Talk:India

• I have read through almost every archive discussing about "indigenous people" in the
  caste system
  . Everytime, the discussion was either left inconclusively or declined by editors as no alternative text was proposed.

Controversial statement - 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.

Proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in menial & disgraceful occupations, arose during this period.

The proposed statement, IMO, using menial and disgraceful to tag certain occupations sounds very POV and biased per

WP:BROKE discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

first of all, the Shudra or Dalit were actually involved in menial and disgraceful tasks. They can't change their occupations based on Wikipedia's requirements. hence it was proposed. If this can't be accepted then the whole sentence must be moved.

secondly, present text that implies the priests, warriors and free peasants were not "indigenous", sound more biased. And factually incorrect. Makks2010 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposed statement - The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, traders, and free peasants, but which excluded peoples involved in unhygienic occupations arose during this period. Makks2010 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Makks2010: The current version of the statement in the article (which you label "controversial") summarizes what is said on p.19 of the 6th edition of A history of India by Kulke & Rothermund, a standard textbook on the subject. Which comparable high-quality source(s) did you use to formulate your proposed revision? Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abecedare Prof Kulke book A history of India is unreasonably prejudice and factually incorrect. I have already wrote him an email with contradicting the text from his book with a number of examples. See the above "feedback on the reference book" screenshot of the email. Makks2010 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And also what decides which source is a high-quality or low-quality? Is it the nationality of the writer?

  Sorry, not acceptable. Makks2010 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You again are missing the point. Nobody is bringing up this nationality thing except you for some reason. This entire argument is just another case of

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, it seems. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• What is factually incorrect, will always remain incorrect. I am not the only one that highlighted this issue with the word "indigenous", there are a lot of people have highlighted the same (check archive) including some of the editors too. Yet. the source from a outsider is being considered more reliable. Just because the author of the book is from certain region. This is actually called "slave" mentality, when people can't think rationally rather agreeing to what their master says. Again, Not acceptable!!!. Makks2010 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Makks2010, see

  WP:RSN although IMO that would be a waste of your and other editors' time. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Makks2010 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1) India - 311,514 bytes

2) Lithuania - 316,496 bytes

3) Vietnam - 321,391 bytes

4) Turkey - 333,128 bytes

5) China - 345,292 bytes

6) Bangladesh - 347,376 bytes

7) United Kingdom - 361,544 bytes

8) Russia - 370,238 bytes

9) Italy - 387,194 bytes

10) Pakistan - 401,112 bytes

11) Iran - 401,682 bytes

Makks2010 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all lower-quality articles than this one. "Basic page size analysis" suggests that too. CMD (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we suggesting here that FA like United Kingdom, China, Turkey, Italy & Russia are low quality articles? Makks2010 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those is an FA. CMD (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's a news to me. :D Makks2010 (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look for the golden star on top for an article to differentiate between normal articles,

Featured articles. India is one of the oldest articles in English Wikipedia, about 20 years old. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

  Let's talk about Architecture of India or Clothing in India only for now. -

  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?

  I have not asking a long assay about India, just would like to have more inclusive article. Makks2010 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

  Hope, I am making some sense without being labeled as "agenda pusher" or "Bhakat". Makks2010 (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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]

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. Peer reviewers: Nikhil Kashyap 1.

— Assignment last updated by Nikhil Kashyap 1 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The student would not be able to edit the article anyway, as it is

extended-confirmed protected. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I have left a note for WikiEd. CMD (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please provide references from reliable sources supporting your claim General understanding is stature of women in Indian society went south with Islamic invasion. Also, the reference is an open access from Google books. Anyone can open it and see. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reference link - https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Huma/HumaSing.htm

Publisher - Boston University

Text to be included - The Muslim influence on India caused considerable deterioration in the status of women. They were deprived of their rights of equality with men.

@The Herald (Benison) above text from reference link seem more appropriate without mentioning about the time period, hence there won't be any controversy. Makks2010 (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you see 2000 year old Mauryan and Gupta Empire statement (that was researched and there is a consensus among historians) about women's stature declining controversial and POV, but The Muslim influence (as suggested by you) as perfectly NPOV and non controversial. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide any Indian reference where it is mentioned that women status was declining during Mauryan and Gupta Empire? Makks2010 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be Indian? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here comes the prejudice towards the Indian intellect yet again. Whatever western scholars say is a line on the stone, but who actually went through the situation are the liars. Makks2010 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is second reference which mentions that ''' With the advent of Muslims in India, the social movement of Indian women was restricted. When Hindu culture came in the clash with a culture far different from its own, the Hindu leaders of the society began to frame rules and laws to safeguard their interest especially the position of women''' also "With the threats of the invading soldiers roaming countryside, women were prohibited to attend public functions and were placed behind the veil."

