Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc?
A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC.
Q5: Why was my image or external link removed?
A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL.
Q6: The map is wrong!
A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.
Q7: India is a superpower!
A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE.
Q8: Delhi is a state!
A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule.
Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport!
A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 September 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING AN EDIT REQUEST ABOUT CHANGING THE COUNTRY NAME If you have come here to post that the country name should be changed from India to Bharat, please note that we use the commonly-used name (common name) to determine article names, even when a country changes its name. For an example, see Turkey, where the official name of the country (Türkiye) is noted in the lead sentence and the infobox, but the article remains at its common English name.
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 151 million views since December 2007.
The rationale behind the request is: "Featured article, and one that may have a higher-than-average proportion of readers who are English language learners".
If I had to guess, the reason is probably consistency. Some countries' anthems don't have lyrics. Some, like India, have lyrics in dozens and dozens of languages. The straightforward choice then is just to have the instrumentals. Yue🌙06:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason is because most of the anthems come from the United States army bands, whose performances are in the public domain, and also they are primarily composed of people who can't pronounce the language of the anthem, so the performances are typically without vocals. ―Howard • 🌽3310:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bharat is not just started when British leave, it has a very long history.
I think we should write historic Civilizations, Kingdoms and Empires, to provide more information about Establishment and Formation of the country, as written in the South Korea, Rwanda, Burundi and DR Congo's articles.
The infobox section is for the establishment events that brought sovereignty. Mixing that purpose with something else, such as in this example, suggests that for example previous entries were under the United Kingdom. CMD (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CMD has already made an excellent point. Generally, though, should you decide to add the timeline elsewhere, its entries are not what are typically considered most notable. The timeline lacks impartiality. A civilization is usually urban, which the Vedic period was not, nor was it established in 1500 BCE, for the Rig Veda, whose hymns describe the migration of Sanskrit-speaking peoples into India, was not completed until 1200 BCE. I don't know if the Cemetery H culture was as notable as the others. The Kingdom of Magadha was undoubtedly not established before the Vedic Period was. "Late Medieval" is not the best rubric for the Delhi Sultanate. The Maratha confederacy was less notable than the Mughal empire, which gave the Marathas both ambition and opportunity. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 march 2025
Hello @207.96.13.12:. It is a beautiful picture, but it appears to be staged. The low camera position gives the airborne swordsman a more dramatic height than he probably has. I prefer more routine, realistic pictures that give this encyclopedia's typical reader a feeling for a country's competitive sports or simple pastimes. Also, as an editor has demonstrated by removing a preexisting picture, we don't have room for more in that section, but other editors might feel differently. Thanks for finding that great picture. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If poverty is a long standing issue for a country it is more likely to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Anyway, the lead does say that India has reduced the rate of poverty. Black Kite (talk)15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ive read the whole article. It is only talking about a reduction of the most extreme forms of poverty. Poverty is a very long standing and complex issue in the country. It needs a mention in the lead EarthDude (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poverty in India is not "negligible" by any standard. I did find a source for the 5% level, but it's an Indian Government one, so is a primary source. This is very interesting though, as is this.Black Kite (talk)22:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We typically only use introductory textbooks in history, political science, or economics that are read around the world for the lead. Those are Wikpedia's gold standard for due weight (see WP:TERTIARY). They still consider poverty to be a significant issue in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Fact or the matter is, poverty lies less than 5%, Not significant issue left. Well, i cited the sources. It's actually taking unnecessary space. As you are concerned to make the lead less. It's better to cut such old irrelevant topics and needs to be update it as per 2025 condition. Sources has been cited from 2015 to 2018. MrLogikal (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610[reply]
Poverty is WAY higher than just 5%. I'm pretty sure you're getting confused between extreme poverty and general poverty, because reliable sources go against what you're saying. EarthDude (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to be misinformed. The official government reports state national poverty to be what you are saying, but in India, official government reports can no longer be seen as reliable sources, because they have just been so incredibly politicized. Here are reliable sources for the complex situation of poverty in India, which also go over why Indian government's official stance on poverty is unreliable. Even hinting that poverty in India has been reduced to levels as low as 4% is mythical narrativization:
No real need to say this explicitly..... as this lead is full of odd stats in it and makes it clear that per capita income is one of the lowest in the world. Moxy🍁02:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A part of the chapter on economy reads as follows:
"The World Bank cautions that, for India to achieve its economic potential, it must continue to focus on public sector reform, transport infrastructure, agricultural and rural development, removal of labour regulations, education, energy security, and public health and nutrition.[326]"
Looking around, I did find a World Bank blog post supporting the reduction of labour regulations, however it doesn't seem to be official, and is not the source referenced to in the article.
