiterated that the scripts used by both North & South Indians, as well as SE Asians, js the Brahmi Script Bajirao1007 ( talk) 13:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This high level article still makes a false claim in the transmission of scripts in the history section of the article. Bajirao1007 ( talk) 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Don’t ignore me now that i clapped back Bajirao1007 ( talk) 00:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
india has any heritages like hampi,etc. Parv n jain ( talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The following is an extract from the Indian Independence Act 1947:
[Section]1.-(i) As from the fifteenth day of August, ninteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.
There is no dispute but that India was indeed a Dominion between 1947 and 1949. However, its common name and official name was simply India. Although the term Dominion of India was used sometimes, it wasn't the official name. While moving the Dominion of India article has been rejected on a past occasion, the article itself ought to atleast be correct as to what the official name was. Currently it has confusing mumbo jumbo suggesting the official name was “Union of India” or “Dominion of India”. Has anyone take the time to even look at an Indian passport from the era? Anyway, it would be great if some knowledgable editors took the time to review the article generally. My comments on the official name have been reverted over the years. Thanks. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 04:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
165.225.217.63 ( talk) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The Indian cricket team are two times World Champions. In addition to winning the 1983 Cricket World Cup, they triumphed over Sri Lanka in the 2011 Cricket World Cup on home soil- "A remarkable achievement". They were also runners-up at the 2003 Cricket World Cup, and semifinalists four times(1987, 1996, 2015, 2019).
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2020 population estimate: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ 2020 population estimate is 1,380,004,385. 123jat! ( talk) 23:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Assamese Bengali Bodo Dogri English[1][2][3] Gujarati Hindi[1]4] Kannada Kashmiri Konkani Maithili Malayalam Marathi Meitei Nepali Odia Punjabi Sanskrit Santali Sindhi Tamil Telugu Urdu (total: 23, including 22 8th Schedule languages and additional official language, English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.139.228 ( talk) 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hindi and English are not official languages. There are other languages included Rajini1414 ( talk) 19:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
this article confused official language of india with official language of union. official language of india is 22 + 1(English) ,not only hindi and english ,so that has to be corrected Holyrn ( talk) 04:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Administrative Divisions section, the table header contains the following: States (1–28) & Union territories (A–I). Since there are currently 8 union territories in India, please change the A-I to A-H. This is a minor edit request. Thank you. Drdebmath ( talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Bengal Sultanate, a major world trading nation be mentioned on the article (including in lede)? The sultanate was described as the richest country to trade with by the Europeans. The empire existed for 3 centuries, so why is not here at all? It should be mentioned in the history section as well as in the lede. If the lede mention about the Vijaynagara Empire then Bengal Bengal Sultanate must be there too. Or the Vijaynagara must be removed since there were numerous kingdoms based on there, including Tipu Sultan Mysore Kingdom. Please let us know. 79.75.60.209 ( talk) 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hippeus in lede is also preferable considering its wealth, power and influence. Why shud Vijaynagara be there? Anywyas, the article is protected, who is going to add something about it at least in the history section? Thanks 79.75.56.169 ( talk) 20:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I copied this from the
Maratha Empire article, "The
Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending
Mughal rule in India.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[note 1]"
and I believe it should be added to the lead between the mentioning of the Mughals and British East India Company. Please add it. Thanks!—
Souniel Yadav (
talk) 20:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Prototypehumanoid ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler, you are telling someone to read that {Mughal Empire}? Wow. How will someone be convinced about its greatness, especially an anti-Mughal one, if no so called superlative info is available there, as you've removed all of them? 79.75.56.169 ( talk) 20:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
replace India (Hindi: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) with India (Hindi: भारत), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य) Tsla1337 ( talk) 10:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Official languages are not only English and Hindi. To be changed to:
Official languages: 22 languages in 8th schedule of Indian constitution.(Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, English, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konjam, Maathiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Maitri, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindu, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu) 2409:4072:40E:98F:B423:F61C:8AA6:1463 ( talk) 18:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Hello,
@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.
Bookku ( talk) 12:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
indian miliray power is not determine in the page. 2409:4063:429B:653:D47F:D598:423:80B5 ( talk) 04:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Change from: "
Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the union, or central, government and the
states"
Because there are atleast three issues with the wording:
1. It is not clear among how many units the power distribution is. It may seem that there are three units (a) union, or central (b) government (c) the states.
