Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.

Click here to add a new section

Wikipedia Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Delete Category:Ruling Kurmi Clans?

This appears to be yet another cat that's only going to attract mischief, and another manifestation of the ever-popular argument: "there was a Fooian king once, so they're a royal people." We already have Category:Ruling Hindu clans (which I'm not excited about either), and we don't even have a Category:Kurmi, so I think this cat is both POV and premature. Does anyone have any argument for it? I'd like to take it to WP:CFD, but given that it's a bit of a technical topic I thought some debate here would be good first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks delete-worthy. None of those are "ruling" clans, and the classification of some of them as "Kurmi" is debatable. utcursch | talk 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete, for the reasons MV states. I have no idea whether Utcursch is right or not but their comments go to prove MV's point - it will become a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

RS noticeboard on Minal Hajratwala

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari.2C_Minal_Hajratwala regarding an RS noticeboard entry on the Amina Arraf/Minal Hajratwala interaction WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

2010 Barack Obama visit to India for deletion

2010 Barack Obama visit to India has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Barack Obama visit to India. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Help identifying a temple picture

What is this?

Hello India experts. File:Picture 104.jpg, a photograph of some unidentied gopuram, is up for deletion because it lacks an identification. The upload was the editor's only edit. It seems like a potentially useful picture, if only we knew what it was. Can somebody identify which temple this is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied at the FfD. It's the Suchindram temple. —SpacemanSpiff 08:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BOLP debate on Admiral Arun Prakash's links to nephew Ravi Shankaran

The article Arun Prakash had a section detailing the the fact that his wife's nephew is the primary accused in the Navy War Room scandal, which happened during his tenure. All claims related to this were well-referenced. The article stated clearly that he himself was not charged of any wrongdoing; the language also was quite neutral. However, user:funnyrat was repeatedly removing all references to his relationship with Shankaran, which I had been updating with more citations each time. In my last edit, I mentioned that funnyrat may be someone connected with the subject. Now user:funnyrat has claimed to be Arun Prakash himself, and has initiated a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, where another user is supporting him. The present article has removed all five citations (there are no references left). I feel that an encyclopedia entry for Arun Prakash is incomplete without a reference to his nephew being involved in one of the larger spy scandals of recent history. Please check out. mukerjee (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Audio for Mamata Banerjee

Someone has asked me for an audio file for the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee's name. I'm not able to make such a file - would anyone here be willing to make one? (A file for the Bengali pronunciation would be useful too, but it's specifically the Hindi pronunciation that I've been asked for.) --Zundark (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Titodutta (talk · contribs) might be able to help, if I remember correctly he's uploaded a couple of ogg files for Bengali names. I'm not sure what you mean by Hindi pronunciation, it's a Bengali name -- both first and last names are uniquely Bengali, while the first has a Hindi variant, the latter doesn't. —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually Banerjee isn't very Bangla, it is an English corruption, bangla prefers Bandopadhya and is written বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়. Mamta can be pronounced मोमता / ममता, audio file will depend on whether the speaker is speaking Bangla or Hindi or English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I mean either, but I've pointed the user to this page, and he can ask Titodutta if he wants to. Thanks for your help. --Zundark (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you can upload the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee, however the pronunciation of Hindi in that article is incorrect, i guess someone has to correct it. "(Hindi) [mɔːmoːt̪ʰaː bɛːnaːrjiː]", "(Bengali) [mɔːmoːt̪ʰaː bɛːnaːrjiː]" or "(English) /mɑːmtæ ˈbɒnɛə/.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please respond.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 05:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot provide the pronounciations in IPA, but I believe the phonetic pronounciations are:

English: Mum-taa Banner-jee

Hindi:Mum-a-taa Bun-err-jee

Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, I think we can upload the Hindi pron, what you think which one should be uploaded the Hindi or Bengali pron. I know that you can't upload, but other editors can therefore we can request them to upload the original and correct pron.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 13:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting a page on police reforms

Hi,

Suggesting here a page on Police reforms in India. I read somewhere(don't remember) that a draft is also submitted by a Parsi lawyar. I am sure there are many references available including books on the exact topic: eg. Police reforms in India: an analytical study, Police Reforms In India :A Sisyphean Saga, Police Reform Debates in India (2007), then links 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Plus some interesting discussions on bharat-rakshak.com - 1, 2.

Also please note a similar page on wikipedia - Police Reform Act 2002 - an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Also, a minor paragraph mentions this in a page here on Wikipedia. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez, are we going to have an article for every piece of Indian legislation etc? In any event, why not create it yourself in user space, then people can have a better idea of how you plan to show it. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think the article is notable. I do not understand what do you mean by "how you plan to show it". ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what he's suggesting is that rather than write a full article while having folks debate notability, you first write a basic draft, maybe an intro paragraph and some key points or outline, on your userspace first. Then you can bring it here, get people's views on how it can be developed, and then launch. That way, if it turns out that it's not working out, you'll know early on vice after putting a lot of work into it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Legislation is notable but proposed legislation ain't necessarily so. Furthermore, just because it is notable does not mean we should have an article on a piece of legislation. To do so almost certainly would require specialist knowledge in order to do it justice (forgive the pun). The last thing we need is yet another really poor quality India-related article.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a news site, so if these are indeed merely proposals then there is an argument that there should not be an article for them until they crystallise.