Hello everyone, Last paragraph of the lead needs to be rephrased according to the status of 2025's India. India has almost finished it's poverty. Per capita is almost $3000. It is one of the most important country on global stage right now as it's part of G20, BRICS, QUAD and many more important groups, it has 4th highest military expenditure. It is world's 3rd largest economy by GDP(PPP) and 5th by nominal GDP. Foreign policy is very distinct from all. It's a great power right now, or we can phrase a great emerging power. But lead still gives vibe of 20th century India. It's all can be written in less space i think as @Fowler&fowler is concerned. MrLogikal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610[reply]
Good leads can be found at Canada, Japan or Germany......that seen ....random stats that just link random articles that are not about the country dont really help readers in understanding this topic should be rewritten WP:COUNTRYLEAD. Moxy🍁09:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the cause for change and the desired change are both unclear. The lead already says India has reduced poverty, that it has a high military expenditure, and that it has a large economy. As for foreign policy, a list of random groups does not as Moxy says help readers. The groups aren't even mentioned in the body. CMD (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Do you have any reason to revert all my changes ? You reverted all edits - just because i removed two images in one of my edits. Read up Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Your reason is "Oh you cannot edit a featured article - because it need consensus" is just lame. You did the same to @QwertyZ34 changes. Please stop doing that. You are an experienced editor. Do not abuse wiki's policies - saying you need WP:ONUS when you have not quoted a legitimate reason for your revert. I have given the reason why i removed the two images.
My changes are as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images which states Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Current placement of left and right sucks. And i removed two images in addition for better alignment.
For this - you reverted my entire changes - claiming i need consensus ?
@Astropulse: Perhaps it is best to make your case here on the talk page. Let other editors chime in about the location of images and we'll see. This is a featured article so it is best to go easy with any changes. RegentsPark (comment) 14:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
im annoyed at @Fowler&fowler for their mass reverts without giving specific objections. Saying you need consensus for changes - is a bad reason. they could have just reverted a specific objectionable edits as well. Reverts should be avoided and progress to articles should not be prevented by referring it to consensus and other editors opinions.
Astropulse, there may be an argument for relocating some of the images in the article but that case has to be actually made beyond (mis)interpreting MOS:IMAGELOC's use of "most images" to mean "all images". Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good point. but nothing wrong with placing all images to the right. current zigzag placement kind sucks. i prefer all images to right - except select ones. Astropulse (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there isn't a a need for consensus to move some or all images to right. i agree a revert for deleting the image is appropriate. but explain it like RegentsPark did. And more important - instead of reverting. fix the issue. Astropulse (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, and does not hold strong weight, especially when the issue in question is essentially aesthetic. CMD (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn’t make it any less true. I’ve witnessed this multiple times with senior editors. No one owns Wikipedia. This issue should be flagged with the community and possibly incorporated into official policies. The editor in question hasn’t even responded to my concerns. ( ignored it, even on their talk page ) Astropulse (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather irrelevant to me, and the correct grammar would be … 'since June 2023.' 'from … onwards' is grammatically incorrect. It should at the very least use accurate English, but my suggestion would be to just say 'the most populous country' .. and then move onto the next point. Marking exactly when it became the most populous country (unless it was last week) seems boring and pointless and as I said doesn't read very well. Quite clunky. Westdoggys (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is having the month it reached the milestone really necessary? The whole second sentence seems unnecessarily clunky. Just keep it concise:
"It is the seventh-largest country by area; the most populous country from June 2023 onwards; and since its independence in 1947, the world's most populous democracy." → "It is the world's most populous country and the seventh-largest country by area."