2. It only refers to union as government and but not the states, even though there are also governments in the states as well.
3. "Commas may seem a bit fussy," as explained by
Dhtwiki.
Therefore, Change to: "
Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the
Union and the
states"
Here the sentence is smooth and avoids clutter, the link also leads the reader to the articles of the respective governments.--
Ab207 (
talk) 02:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:204:5022:E9E1:4235:75E:872C:333A ( talk) 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
India remove and BHARTH add
India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu. And it's not Hindi and English alone Prasand27 ( talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The Union of India has 2 official language, Hindi in Devnagari script along with English. The references are given in the article itself. All the languages you've mentioned are 8th schedule languages. Manasbose ( talk) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi
This article states that Mauritius has over 900,000 Indians living there. This is not true as we are nation of less than 50% indo Mauritians. So actually there’s only about 1% of Indians living there. Never met one. 92.1.253.244 ( talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Driving side in India is Right. 2402:3A80:1926:89BD:3277:49EF:6690:AC95 ( talk) 03:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
National language is Hindi ObaidSir ( talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
National language : None Change to National language : Hindi ObaidSir ( talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Bookku ( talk) 07:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's no mention of Partition of India in the lead paragraphs. It's an important enough event to write here. I propose at the end of the 3rd paragraph to change:
To:
Or something else among those lines. Weaveravel ( talk) 17:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)How about:
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947. Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born.
I don't believe there is a need to mention the Partition of India specifically. The partition affected only the states of Punjab and Bengal. The rest of India was unaffected as was most of the rest of Pakistan. Asking a reader to click out to another page will be confusing. It is better to explain here what happened. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born.would actually not be needed as suggests creation of another state along without specifying the establishment event and relevance. Better would be:
Or:A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though at the cost of a bloody partition what led to creation of West Pakistan and East Pakistan along as well.
Partition of India is an important post-war event, even more relevant in case of India as state envisaged by Indian nationalists didn't only cover modern India, nor the common definition of India did what would completely change hereafter. There is no reason why it should not be in history in the lead, you should reconsider. Dhawangupta ( talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though with a partition along religious lines.
Dear
RegentsPark,
Dhawangupta,
Weaveravel,
Paine EllsworthSorry, u Upon reflection, I have to disagree have to emphasize one thing. Our individual opinions are meaningless here. The lead is merely summarizing the history section. The history section is merely following the allocation of attention in the scholarly sources to Indian Nationalism, which lies in the sequence of historical periods: British Raj (1858-1885), Indian Nationalism (1883-1947), and Independent India (1947-). Indian nationalism begins with the Ilbert Bill (1883) and ends on the midnight of 14-15 August 1947. I will shortly give evidence in the
scholarly sources used in this article for the apportionment of space to the Partition. It is small.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 23:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Upldated.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe the others are much different. Please tell me how one accommodates 1/9 scholarly attention in two sentences in anything more than a very brief mention? Anyway, here's another possibility:
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into a largely Hindu Dominion of India and a largely Muslim Dominion of Pakistan amid unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life
The first sentence of the next paragraph would be changed from: "India is a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." to "In 1950, India became a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." Updated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The rest, "but," "though," "at the cost," "bloody" is POV. Twenty-eight (28) times as many people died in India in the ...I don't think it is going to downplay that still the severe loss of life has been attributed as bloody. If you deem the bloody as a puffery from literature, you may utilize simply something like resulting in great loss of life
and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into..This version is too verbose, also using vague terms like "the subcontinent was partitioned" (the article is called "partition of India and so is common name for event"). Moreover, the incident can't be transfered to a sentence away from British rule as both were not mutually exclusive given that Partition of India itself was a result of Indian Independence Act, 1947 which ended British rule as well. Weaveravel's version is much much better: "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947, with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India." And its common sense that this deserves mention; to say only Punjab and Bengal were affected is disingenuous. The provinces in what became Pakistan were all a part of India, with this territory being lost after the partition. Moreover, migrants came from all over the country, not just Punjab and Bengal. Dhawangupta ( talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Dhawangupta, RegentsPark, Weaveravel, Paine Ellsworth: This will be long, please bear with me. I agree with some points of Dhawangupta. "... it led to the end of British rule" is the wrong choice of words for it can mean leading to the bitter end, to the transfer of power ceremonies, or to the Indian Independence Act. I agree also that the "subcontinent" is imprecise. I will propose an alternative below. Let me first clarify some things here:
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life.
(Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
Note I am using the informal term "British Indian Empire = British India + Princely States as a nod to the political integration of the princely states most of which was accomplished before 15 August 1947. The term "Partition of the British Indian Empire" is used in the sources (See Yasmin Khan's book.) More text than this we cannot absorb in the lead. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Dhawangupta ( talk) 14:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@
Usedtobecool: I agree, was thinking the same; I don't think there's any need. The adjectives "unprecedented" and "large-scale" apply to different nouns (or noun phrases). "A red book and green table," does not make the table red. (We could change it to "amid an unprecedented migration as well as a large-scale loss of life." But I don't think there's a need for it.) I'll defer to
RegentsPark and
Weaveravel. @
Dhawangupta: I disagree, for reasons I have already given above. The League had won a mandate for the partition well before Direct Action Day. I will post the citation for the second sentence soon. I think we have discussed this enough. Let us put something in, and continue the debate thereafter, of there's appetite.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 15:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid unprecedented migration and a large-scale loss of life.
(Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. [1] In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life. [2] [3] ... (Next paragraph, first sentence) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged noted for nonviolent resistance, which became the major factor in ending British rule. [1] In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid
an unprecedented migration and alarge-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. [2] [3] ... (Next paragraph, first sentence) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life."
...amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration.P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of that. The source actually mentions the deaths before the migration. So, fine, I agree. Thanks @ Paine Ellsworth: Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. (Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950, governed in a democratic parliamentary system."
OK, everyone. I am now adding the agreed-to text to the lead of the article. It is
"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. [1] In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. [4] [5] (Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950, governed in a democratic parliamentary system."
I think we have enough consensus for this. Thanks all for a wonderful discussion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
References
India, as per its official map, considers Afghanistan its neighboring country. In my opinion, Afghanistan must be mentioned and wiki-linked within the first paragraph of the article, because merely the note below is not enough. Khestwol ( talk) 11:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
RegentsPark and CMD have spoken with their usual perspicacity. To their comments, let me add that Britannica, whose article on India is written by many famous scholars of South Asia, including the geographer Joseph E. Schwartzberg, makes no mention of Wakhan there. Britannica also has a small page on Vakhan (new spelling), which says,
Vākhān, also spelled Wākhān, or Wakhan Corridor, a mountainous region and panhandle in the Pamir Mountains of extreme northeastern Afghanistan. From the demarcation of the Afghan frontier (1895–96), the panhandle formed a political buffer between Russian Turkistan, British India, and China. It is now bounded by Tajikistan (north), China (east), and Pakistan (south). The Vākhān River flows from west to east through Vākhān for 100 miles (160 km), joining the Pamir River near Qalʿeh-ye Panjeh, which is the region’s main village.
Note that its only mention of a successor state of the British Raj is Pakistan, not India. The obscure factoid of a hypothetical border shared with India would loom much larger in the geography of Vakhan than it would in that of India, the seventh-largest country in the world (as Hippeas has wisely observed). Yet Britannica's Vakhan page does not have even a footnote to acknowledge this. So what does that tell you? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is all the Hindi in this article Romanised? Most other pages will have the local scrip as well as a transliteration. After researching it a bit, I now understand why there is no attempt to list all the different names of India in other local languages, there's too many, and it would cause too many debates? But i don't see the problem with using the Hindi script? The article does show the full name in Romanised Hindi, i can see some justification for giving the name in the national language but not all the regional languages, but why only Romanised? Irtapil ( talk) 05:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If this discussion is still ongoing, then I would suggest that the name of the country in Devanagari be given either in the infobox or both in the lead and infobox. My reasoning is when you click on "other local names," one of the first things mentioned is that only Hindi is the Official Language and what OP said reflects this. TSAray ( talk) 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I also support adding Devanagari Script name. Since, articles like Bhutan, Myanmar, Japan, China etc., all include respective country's name in their official script. It is quite disingenuous to write the name in Hindi, but not use the original script. Dhawangupta ( talk) 13:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change first line of the article to:
India ( Hindi: भारत, romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India ( Hindi: भारत गणराज्य, romanized: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. Dhawangupta ( talk) 08:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This section is missing information on the various scripts used for writing in India.We can use the following from the page on Languages of India: "Most languages in India are written in Brahmi-derived scripts, such as Devanagari, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Meitei Mayek, Odia, Eastern Nagari – Assamese/Bengali, etc., though Urdu is written in a script derived from Arabic." We can trim it if necessary.I had raised this issue a number of years ago but did not pursue it further.Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
