::How about Point -1? "Poverty rate at '''$2.15''' a day (2017 PPP) (% population): '''12.92'''% in '''2021"'''
::How about Point -1? "Poverty rate at '''$2.15''' a day (2017 PPP) (% population): '''12.92'''% in '''2021"'''
::2021 is not that far from 2024. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::2021 is not that far from 2024. [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, as per government of India - India has registered a significant decline in multidimensional poverty in India from 29.17% in 2013-14 to 11.28% in 2022-23 i.e. a reduction of 17.89 percentage points.
:::[https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1996271#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Discussion%20Paper,reduction%20of%2017.89%20percentage%20points. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1996271#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Discussion%20Paper,reduction%20of%2017.89%20percentage%20points.] [[User:Makks2010|Makks2010]] ([[User talk:Makks2010|talk]]) 12:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 12:38, 3 April 2024
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.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Q4: Why aren't there sections on science and technology, education, media, tourism etc?
A4: New sections require talk-page consensus. In archived discussions, it was decided to keep them out. Consider expanding their respective daughter articles, such as History of India, instead. See WP:WPC.
Q5: Why was my image or external link removed?
A5: To add or remove images and links, start a thread on this page first. See WP:FP?, WP:IMAGE, and WP:EL.
Q6: The map is wrong!
A6: The map shows the official (de jure) borders in undisputed territory and the de facto borders and all related claims where there's a dispute; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV.
Q7: India is a superpower!
A7: Consult the archives of this talk page for discussions of India's status as a superpower before adding any content that makes the suggestion. See WP:DUE.
Q8: Delhi is a state!
A8: To create an Indian state, the Parliament of India must pass a law to that effect—see Articles 2 through 4 of the Constitution of India, full text here. The Sixty-ninth Amendment, which was enacted in 1991, added Article 239AA to the constitution. It proclaimed the National Capital Territory of Delhi, gave it a legislative assembly, and accorded it special powers that most union territories lack. But Delhi was not made a state. Several crucial powers were retained by the central government, such as responsibility for law and order. Delhi also does not have a governor; instead, a lieutenant governor presides. Unlike Himachal Pradesh, which gained statehood in 1970, and Goa, which gained it in 1987, Delhi continues to be listed as a union territory by the First Schedule.
Q9: Add Hindi as the national language/hockey as the national sport!
A9: Hindi is the official language, not national language. There is no national language, but there are constitutionally recognized languages, commonly known as Schedule 8 languages. English also serves as a subsidiary official language until the universal use of Hindi is approved by the states and parliament.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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".
(Discussion moved from The Herald's talk page) There is clearly a problem with the paragraphing and title of the article. Foreign relations and military clearly do not belong to the same category and should be separated into two secondary headings. The previous G8+5 and other organizations no longer exist. India once hosted the G20 summit, which is an important part of India's foreign policy and should be included. The diplomatic relations column of all countries includes the economic organizations in which they participate. There is a paragraph dedicated to economics below and should not be listed separately. It is in line with Wikipedia's standards to classify diplomatic relations as a first-level heading of politics. This is true for the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and other countries, and India should not be an exception to keep the article organized. User Fowler&fowler used the reason Wikipedia:Ownership of content to revert the normally edited content without any reason, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. Apart from splitting diplomacy and military, there have been no large-scale modifications, and there are reliable reference sources for both. Eupakistani (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called characteristics of this article are only because the old paragraphs were retained during the review, and its content is obviously lagging behind. For example, organizations such as G8+5 no longer exist, and the main reference materials are still quoted from the 2000s. No one would think that the three different categories of military, economics, and diplomacy are suitable to be put in one module. I think Wikipedia’s standard format should take precedence over the knowledge of a small number of reviewers, and only one user relies on his own Subjective thoughts to delete corrections from other users. In terms of Indian diplomacy, there have been some new changes after Modi came to power, such as the G20, which should also be updated. Eupakistani (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, Wikipedia's specifications do not stipulate that an exception cannot be made to make small-scale modifications. The standardization of first- and second-level headings does not destroy the structure of the article. Is there any basis to show that the previous layout is reasonable? I suggest a user vote on whether to separate diplomatic relations and military like other countries. Eupakistani (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Featured content itself is changeable and can even be revoked. This does not mean that featured content is completely correct and cannot be modified. Eupakistani (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title formats of Australia, Japan and others, which are also featured content, are consistent with Wikipedia's specifications. There is no reason why India should not format them this way. Eupakistani (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short Description
Change Short description: Country in Asia to Country in South Asia.