The "most populous democracy" bit had more weight when it was the second-most populous country, but now it seems unnecessary with the title of most populous country. Should we also say that India is the most populous country with a federal system or most populous country with a Hindu majority? Yue🌙20:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Westdoggys: The use of the prepositional phrase "from June 2023 onwards" is not grammatically incorrect. The difference between it and the preposition "since" is semantic, not grammatical. "Since" commonly applies to conditions from a certain time until now. So, we can say, "Since June 2023, the pollution levels in Paris have been higher than 25%." But we don't necessarily expect them to continue to be that way. However, "from June 2023 onwards" means from a certain time in the past until an indeterminate time in the future, which is usually the case with population. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: I'll have to look at the sources. The problem is that no census has been held in India since 2011, so we don't have any hard data, only projections. I would have preferred a footnote about this being India's projected population after "from June 2023 onwards, the most populous country." Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: Please read the quotes at the end of the sentence. India's democracy has survived (except for 1975 to 1977) through hundreds of elections over 75 years, which is no mean feat. Until the sources consider democracy in a country which was mired in destitution and illiteracy in 1947, and whose population is now larger than that of North America and Europe combined, not to be striking, our hands are tied. We can't say that about Spain, Argentina, Chile, most West Asian countries, China, Russia, and many countries of former Soviet republics, for example; I don't mean the population, but the fact of democracy. Being the largest Hindu country is a simple feature of a Hindu population; it has been the largest Hindu country since the Hindu synthesis of the mid first millennium BCE. Democracy, however, is a very different kettle of fish. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The info box gives only hard numbers, which in the instance of population is one estimate. The lead lists the many splendored aspects of the notability of that population and its history. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I would still argue that the "most populous democracy" statement is out of place in the lead because 1. It is in the second sentence of the article but not mentioned anywhere in the article body and 2. The lead should be a concise and well-worded summary of the body, especially for a featured article.
My main point still stands that the second sentence is incredibly long and awkward. We're describing India in the lead (more precisely describing the content in the article body in a condensed form), not listing India's milestones and the date the country achieved it. If India is the largest country by population, then just that needs to be said; why is "since [time]" necessary? Why is a new detail about India being the largest democracy by population necessary in the lead? Can that detail and others like it not suffice in the article body? Yue🌙22:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: This is about as far as I will go in engaging you. China's being the world's most populous country was notable since the UN began to keep comparative population records in 1949 or 1950, and of informal estimates long before. We are talking at least 72 years. If, after 72 years, another country has overtaken China, most people will want to know when that happened. Britannica's lead paragraph, for example, says, "India became the world's most populous country in 2023, according to estimates by the United Nations."
India's status as the world's largest democracy is not a new detail on this page. It has been part of the lead paragraph since this page became a featured article on December 3, 2004, now Wikipedia's oldest country FA. Stated it then,
India is a large multicultural country in South Asia, with a population of over one billion. The Indian economy is the fourth largest in the world in terms of purchasing power parity and is the world's second-fastest growing economy. India is also the second most populous country in the world, and the world's largest democracy.
That was before MOS mavens had straitjacketed Wikipedia into starting with geography, neighboring countries, and so forth, very usefully, of course. Summing up: India's status as the world's most populous democracy is not simply an automatic outcome of its two-year status as the world's most populous nation; that status is 77 years old. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should just say that India is the most populous country, instead of specifying the time frame it reached that milestone. The inclusion of the month and year it became the most populous seems quite irrelevant for the article lead of a country like India EarthDude (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the lead doesnt have much wrong with it. Its only the mention when india became the mmost populous country which seems kinda useless in a country lead EarthDude (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done: I'm gonna need some more context/reasoning/any explanation for this, so I'm closing for now. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 