India hindi news website 14.142.143.6 ( talk) 05:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Republic of India is considered one of the emerging superpowers of the world.[1][2][3][4] This potential is attributed to several indicators, the primary ones being its demographic trends and a rapidly expanding economy. In 2015, India became the world's fastest growing economy with a 7.5% estimated GDP rate (mid year terms).[5] The country must overcome many economic, social, and political problems before it can be considered a superpower. Ayushmaan Chakrabarti ( talk) 07:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I Don't think there is no one particular language as official language, there are various languages spoken across various regions throughout the country . So it seems to be irrelevant to show one language As a official language Snstark ( talk) 16:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't really know how talk pages work but yeah, i don't really think GDP per capita matters. You should replace them with PPP per capita. Thats purchase power parity. That'd result in a more fair view about the economy, because you do have to take that into account that stuff is over-all cheaper, so you can buy more stuff for the same amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrawlyTheContributer ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Its fake pls remove it Sungpeshwe9 ( talk) 10:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add
at the top of Etymology section. Dhawangupta ( talk) 07:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There is obviously no consensus for adding a highly POV page Names of India in the flagship page of India-related articles. I am reverting it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
randomly add nonsense. I added a link to a related page. You're talking like I vandalized the page. I'll trust you when you say that Names of India is a POV page (I'm not too familiar with the subject), but this was a perfectly reasonable way for me to answer the edit request. I initially declined but changed my mind after I was given an example of an identical situation at Japan#Etymology. My assumption is that pages on Wikipedia aren't POV – and in this case, I did scan Names of India, which does not have a neutrality template warning. I expect an apology. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hindi is not the national language of India. Each state in India has its own languages. Don't give false information. Your providing an information about one country, please research urself and do. Don't belive on others. 2405:204:208D:D79E:CCCE:E8CD:D487:C4A5 ( talk) 06:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There are lot of maps in History section and around 19 maps in general in entire article, need suggestions to remove some maps. -- Omer123hussain ( talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 [1], 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)
"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)
@ 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)
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. [1]
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. [1]
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)
My second edit diff changed
By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within Hinduism, [1]
into
By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within the Vedic culture of the Aryan people settling the Ganges basin, [1]
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)
Re F&f quotes:
... 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.
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)
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. [1]
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. [1]
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]:
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
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.
(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)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.
Quotes would be most welcome; thanks. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Re F&f quotes:
... 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.
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, [1] one of the predecessors of Hinduism. [2]
References
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
My fourth edit diff swapped two (parts of) sentences, namely
The Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, [1] were composed during this period, [2] and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain. [3] Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. [1]
into
Most historians consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. [1] The Vedas, the sacred hymns of the Vedic religion, and the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, [1] were composed and codified during this period. [2] Historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain. [3]
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)
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 this 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 'Politics and Government'-> 'Administrative Division' section, the Union territories are not marked correctly on the clickable map. In the table beside it, 'C' should be 'Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu', and 'D' should be 'Jammu and Kashmir' and other subsequent changes accordingly in either table/map. Mohit155 ( talk) 08:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
22 official language. Vande mataram is being a religious begotry version from hindu extremist novel of Anandamath. I think it refers to different India. SelNit ( talk) 14:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Not only hindi and english are official language. Albinsholan ( talk) 13:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu.Oct 22, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:425:D36C:0:5D:8F68:3001 ( talk) 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree to this note... this has to be updated... Rajasekhar1337 ( talk) 14:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I too agree. India has 22 official language. Albinsholan ( talk) 13:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Both South and North India had exported Hindu and Buddhist culture as well as Sanskrit to SE Asia. Empires in the North and East (such as the Palas, Guptas, or Kalingans) had as extensive trade and diplomacy with the states of SE Asia as Southern States did. Further more, Northern cultural influences such as the use of Sikharas on temples (borrowed from Nagara architecture) are more typical of SE Asian architecture than the Dravidian ”Vimana”. Further more it should be reiterated that the scripts used by both North & South Indians, as well as SE Asians, js the Brahmi Script Bajirao1007 ( talk) 13:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This high level article still makes a false claim in the transmission of scripts in the history section of the article. Bajirao1007 ( talk) 21:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Don’t ignore me now that i clapped back Bajirao1007 ( talk) 00:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
india has any heritages like hampi,etc. Parv n jain ( talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The following is an extract from the Indian Independence Act 1947:
[Section]1.-(i) As from the fifteenth day of August, ninteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.
