Talk:Economic history of India

message: The wonderful table in the "GDP history of India after Independence" section is a perfect candidate for turning into a graphical chart for easier reading. -- Beland (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Economic history of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606000000/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/52/39452196.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/52/39452196.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516085855/http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html to http://www.rbi.org.in/currency/museum/c-mogul.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hitch/gendocs/pop.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.med.unc.edu/~nupam/ancient1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/data/dbcselm.cfm?G=2001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I kept the summary of research findings cited to   Angus Maddison.  He  was a leading scholar and specialist on the economic history of GNP, including India. Wikipedia depends on research of major scholars like him to provide reliable secondary sources that we summarize  the OR rules applies NOT to scholars but only to Wiki editors who make new claims not supported by a reliable source.  the rule = Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.  Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Source only mentions table. We can present table but we cant draw conclusions on our own. We can't summarize table based on a single source because summarization can result in POV pushing just like the section currently is. Orientls (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: our job as editors is to summarize the RS -- whether it is all in text or numbers or mixed--ity is all verified by Maddison's team as reliable. There is NO Wiki rule against summarizing or paraphrasing facts in the RS.  You seem to consider the table as a primary source.  In that case please read the rule about primary sources:  A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.  (from WP:PRIMARY) That is, Wiki says that fully sourced "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" are not OR. Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Still it doesn't change that the source makes no mention of "Mughal", "Delhi Sultanate", etc. so why we are giving them credit when these names haven't been supported by the source? Source only speaks of "Early Medieval India", "Medieval India" and so on.  It is not lending credit to particular empires which constitutes WP:OR and misrepresentation of source. Orientls (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maddison = major reliable source  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: the article stats that gdp per capita only increased after 1000ce even though the sources contradict that. its straight up wrong [unsigned]
: The graph seems to be wrong - it shows hocky stick growth from 1600 to today of $6000 per capita, but other sources tell me india has only $2250 per capita gdp. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  gdp per capita