Talk:India

"ভাৰত" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ভাৰত has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § ভাৰত until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

India's population is 1,457,248,665 as of Friday, December 27, 2024 Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Worldometer is unreliable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Reordering sentence in the lead

Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. IRN-Dumas (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this. The current sentence framing has stayed the same since before India surpassed China in terms of population. I think its due for a change now EarthDude (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this aswell. ĀDITYA 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2025

2409:4073:115:4FCD:0:0:BBF:48AC (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same

Not done. Edit requests should be uncontroversial and backed by RS. Rainsage (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor changes to discuss per MOS:OP-ED

1. The railway network provided critical famine relief, notably reduced the cost of moving goods...
2. No doubt the style of these was used in larger paintings.

The lines above could be found in subsection Modern India and Visual art respectively. The words 'notably' and 'no doubt', although informative the first glance, bring in unnecessary editorialisation. In the first sentence 'noted' puts a subjective emphasisation over the second part without attributing it as an opinion. Similarly the second sentence could also be reframed to remove 'No doubt' which is an clear example of "editoring", but also ironically produces a subtle doubt. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"Notably," in the modern India section has the meaning of "especially," or "in particular," not "in a notable manner," or "strikingly," which perhaps could be a form of editorialization.

With "No doubt," in the Visual Art section, perhaps, I have more sympathy with your concern, but in this instance too, the expresson can be used with the meaning of "with certainty," or "with good likelihood." In a signed paper encyclopedia article, say, in Britannica, where an expert is writing and has some leeway in the use of idiomatic language—contrasted with the formal for making the article more readable for an ordinary reader—examples abound. Thus, in the Leonardo da Vinci article in Britannica art historian Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich writes, "Moreover, he was no doubt enticed by Duke Ludovico Sforza’s brilliant court and the meaningful projects awaiting him there." I tried looking in Harle, p.367 to 371, the cited source, at achive.org, but lack the knowledge to make any judgments. In this instance, I would defer to user:Johnbod, who wrote the Visual Arts section, and who is our resident arts history expert. Perhaps, they might have something to say.

Thank you user:ExclusiveEditor for bringing this up. Not too many editors notice these things. I wouldn't however call your proposed edits "minor." This article is WP's oldest country Featured Article, now 20 years old. This gives me a chance to remember those who have brought it to where it is, in particular user:Nichalp, administrator and arbitrator, who began the drive for more featured articles on South Asia-related topics and inspired many of us, including user:RegentsPark and user:Abecedare. Also, in September 2019, in preparation for this article's second WP:TFA appearance on 2 October to mark Gandhi's 150th, it was copyedited by the late user:Twofingered Typist, the Lead Coordinator at the time of Guild of Copy Editors, and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

On "no doubt": it is a common thing in the art history of older periods that a whole class of objects such as wall-paintings have vanished, but smaller works such as miniatures have survived. In cases where some large as well as small works have survived (egt European Romanesque art), their basic styles are normally very similar, so the presumption that this will be the case is often made. Sometimes discoveries are made that confirm this. Some editors think that it is possible to write about the art history of the fragmentary remains from remote periods with the same precision and certainty as (some) subujects from, say, science or geography. It isn't. I don't know what you mean by "editoring", but as we are "editors", this is presumably a good thing. An element of "subtle doubt" is also ok, as no actual examples have survived. We could say "probably", "presumably" etc, but I see no need for a change. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)