There is no dispute but that India was indeed a Dominion between 1947 and 1949. However, its common name and official name was simply India. Although the term Dominion of India was used sometimes, it wasn't the official name. While moving the Dominion of India article has been rejected on a past occasion, the article itself ought to atleast be correct as to what the official name was. Currently it has confusing mumbo jumbo suggesting the official name was “Union of India” or “Dominion of India”. Has anyone take the time to even look at an Indian passport from the era? Anyway, it would be great if some knowledgable editors took the time to review the article generally. My comments on the official name have been reverted over the years. Thanks. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 04:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
165.225.217.63 ( talk) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The Indian cricket team are two times World Champions. In addition to winning the 1983 Cricket World Cup, they triumphed over Sri Lanka in the 2011 Cricket World Cup on home soil- "A remarkable achievement". They were also runners-up at the 2003 Cricket World Cup, and semifinalists four times(1987, 1996, 2015, 2019).
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2020 population estimate: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ 2020 population estimate is 1,380,004,385. 123jat! ( talk) 23:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Assamese Bengali Bodo Dogri English[1][2][3] Gujarati Hindi[1]4] Kannada Kashmiri Konkani Maithili Malayalam Marathi Meitei Nepali Odia Punjabi Sanskrit Santali Sindhi Tamil Telugu Urdu (total: 23, including 22 8th Schedule languages and additional official language, English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.139.228 ( talk) 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hindi and English are not official languages. There are other languages included Rajini1414 ( talk) 19:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
this article confused official language of india with official language of union. official language of india is 22 + 1(English) ,not only hindi and english ,so that has to be corrected Holyrn ( talk) 04:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Administrative Divisions section, the table header contains the following: States (1–28) & Union territories (A–I). Since there are currently 8 union territories in India, please change the A-I to A-H. This is a minor edit request. Thank you. Drdebmath ( talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Bengal Sultanate, a major world trading nation be mentioned on the article (including in lede)? The sultanate was described as the richest country to trade with by the Europeans. The empire existed for 3 centuries, so why is not here at all? It should be mentioned in the history section as well as in the lede. If the lede mention about the Vijaynagara Empire then Bengal Bengal Sultanate must be there too. Or the Vijaynagara must be removed since there were numerous kingdoms based on there, including Tipu Sultan Mysore Kingdom. Please let us know. 79.75.60.209 ( talk) 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hippeus in lede is also preferable considering its wealth, power and influence. Why shud Vijaynagara be there? Anywyas, the article is protected, who is going to add something about it at least in the history section? Thanks 79.75.56.169 ( talk) 20:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I copied this from the
Maratha Empire article, "The
Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending
Mughal rule in India.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[note 1]"
and I believe it should be added to the lead between the mentioning of the Mughals and British East India Company. Please add it. Thanks!—
Souniel Yadav (
talk) 20:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Prototypehumanoid ( talk) 14:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler, you are telling someone to read that {Mughal Empire}? Wow. How will someone be convinced about its greatness, especially an anti-Mughal one, if no so called superlative info is available there, as you've removed all of them? 79.75.56.169 ( talk) 20:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
replace India (Hindi: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya) with India (Hindi: भारत), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य) Tsla1337 ( talk) 10:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Official languages are not only English and Hindi. To be changed to:
Official languages: 22 languages in 8th schedule of Indian constitution.(Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, English, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konjam, Maathiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Maitri, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindu, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu) 2409:4072:40E:98F:B423:F61C:8AA6:1463 ( talk) 18:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Hello,
@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.