Reason: Current short description says 'Country in Asia'(changed to Country in South Asia), while other countries in Asia have more regional short description (example: China(Country in East Asia), Pakistan(Country in South Asia) Japan(Island country in East Asia), Bangladesh(Country in South Asia), Saudi Arabia(Country in the Middle East) and even countries in other smaller continents: Germany(Country in Central Europe), France(Country in Western Europe), United Kingdom(Country in Northwestern Europe) etc. ) Regards, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!16:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that British colonial rule has been summed up in so few words and all their evil deeds have been concluded in just one line -( " rights" promised to Indians were granted slowly).
In one paragraph it's written
India rises from being destitute to fastest growing economy. But it's not at all explained that who was responsible for bringing the country at that position.
Major changes in the history section required!! 152.58.184.75 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to link Myanmar on "In the Indian Ocean, India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and the Maldives; its Andaman and Nicobar Islands share a maritime border with Thailand, Myanmar, and Indonesia." 117.194.36.160 (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
text removed. not factually correct, rather seems like personal opinion of Germans. Wondering, why they believed the priests & warriors were not the indigenous people in India. Their stupidity made me laugh though. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request to remove pic "US president Barack Obama addresses the members of the Parliament of India in New Delhi in November 2010."
It is a very bad quality picture and the Parliament building too has changed. My suggestion is to refrain from adding non-Indian people in the India article, specially under its politics para. 122.187.117.179 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Bharat" must be added as the endonym in the lead sentence and the infobox WITHOUT changing the common name. Why is the hesitation? Makks2010 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange that all the exonyms like Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush) were included, But the most used endonym (Bharat) is not being included. All the information from western sources are considered reliable, but source from government of India is being labeled fake. That shows how neutral is wiki article is. Meanwhile, the Neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia cried alone in the corner. Makks2010 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, the name Bharat Ganarajya is clearly given in the lede as well as in the infobox. Two, the official name of India has NOT been changed to Bharat by any bill or any law or even as per any circular or a notice. No sources are labelledas fake, if they are reliable. Go though WP:RS/P and WP:RS to identify the sources we use in Wikipedia. Here, nobody cares if it is from a government or a king. If the source is not reliable, it is not. No differences from western or oriental or Indian. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which bill or law mentions about Latin (India), Greek ( Ἰνδία), ancient Greek Indos ( Ἰνδός), Old Persian (Hindush)? Going by your logic these should also be removed. Makks2010 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and to be precise, I never asked to change the official name of the country. I have always said that endonym should be included. Makks2010 (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
& Also, Category & wiki page for Countries of Voice of Global South were deleted by editors two days back because it had references from Government of India which were considered not-reliable. What a shame. Makks2010 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I would like to urge you to read every messages posted here, and in your talk page in depth before making further statements. The lede do not mention the exonyms or endonyms anywhere. They are in etymology section which comes after the lede. The next paragraph of the section goes into detail about the Bharat terminology. The artcle Names for India goes into an in length discussion about many names of our country. Also, lede doesn't have to include any of these endonyms or exonyms or whatevernyms per WP:LEDE and WP:FACR. There is an entire seperate section for that.
Secondly, the category and the subsequent article for Voice of Global South was deleted due to copyright violation (see WP:G12), not due to sources that aren't reliable.
Finally, I'd like to say that this article has been a target of discussions for 20 years now and if you think you have something new to add or some changes to be made, there is a really good chance that it was already been discussed here. So, you may go through the huge talk page archive that we have and see if such a step was already done. If not, have a read of WP:OWN (especially WP:FAOWN) to see if you can implement such a change. If such a change need consensus, when it had to be obtained from the consensus and you have to convince over thousand page watchers of this page that that change is justified. If still it is not happening, you can start a WP:RFC and see where the consensus leans to. There is no point blaming the system or the policies and guidelines. This article is a Featured Article that has gone through community review multiple times before getting into the current shape. You can't change something just because you don't like it or it goes aganist your own personal agenda. (Kinda like the democracy of our country. You can't change a law cuz you don't like it, lol). Good luck. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ The Herald (Benison) Thanks for calling me 'agenda pusher'. Bulgaria is a FA. yet the Romanized name Bŭlgariya is used along with official name.