These were exactly my point of views in my previous statements.

https://noteguilty.com/notes/women-law/women-in-pre-independence-period Makks2010 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes third reference which exactly says what i mentioned - "The Medieval period starts with the entry of Muslim invaders in India. The span of this period was about 500 years from the Era of Delhi Sultnate to Mughal era. In the Indian history, the medieval age is considered to be “Dark Age” for the women when many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women’s status."

https://magadhmahilacollege.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Status-of-Women-in-Medieval-India.pdf Makks2010 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fourth reference proving my statement - "Medieval India was not women's age it is supposed to be the 'dark age' for them. Medieval India saw many foreign conquests, which resulted in the decline in women's status. When foreign conquerors like Muslims invaded India they brought with them their own culture. For them women was the sole property of her father, brother or husband and she does not have any will of her own. This type of thinking also crept into the minds of Indian people and they also began to treat their own women like this. One more reason for the decline in women's status and freedom was that original Indians wanted to shield their women folk from the barbarous Muslim invaders. "

https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1867/The-Socio-Economic-Status-of-Women-in-India-Ancient-to-Modern-Era.html Makks2010 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth reference for the same statement - "Unlike in the ancient Indian period, the position and status of woman in the Mughal period was not quite high. Purdah and child marriage had become common. Except those of the lower classes, woman in Mughal period did not move out of their houses. The Muslims woman observed purdah much more strictly than the Hindus. The birth of a daughter was considered inauspicious, while that of a son was an occasion for celebration."

https://www.govtwomencollegeslm8.org/e_content/English/II%20B.A.%20ENGLISH/NMEC-%20WOMEN'S%20STUDIES/UNIT%20III/ANCIENT%20WOMEN.pdf Makks2010 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:INDY) nothing can stop you from adding it. But if you are trying to achieve something else by removing a well cited statement about Gupta and Maurya empire, and add a POV statement, we can see right through it. Good luck obtaining consensus for the change. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Already provided links for a paper published at Boston University as well as at Magadha Mahila college, Patna. located at a area which where actually Gupta and Maurya empires were flourished. both writers are independent and verifiable. Makks2010 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:HISTRS for the type of sources that are needed to add/edit history-related content at this FA. Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  How come Indian sources become "low quality" about a topic related to India and western sources are credible. It is like telling a man, who lived whole of his life as man, that he is never been a man. That's how editors are being acted. Makks2010 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop bringing up author nationality, no-one else has mentioned it. The sources above read as obviously low quality, they have not even been edited for grammar, and that is with no idea who the authors are. CMD (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (

  tendentious line of argument is likely to get you blocked from this page/topic-area. Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  feel free to block.... this is pure bullshit. Makks2010 (talk) 17:06, 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

Reference given - https://web.archive.org/web/20120514143037/https://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/DPR_FullReport.pdf

Proposed changes -

1) Even the world bank has raised the poverty line from US$1.25 per day to US2.15 per day back in 2017. Hence data mentioned in the article is way too old. Refer to this https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND

2) Also editor must consider this before updating - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/indias-poverty-rate-declined-to-4-5-5-in-2022-23-sbi-research/articleshow/108029519.cms?from=mdr Makks2010 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ET is not

WP:RS/P. Also, India haven't published their poverty statistics since 2011. You might want to have a look at this report and this post by WB. But if you could get more data regarding India's standing in terms of poverty in 2024, we can update it in the article. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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. Makks2010 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Makks2010 (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big problem with using those dates - Page 1 of the report states "headcount poverty ratios for 2013-14 and 2022-23 have been estimated based on compound growth rate of the reduction in the incidence of poverty levels between 2005-06 and 2015-16 and 2015-16 and 2019-21 respective" So I think you could only use the 2005-6, 2015-16 and 2019-21 figures (and they are the ones used throughout the report anyway). Interesting that the Govt press release doesn't mention the data from the same report, that says that the figure fell from 55.34% to 29.17% between 2005-06 and 2013-14, when presumably it was a different Government. You'd have to mention both time-frames. Also, using the MPI measure can be slightly misleading (I think this discussion has happened previously). If you look at the graph on page 9 of the report, 31% of the population are still deprived in nutrition, 43% in cooking fuel, 31% in sanitation and 41% in housing. So I think this can be mentioned, but you'd have to explain in a little detail what it's actually saying (and push the data points back to 2005-2006, as that's where the greatest improvements happened).

Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions section doesn't mention about 29 autonomously administrated areas of India.

please include Autonomous administrative divisions of India link under Administrative divisions section. There are 29 such areas, which should be given some visibility.

Present link :

Main article: Administrative divisions of India

Proposed change :

Main articles: Administrative divisions of India and Autonomous administrative divisions of India

Makks2010 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These autonomous administrative divisions are subparts of the main article

WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

add a line about marathas in the (top) section

maratha empire is acknowledged by western, british historians (no 1 point) that means it did existed. it also had an area about 2.5m sq km which means it was bigger that 1 m sq km hence a big enough empire to be added in (top) section. it crushed mughal empire by force (but you dont have to write that as it would be equal to indians defeating turks pbuh swt which is not possible so you just write something like "mughal empire was gradually followed by marathas however we dont yet know about how mughals declines"). then add a line stating that three anglo maratha wars resulted in british rule (istead of saying "Gradually expanding rule of the British East India Company followed" like if mughals were the greatest before british Uvrajgupt (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Anglo-Maratha war

using the sources mentioned in the diff (about the establishment of the Maratha Empire). Can you start a, 'Request for Comments" for the same?

-Haani40 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naravane, M. S. (2006). Battles of the Honourable East India Company: Making of the Raj. APH Publishing.

ISBN 978-81-313-0034-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) can be used to show that the EIC seized control of India from the Marathas?-Haani40 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, may you please explain more about "request for comments", i would really love to help you out.

Making the Raj is good enough (ive only read first few pages) but it doesn't tell you that marathas ended mughal rule, we need another one for the same, we need to find some good source, these days im really busy but will surely look into them in a week or maybe after three or four days, till then if you find something similar, do let me know and tell me more about request for comments, i never heard of it and the web is showing different results for the same Uvrajgupt (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ADD to initial description after

"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."

Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.^[1] Vuquiz (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ "IZA World of Labor: The labor market in India since the 1990s". www.wol.iza.org. Retrieved 2024-04-06.

Adding some more context to per capita income rise in short description

In the short description it states the following:

"During the same time, its nominal per capita income increased from US$64 annually to US$2,601, and its literacy rate from 16.6% to 74%."

I suggest adding some more context in a new sentence after this one, giving more context to the suggested rise in nominal per capita income. While this number may very possible be true, this lacks some important context for readers.

For one, about 90% of India's workforce works in the informal sector of the economy (which contributes about 50% to India's GDP).[7]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long [8]https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_vol_4_final.pdf (in the foreword, page 5) Since this is, by its very nature, not monitored by the government, its about impossible to give an accurate depiction of average incomes in the country as most workers would not be taken into consideration for this statistic. Secondly, the per capita income statistic is reductive in itself. It doesn't give the reader an idea on how these incomes are distributed, by the nature of how averages are calculated.

Hence, I suggest adding the information that about 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal economy.

Furthermore, it might be useful to give an example of the development of incomes of an actually formal sector of the economy where accurate data exists. I suggest referencing the findings of a paper by the IZA World of Labor journal. They analyzed the development of real wages of workers in the organized manufacturing sector. Their findings were that wages have stagnated over the last several decades. [9]https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-labor-market-in-india-since-the-1990s/long#izawol.425-figure-000012

Otherwise, it might be useful getting rid of the nominal per capita income number in the short description in general. It's a very reductive term that lacks crucial context (inflation, distribution of said incomes etc.).

Put together into a coherent text, the addition to the short description may look like this:

Over 90% of the labor force continues to work in the informal sector which generates about half of India's GDP. Despite the growth in GDP, real wages of workers have largely stagnated in the organized manufacturing industry since the 1980s.

Please let me know what you think. Vuquiz (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

India's Nominal GDP is 4.11 Trillion Dollars according to IMF forecast for 2024 you can check the official website please change it 49.205.121.76 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to wait for the WEO in three days (full report) before changing GDP. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update per capita rankings

(nominal) Per capita income is 136 not 139 Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a

reliable source to back up that claim? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Check on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita it is new data released by imf on 16 April 2024 Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and now someone revised new gdp numbers ^[1] Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I think we are done here. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the capita income is still 139, please fix it.

(usko sudharo jaldi) Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ [10]]