Talk:List of think tanks in India

India: Politics Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of enhancements[edit]

I made the following enhancements:

1. Converted the bullet points list into a table with sortable columns.

2. Expanded see also section

3. A large number of think tanks have been either established by the "industry bodies" (such as Institute of Chartered Accountants) or by the the notable universities. I have assumed if the host organsiation is notable, then the think tank is also notable by virtue of being part of notable organisation.

4. Government of India formally classifies the institutes in the following categories:
A. Institutes of Eminence,
B. Institutes of National Importance,
C. Autonomous Institutes.
All the institutes I have added, they fall under these 3 official elite categories. For example, Please note that those think tanks based within "O.P. Jindal University" or "Kurukshetra University]]" are notable by virtue of these university being on the official list of the "Institute of eminence" (top level formal classification by the government). Similarly Ashoka University is also one of notable Private and Autonomous university, "autonomus" university status is another elite institute classification by the government of India.

Please review. Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvements in list structure and additional information. I have tweaked some minor formatting errors in these good-faith changes. But "notability" on Wikipedia is primarily defined by the availability of independent sources covering these topics (WP:GNG). It is not inherited by the notability of parent organizations (WP:NOTINHERITED) or defined by a specific external classification. Such lists are usually restricted to Wiki-"notable" topics with their own article (or at least some significant coverage in independent reliable sources), see also WP:CSC. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GermanJoe, It will not be difficult to find secondary sources on the entries I had added. I will put those back once I have time to find reputed/notable secondary sources. This revert by you with edit comment "COI spam", I have no relationship with any of the Think Tanks I had added, i.e. I or my family did not study or work with any of those. I know of these only through media sources, etc. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Gap Analysis: To Do list[edit]

Those editors with time and inclination, please help with the following ongoing partial list:

1. Global Go To Think Tank Index: Expand the section to include the methodology and table of the latest rankings with multiple columns to show at least last five years rankings.

2. Standardise "Specialization" column in this article based on the categories in the "Global Go To Think Tank Index".

3. Are there other global or Indian indexes? Interesting to see a comparison of their methodology and sample size, etc. If there are multiple reputed indexes then we need to add columns in the article to include rankings of those indexes too.

4. Are there any other notable sources which maintain a list of Indian Think Tanks?

5. Are there a pan-India or state specific association of Think Tanks, or Think Tank of Think Tanks in India?

6. This aspect of civic society remains weak in India, with media being owned by Industrial houses who are mostly in politics. Need to capture related aspects either in this article or in a related article.

7. Article currently includes Indian origin India based Think Tanks only. Need to include international Think Tanks with India chapters such as Brooklyn Institute in a separate section/table perhaps (suggestion please if we maintain a single table but use a column to differentiate these?).

8. Also need to have a separate table/section on "India-focused" "Think Tanks based overseas" with "no physical chapter in India".

9. Some of the Global Think Tanks might be notable, but many of these have links/funded/infiltrated by the foreign vested interests, intelligence agencies, etc. Need to find a way to flag that too from reputed media sources. India does not have equivalent of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty international or Organisation of Islamic Cooperation type of global Think Tanks with global indexed/reports to bully or counter other nations propaganda or strategic destabilization of India. By extensions, Abrahmic faiths (Judeo Christian and Islamic) have numerous Think Tanks and Civil Societies to champion their world view and agenda, whereas Indic/Dharma faiths (Hindu Buddhist issues) hardly have any such Think Tanks, if those exist they are poorly funded and badly maligned such as Vivekananda Foundation. All this is also related to India's foreign relations, international disputes and domestic implications, etc. This vast area has not been yet documented on the wikipedia, not summarised/piped/linked in a single "India Think Tank and Civil Society" type of article with various aspects and implications.

10. A large number of Indian Think Tanks might not be aware of the Global Ranking, a universal notification from UGA and relevant GoI dept to these think tanks to become part of could solve this issue. Though this might have an adverse impact of Lauder Institute (and USA govt) owning data on the Indian Think Tank. Indian GoI/HRD/NSA/UGC etc are better off creating own "Think Tank of Think Tanks" and similar annual index. These might already exit, if so, need to document.

11. Other suggestions.

Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC) h[reply]

WP:EL[edit]

I move these external links from the article, I don't think they follow WP:EL, yet they may be useful in the article.

(29 January 2019). 2018 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
(1 February 2019). Observer Research Foundation named 'highest ranked' Indian think tank, Business Standard. Retrieved 30 October 2019.

--Muhandes (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Social Development, New Delhi[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Information to be added or removed:

Name: Council for Social Development Global Rank (2019): NA Specialisation: education, health, agriculture, gender, environment Funding Type: Not-for-profit City (State): New Delhi and Hyderabad

Explanation of issue: This is one of the think tanks with a long track record. However, it has not been included in the list. References supporting change: www.csdindia.org

Nandanitya (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nandanitya, and thank you for your suggestion. Typically, think tanks need to have a Wikipedia article, which requires a demonstration of notability, before they are added to this article. As far as I can tell, the Council for Social Development does not have its own article. For that reason, this edit request must be declined. Best, Altamel (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

As stated at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list:-

All lists must have clearly defined inclusion criteria, which this list does not have
Every entry should meet the notability criteria for its own article. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the list, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This prevents indiscriminate lists, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.
Editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
All items on the list must follow Wikipedia's core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view

As per the above, All redlinks, without a verifiable citation, should be removed which I have done.
Entries without an article, but with a citation should only remain if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming, although exactly how this is to be assessed is not explained. I suggest that if such an article is not forthcoming within a year it fails this criterion
I believe we should "choose to limit the list to entries with a Wikipedia articles", and eliminate all redlinks - as point 3 above - but that, unlike the criteria immediately above - is a matter for consensus. Does anyone object to the removal of all redlinks? And if so, for what reason(s) within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]