I am confused. The article already contains the romanized name for India, "Bhārat Gaṇarājya", in both the lead and the infobox exactly like the Bulgaria article does. CMD (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've just reverted a couple of those, I'm especially unconvinced by the removal of the sourced section but there may be a reason for it, however none was given. Black Kite (talk)11:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite & @Kautilya3 : How to establish if the source that was added is actually neutral and not a personal opinion of some German guys who living in India in 20th century. Would you agree if priests & warriors castes in India are not indigenous in India? Read yourself below and judge if this is a neutral article?
Perhaps it would have been a good idea to actually give a reason for the removal, then? Though I don't see that the nationality of the author or the date of the source has any relevance anyway, the only question is "is it correct"? If it isn't, you'd need to explain why. Black Kite (talk)12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite : Perhaps, it would have been a good idea to actually click bit more and check before simply reverting someone's work.
Hermann Kulke (born 1938 in Berlin) is a German historian and Indologist, who was professor of South and Southeast Asian history at the Department of History, Kiel University (1988–2003). After receiving his PhD in Indology from Freiburg University in 1967, he taught for 21 years at the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University (SAI).
He was a founding member of the Orissa Research Project (ORP) of the Southasia Institute (1970–1975), and was coordinator of the second ORP.
Specialization: pre-colonial South and Southeast Asian History; early state formation and historiography; regional cultures of India with emphasis on Orissa; Indianization of Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean Studies.
He was a visiting professor at Utkal University, Bhubaneswar (1978–1979), Asiatic Society, Calcutta (1986), and Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi (1992). He was also the Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, in Singapore (1987) and of the Asia Research Institute of the University of Singapore (2007).11. Makks2010 (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood me. I know who they are (because I did check them, thank you very much) - the question is what do you believe makes their work ineligible to source this article? Black Kite (talk)12:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality of the author very much matter, especially in a sensitive cases like casteism, because often they do not understand roots / logic behind, rather they form their own opinion, which often is incorrect. Including such text in a neutral information page would be approving such opinions. Makks2010 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you would explain what the problem was with those sources, as opposed to expressing your own random opinions on people from different nations. Black Kite (talk)14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned that considering priests & warriors people an non-indigenous in India is totally wrong and it proves my point. Which a western person with prejudice would never understand, hence whatever was mentioned in the source is not correct. Makks2010 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to claim that no westerner could ever understand the caste system isn't going to go too well for you, so I suggest you don't suggest that. Black Kite (talk)14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you will discuss them here first. You are experienced enough an editor to know what WP:BRD and WP:EPTALK mean, and you have been reverted by three different experienced editors today. This is especially true as this is a Featured Article. Black Kite (talk)14:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very alarmed to see when an editor believes that "outsiders" (here: a German scholar) are incapable of adequately studying/discussing a topic that is tied to a specific region (here: the Indian caste system), and thus apparently believes that sources written by such "outsiders" should not be used. If this continues to be the rationale of their edits (let's see what happens after 24 hrs), this eventually will call for a TBAN. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as simple as that because we do know the problems of Orientalism. The statement they point out is indeed slightly problematic. I had it in my mind to look for better sources, which I will try again now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed along with that statement was a sentence on the "chiefdom stage of political organisation", which does not seem to be sourced to Kulke. CMD (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye ... probably because it tries to summarise an incredibly complex issue in one sentence. It certainly doesn't mean what Makks2010 thinks it means, though. Black Kite (talk)09:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: My comment was not about the source, but about the a priori rationale by @Makks2010 in these comments[1][2]. Being aware about existing systemic bias is different from undifferentiated rejection based on the nationality of the author (or add: "editor", and you have the root of chauvinist traveling circus discussions in WP). –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias is present throughout the western conception of "caste". But German Indology is special still, for having given rise to the infamous "Aryanism".