Bookku ( talk) 12:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
indian miliray power is not determine in the page. 2409:4063:429B:653:D47F:D598:423:80B5 ( talk) 04:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Change from: "
Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the union, or central, government and the
states"
Because there are atleast three issues with the wording:
1. It is not clear among how many units the power distribution is. It may seem that there are three units (a) union, or central (b) government (c) the states.
2. It only refers to union as government and but not the states, even though there are also governments in the states as well.
3. "Commas may seem a bit fussy," as explained by
Dhtwiki.
Therefore, Change to: "
Federalism in India defines the power distribution between the
Union and the
states"
Here the sentence is smooth and avoids clutter, the link also leads the reader to the articles of the respective governments.--
Ab207 (
talk) 02:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:204:5022:E9E1:4235:75E:872C:333A ( talk) 13:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
India remove and BHARTH add
India has 22 official languages, namely Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu. And it's not Hindi and English alone Prasand27 ( talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The Union of India has 2 official language, Hindi in Devnagari script along with English. The references are given in the article itself. All the languages you've mentioned are 8th schedule languages. Manasbose ( talk) 12:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi
This article states that Mauritius has over 900,000 Indians living there. This is not true as we are nation of less than 50% indo Mauritians. So actually there’s only about 1% of Indians living there. Never met one. 92.1.253.244 ( talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Driving side in India is Right. 2402:3A80:1926:89BD:3277:49EF:6690:AC95 ( talk) 03:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
National language is Hindi ObaidSir ( talk) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
National language : None Change to National language : Hindi ObaidSir ( talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Bookku ( talk) 07:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's no mention of Partition of India in the lead paragraphs. It's an important enough event to write here. I propose at the end of the 3rd paragraph to change:
To:
Or something else among those lines. Weaveravel ( talk) 17:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)How about:
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947. Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born.
I don't believe there is a need to mention the Partition of India specifically. The partition affected only the states of Punjab and Bengal. The rest of India was unaffected as was most of the rest of Pakistan. Asking a reader to click out to another page will be confusing. It is better to explain here what happened. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Amid dislocation and religiously-driven violence the modern states of India and Pakistan were born.would actually not be needed as suggests creation of another state along without specifying the establishment event and relevance. Better would be:
Or:A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though at the cost of a bloody partition what led to creation of West Pakistan and East Pakistan along as well.
Partition of India is an important post-war event, even more relevant in case of India as state envisaged by Indian nationalists didn't only cover modern India, nor the common definition of India did what would completely change hereafter. There is no reason why it should not be in history in the lead, you should reconsider. Dhawangupta ( talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for its largely nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule in 1947 though with a partition along religious lines.
Dear
RegentsPark,
Dhawangupta,
Weaveravel,
Paine EllsworthSorry, u Upon reflection, I have to disagree have to emphasize one thing. Our individual opinions are meaningless here. The lead is merely summarizing the history section. The history section is merely following the allocation of attention in the scholarly sources to Indian Nationalism, which lies in the sequence of historical periods: British Raj (1858-1885), Indian Nationalism (1883-1947), and Independent India (1947-). Indian nationalism begins with the Ilbert Bill (1883) and ends on the midnight of 14-15 August 1947. I will shortly give evidence in the
scholarly sources used in this article for the apportionment of space to the Partition. It is small.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 23:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Upldated.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe the others are much different. Please tell me how one accommodates 1/9 scholarly attention in two sentences in anything more than a very brief mention? Anyway, here's another possibility:
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into a largely Hindu Dominion of India and a largely Muslim Dominion of Pakistan amid unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life
The first sentence of the next paragraph would be changed from: "India is a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." to "In 1950, India became a secular federal republic governed in a democratic parliamentary system." Updated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The rest, "but," "though," "at the cost," "bloody" is POV. Twenty-eight (28) times as many people died in India in the ...I don't think it is going to downplay that still the severe loss of life has been attributed as bloody. If you deem the bloody as a puffery from literature, you may utilize simply something like resulting in great loss of life
and led to the end of British rule. In 1947, the subcontinent was partitioned into..This version is too verbose, also using vague terms like "the subcontinent was partitioned" (the article is called "partition of India and so is common name for event"). Moreover, the incident can't be transfered to a sentence away from British rule as both were not mutually exclusive given that Partition of India itself was a result of Indian Independence Act, 1947 which ended British rule as well. Weaveravel's version is much much better: "which was noted for nonviolent resistance and led India to its independence in 1947, with part of the former territory affected by the partition of India." And its common sense that this deserves mention; to say only Punjab and Bengal were affected is disingenuous. The provinces in what became Pakistan were all a part of India, with this territory being lost after the partition. Moreover, migrants came from all over the country, not just Punjab and Bengal. Dhawangupta ( talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Dhawangupta, RegentsPark, Weaveravel, Paine Ellsworth: This will be long, please bear with me. I agree with some points of Dhawangupta. "... it led to the end of British rule" is the wrong choice of words for it can mean leading to the bitter end, to the transfer of power ceremonies, or to the Indian Independence Act. I agree also that the "subcontinent" is imprecise. I will propose an alternative below. Let me first clarify some things here:
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life.
(Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
Note I am using the informal term "British Indian Empire = British India + Princely States as a nod to the political integration of the princely states most of which was accomplished before 15 August 1947. The term "Partition of the British Indian Empire" is used in the sources (See Yasmin Khan's book.) More text than this we cannot absorb in the lead. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Dhawangupta ( talk) 14:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@
Usedtobecool: I agree, was thinking the same; I don't think there's any need. The adjectives "unprecedented" and "large-scale" apply to different nouns (or noun phrases). "A red book and green table," does not make the table red. (We could change it to "amid an unprecedented migration as well as a large-scale loss of life." But I don't think there's a need for it.) I'll defer to
RegentsPark and
Weaveravel. @
Dhawangupta: I disagree, for reasons I have already given above. The League had won a mandate for the partition well before Direct Action Day. I will post the citation for the second sentence soon. I think we have discussed this enough. Let us put something in, and continue the debate thereafter, of there's appetite.
Fowler&fowler
«Talk» 15:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid unprecedented migration and a large-scale loss of life.
(Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, noted for nonviolent resistance, and becoming the major factor in ending British rule. [1] In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life. [2] [3] ... (Next paragraph, first sentence) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged noted for nonviolent resistance, which became the major factor in ending British rule. [1] In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid
an unprecedented migration and alarge-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. [2] [3] ... (Next paragraph, first sentence) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950 governed in a democratic parliamentary system.
Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan amid an unprecedented migration and large-scale loss of life."
...amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration.P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of that. The source actually mentions the deaths before the migration. So, fine, I agree. Thanks @ Paine Ellsworth: Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. (Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950, governed in a democratic parliamentary system."
OK, everyone. I am now adding the agreed-to text to the lead of the article. It is
"A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule. [1] In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two independent dominions, a Hindu-majority Dominion of India and a Muslim-majority Dominion of Pakistan, amid large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration. [4] [5] (Next paragraph) India has been a secular federal republic since 1950, governed in a democratic parliamentary system."
I think we have enough consensus for this. Thanks all for a wonderful discussion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
References
India, as per its official map, considers Afghanistan its neighboring country. In my opinion, Afghanistan must be mentioned and wiki-linked within the first paragraph of the article, because merely the note below is not enough. Khestwol ( talk) 11:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
RegentsPark and CMD have spoken with their usual perspicacity. To their comments, let me add that Britannica, whose article on India is written by many famous scholars of South Asia, including the geographer Joseph E. Schwartzberg, makes no mention of Wakhan there. Britannica also has a small page on Vakhan (new spelling), which says,
Vākhān, also spelled Wākhān, or Wakhan Corridor, a mountainous region and panhandle in the Pamir Mountains of extreme northeastern Afghanistan. From the demarcation of the Afghan frontier (1895–96), the panhandle formed a political buffer between Russian Turkistan, British India, and China. It is now bounded by Tajikistan (north), China (east), and Pakistan (south). The Vākhān River flows from west to east through Vākhān for 100 miles (160 km), joining the Pamir River near Qalʿeh-ye Panjeh, which is the region’s main village.