The present text conveys that the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", whereas the fourth unnamed class alone was "indigenous" and was regarded as "impure". That is a very strange reading that I don't think you will find outside German Indology. We could just say a caste system with ranked classes of priests, warriors, free peasants and labourers arose, without attaching additional value judgements. There is no need to go beyond that in a breif summary of the history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite, @Kautilya3 & @Austronesier : Question is not if any scholar is capable of discussing or studying a topic related to another region. Everyone is entitled to have one's own opinion, even if it is not neutral in nature. But the Wiki article must follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is not the case here. It is neither 'slightly problematic' nor 'phrasing an incredibly complex topic' issue, rather it is an unreasonable & unfair opinion. If one reads couple of paragraphs rather than just one of two sentences from the book (given in the reference of the sentence in the wiki), one will find that the Scholar's work is too shallow and full of unreasonable prejudice towards the Indian society lacking a complete societal view of India. I have already written a detailed email to the author of the book calling out his hypocrisy towards the Indian society with many examples which of course, he did not consider while writing his book.
Anyhow, the sentence in question must be taken down with immediate effect as it mis-represent the most populous nation of the world and is not following the policy of neutrality. Hope, you all would agree. Makks2010 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier : Thanks for getting me blocked, even when I informed you individually that I was in process to improve the article and category, it was not cool though. I will write the article again with all the references and get it reviewed before publishing it. @UsedtobecoolMakks2010 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Makks2010 has created the Category:Countries of Voice of Global South in relation to the Modi-initiated virtual summit[3] and added it to every country that participated in the summit (according to a Indian governmental source), without 1) an article related to it, and 2) without mention of the summit of these articles. When I first reverted some of these additions, @Makks2010 has added some text to Sri Lanka to comply with WP:CATVER, but only using a non-neutral source by the Indian government[4], and now, they have created the main article (which makes my first objection temporarily moot; the article hasn't been vetted for WP:N and WP:V yet). But still, we obviously need independent sources which tells us that the participation in the summit is relevant for each country article.
I don't care whether the template and the category exist but they don't belong in the country articles. First, you should not be adding categories that can not be verified from the text of the article. Second, the first can not be rectified by adding it to article text because it is extremely WP:UNDUE for any country article, it's not even close. — Usedtobecool☎️18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is my feedback on India wiki page. It is a badly a formatted article highlighting "not so positive" side of the country (most probably it is by intention of the editors) and hiding "almost every positive aspect". Hence it requires a major overhauling efforts.
examples -
1) Mention of "incorporation of untouchability" in the introduction itself is mis-representation of India. though the fact is that the untouchability is matter of past now (abolished 74 years ago), it must be included in the article but certainly not in the introduction as it does not represent the country any more.
2) Pre-history section is totally missing, where as it is available in many courtiers’ wiki pages.
3) History of 'North-eastern' part is purposefully not included in any section of the history.
4) Geography section did not even mention about any of India's islands.
5) Topography is a major topic that missing.
6) Wrong information given about number of state-level political parties mentioned. Number of listed political parties in the EC is around 2500.
7) List of top metropolis cities / largest urban areas is not written, whereas almost every other country's wiki page has it. (e.g. U.K.)
8) A separate section should be provided to the languages under demographics for one of the most linguistically diverse country of the world.
9) Architecture section more look like an advertisement of Taj Mahal, Though India has many more architectural wonders other than Taj. The section should be re-visited.
10) No mention of India's Transport infrastructure work done in last 10 year. A separate Transport section would be appreciated.
11) No mention of India’s scientific achievements, if they do not represent a country than I wonder what would. Science and technology section should be included.
12) No mention of world's largest media.
13) India's wide diversity should be included in the clothing section, rather than just highlighting saris and Shalwar.
14) World's second-largest education system cannot be summarized just in five sentences.
15) India's contribution in the WW-I & WW-II should also be mentioned under some appropriate section.
16) Healthcare should have been a separate section, considering that India has one of the largest Healthcare infra.
17) India is known for it's Philosophy & Culture. However Wiki page doesn't even consider it.
Thank you for taking the time to make this evaluation..... I would agree the article hasn't kept up to the FA level we expect especially for country articles.... It follows the format of a decade ago. That being said I think we can work on all these points above. First would be proposal of text and changes with sources. Keeping in mind that changes here is very hard.... thus short and precise changes need to be demonstrated here in the talk.Moxy🍁 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look over WP:Summary style, many of your points simply ask for additions to an already not short article. No single page can have everything, but it is perhaps worth looking into whether your mentioned points are in the immediate subarticles. CMD (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@cmd of course, No single page can have everything. but basic page size analysis tells a different story that how much info has been included about world's the most populous and the most diverse country. Let alone the accuracy or neutrality of the text included in it.
that's exactly my point, Along with the article, it's text and formatting is also decades older, which may not be relevant in 2024 anymore. Makks2010 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it still follows an outdated guideline, but recent changes are updated and incorporated into the article after gaining consensus here in talk page regularly. So, it's not that bad or it's not like we use the outdated style. You may check the article milestones in the talk page header to see the reviews that are done time to time. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would like to question the review process itself.
e.g. How come '''untouchability''' be the introduction of any country? - Wondering what review was done about it? Is it fair and unbiased? Makks2010 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would concentrate on one part of your list at a time. The two that do stand out as being understated in the article are science and philosophy. Note that a number of the topics have their own article (otherwise this one would be far too large), for example Architecture of India or Clothing in India. Black Kite (talk)10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) May I ask India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India? In my point of view, it is important because they have unique clothing as well as architecture.
2) Why only Taj Mahal to be included? Let's have short text about Taj and Also include other wonderful Architecture from ancient India?
There is no problem with suggesting other important items that would fit into this article, rather than the sub-articles.; no-one is saying we can't add anything at all to what exists already. Black Kite (talk)10:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assam is mentioned multiple times in Performing arts and media, where Manipur is mentioned too, and the north-east region is mentioned as a group in Sports and recreation. This may or may not be appropriate weight, but it is more than just a line or two. CMD (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmd how abut the history of north-east? Not even a single dynasty from north east is mentioned, However Mughals got plenty of text. Though the fact is Mughals were actually defeated multiple times by the Kings of north-east at multiple occasion. I understand the article would become too lengthy to read if we include everything. However, The point i am making is that the Article should be more inclusive than just praising Mughals. which more sound like western point of view of India.
You can go back to article and check yourself, not even a single word mentioned about - 1) Shivaji Maharaj 2) Sikh empire 3) Rajputs kings. Hence I am saying the article should be more inclusive without being lengthy.
Also, do you believe any other part of India is more biodiverse than North-East? Yet, north-east itself is not included in Biodiversity section. I have bee saying that article is not really balanced in nature. Makks2010 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not directly related to your specific question of whether "India's north-east region is not worthy enough to be included (just a line or two) in the main page of India", which I answered. CMD (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikhil Kashyap 1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1.
Nikhil Kashyap 1, this article is not suitable for student editors. Even an experienced editor needs months to get anything done here, unless you're already one of the major contributors to it. I suggest you pick another topic, or you might fail. My advice is, pick an article that should be detailed but is currently short, or pick an article that needs a lot of copyediting. Is your assignment really due day after tommorrow? And you're starting today? Usedtobecool☎️08:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declining status of women during Maurya and Gupta Empires
Controversial statement - Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin. Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity, but also marked by the declining status of women.
I really would like to get this statement reviewed, which makes no sense. General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. The reference given with the sentence is actually not open to read for all. Makks2010 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Socio-economic challenges
Controversial statement - Despite economic growth during recent decades, India continues to face socio-economic challenges. In 2006, India contained the largest number of people living below the World Bank's international poverty line of US$1.25 per day
Also, as per government of India - India has registered a significant decline in multidimensional poverty in India from 29.17% in 2013-14 to 11.28% in 2022-23 i.e. a reduction of 17.89 percentage points.
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done: It's already linked in the sentence above. More linking will cause overlinking per MOS:SEAOFBLUE. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 5 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikhil Kashyap 1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1.