Note that its only mention of a successor state of the British Raj is Pakistan, not India. The obscure factoid of a hypothetical border shared with India would loom much larger in the geography of Vakhan than it would in that of India, the seventh-largest country in the world (as Hippeas has wisely observed). Yet Britannica's Vakhan page does not have even a footnote to acknowledge this. So what does that tell you? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is all the Hindi in this article Romanised? Most other pages will have the local scrip as well as a transliteration. After researching it a bit, I now understand why there is no attempt to list all the different names of India in other local languages, there's too many, and it would cause too many debates? But i don't see the problem with using the Hindi script? The article does show the full name in Romanised Hindi, i can see some justification for giving the name in the national language but not all the regional languages, but why only Romanised? Irtapil ( talk) 05:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If this discussion is still ongoing, then I would suggest that the name of the country in Devanagari be given either in the infobox or both in the lead and infobox. My reasoning is when you click on "other local names," one of the first things mentioned is that only Hindi is the Official Language and what OP said reflects this. TSAray ( talk) 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I also support adding Devanagari Script name. Since, articles like Bhutan, Myanmar, Japan, China etc., all include respective country's name in their official script. It is quite disingenuous to write the name in Hindi, but not use the original script. Dhawangupta ( talk) 13:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change first line of the article to:
India ( Hindi: भारत, romanized: Bhārat), officially the Republic of India ( Hindi: भारत गणराज्य, romanized: Bhārat Gaṇarājya), is a country in South Asia. Dhawangupta ( talk) 08:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This section is missing information on the various scripts used for writing in India.We can use the following from the page on Languages of India: "Most languages in India are written in Brahmi-derived scripts, such as Devanagari, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Meitei Mayek, Odia, Eastern Nagari – Assamese/Bengali, etc., though Urdu is written in a script derived from Arabic." We can trim it if necessary.I had raised this issue a number of years ago but did not pursue it further.Thanks. Jonathansammy ( talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
India hindi news website 14.142.143.6 ( talk) 05:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Republic of India is considered one of the emerging superpowers of the world.[1][2][3][4] This potential is attributed to several indicators, the primary ones being its demographic trends and a rapidly expanding economy. In 2015, India became the world's fastest growing economy with a 7.5% estimated GDP rate (mid year terms).[5] The country must overcome many economic, social, and political problems before it can be considered a superpower. Ayushmaan Chakrabarti ( talk) 07:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I Don't think there is no one particular language as official language, there are various languages spoken across various regions throughout the country . So it seems to be irrelevant to show one language As a official language Snstark ( talk) 16:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't really know how talk pages work but yeah, i don't really think GDP per capita matters. You should replace them with PPP per capita. Thats purchase power parity. That'd result in a more fair view about the economy, because you do have to take that into account that stuff is over-all cheaper, so you can buy more stuff for the same amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrawlyTheContributer ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Its fake pls remove it Sungpeshwe9 ( talk) 10:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add
at the top of Etymology section. Dhawangupta ( talk) 07:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There is obviously no consensus for adding a highly POV page Names of India in the flagship page of India-related articles. I am reverting it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
randomly add nonsense. I added a link to a related page. You're talking like I vandalized the page. I'll trust you when you say that Names of India is a POV page (I'm not too familiar with the subject), but this was a perfectly reasonable way for me to answer the edit request. I initially declined but changed my mind after I was given an example of an identical situation at Japan#Etymology. My assumption is that pages on Wikipedia aren't POV – and in this case, I did scan Names of India, which does not have a neutrality template warning. I expect an apology. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hindi is not the national language of India. Each state in India has its own languages. Don't give false information. Your providing an information about one country, please research urself and do. Don't belive on others. 2405:204:208D:D79E:CCCE:E8CD:D487:C4A5 ( talk) 06:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There are lot of maps in History section and around 19 maps in general in entire article, need suggestions to remove some maps. -- Omer123hussain ( talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 [1], 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)
"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)
@ 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)
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. [1]
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. [1]
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)
My second edit diff changed
By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within Hinduism, [1]
into
By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within the Vedic culture of the Aryan people settling the Ganges basin, [1]
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)
Re F&f quotes:
... 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.
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)
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. [1]
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. [1]
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]:
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
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.
(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)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.
Quotes would be most welcome; thanks. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Re F&f quotes:
... 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.
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, [1] one of the predecessors of Hinduism. [2]
References
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
My fourth edit diff swapped two (parts of) sentences, namely
The Vedas, the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, [1] were composed during this period, [2] and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain. [3] Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. [1]
into
Most historians consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. [1] The Vedas, the sacred hymns of the Vedic religion, and the oldest scriptures associated with Hinduism, [1] were composed and codified during this period. [2] Historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain. [3]
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)
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 this 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)