So, to get a better idea of what you intend it would make sense to draft something in your userspace. You appear to be interested in it and it would be quite nice if you actually did some contributing to other than talk pages. You never know, you might even enjoy it! - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your lengthy reply. There are many pages on Wikipedia with much less notability. I would also say that it is better to have a poorly written article than no article at all. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may be wrong. Over 800 articles about (inherently notable) Indian villages were deleted recently precisely because they were poor. Why not just do as I suggest? What have you got to lose? - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As it is, the topic was about a suggestion, for which Sitush & MatthewVanitas are giving advise on what should I do about it(exactly like Talk:Kashmiri_Pandit#Neutrality on a page about Kashmiri Pandits). I guess you have a good understanding on how a topic is poor and therefore worth deletion. However we have not reached anywhere neat such a stage and this is just a suggestion to to see what are the views on others on the topic.

Now I read your replies, I think others should also comment on the topic suggested and not what your suggestions are. Lets no keep on stretching your suggestion, which is not the topic of discussion and welcome others' suggestions too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Amongst the goals of the Wikimedia foundation, two are relevant to discussions such as this one:

• Increase the number of articles from 17.9 million to 50 million.
• Increase the number of editors to 1 billion with the focus being on the Global South (with Indian being the primary target in this area).

ThisThat2011's disposition is to follow Wikipedia rules and policies as he learns them (he is still new, having joined only a few months back). This post to create a new article is a positive one and while I have not looked at the history of exchanges between Sitush and ThisThat2001, I am concerned at the kind of treatment he is getting here. I hope we can stay focused on improving and creating articles instead of making remarks like "and it would be quite nice if you actually did some contributing to other than talk pages". Legislation is perhaps one of the most important activity in a democratic society and even if we have a stub for every single legislation (failed, passed or proposed) in the Indian parliament, that will be an important addition to Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat2011, The topic itself is notable if written according to our policies. If i remember correctly "draft is also submitted by a Parsi lawyar." was the author's own original research (how he wanted the reforms to be) and it got deleted for being an essay/OR. I second MV's advice, draft a basic version with sources (dont use the forum ones, as they are user generated content and would not pass our RS standards). Avoid opinions like "why police reform is needed" and "what reforms are needed" and base it on facts - what was proposed before, implemented before and what is being proposed now and by whom etc. Once you are done with the userspace draft, ask for third party review. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat2011, User:Suyogaerospace is very interested in the Indian police, more specifically Mumbai police. You may find him a willing collaborator. AshLin (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

These How To's might help as well:

• How to write a great article
• Your first article

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unintelligible after 5 years: Leva Patil

Can someone more familiar with this community take a look at this article and tell me if there's anything worth salvaging? I'm tempted to just AfD it, since there's zero sourcing and it's extremely hard to follow. The community does appear to be notable, but I think we'd be better off hacking it to zero and starting a new stub based on actual refs. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is to add {{fact}} tags and keep the article since this is a sizable community with a distinct identity in Maharashtra. An excellent source (in that it covers every single caste group and community in India) is Kumar Suresh Singh's work done for the Anthropological survey India. It comes in numerous volumes and parts and will definitely yield at least 5-10 citations for this caste. The one that I've used in the past came under ISBN 8179911004 and the title "People of India: Maharashtra, volume xxx, Anthropological Survey of India" but there's also a "Communities of India" or something like that. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Notable subject, but rather than leave a bunch of uncited stuff, why not just start it afresh from proper sources? Some of the current content may well be accurate, but there's no way to separate the wheat from the chaff wihtout refs. Under "do no harm" it'd be better to risk removing some good-but-uncited data than to risk leaving in nonsense. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists

i see that very few articles count under the featured list section of India portal. how do we include the articles in featured list's list? i have a suggestion. List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in India. the article is not even rated. concered people please look into this. i dont know how to do it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists go through the process listed at WP:FLC (and criteria listed at WP:FL). If you'd like you can work on it to get it up to par on those conditions and nominate it. General convention is that you also let the top 1/2 contributors to the article of your intent to nominate as they may have some ideas on the same (VishalB might be a start for this). I'll take a look at the article soon and comment on the talk page. It looks good and a few edits should make it ready for FLC. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The list is already in good shape and we should not have trouble getting it to pass the featured list criterion. I would be glad to help out in a secondary/supportive role, making fixes and small changes to the list. I've added it to my watchlist. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some opinions on Talk:Kurmi#Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna

This talk page is a noticeboard and is not meant to be a discussion forum. Content issues are better handled on article talk pages. For dispute resolution, see WP:DR. For Issues about behavior, take it to either of WP:WQA or WP:ANI. --rgpk (comment) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Need some opinions on Talk:Kurmi#Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna. After presenting sources, I have been getting warnings on my page when I pointed out how a discussion is stretched after Synthesis. What I have presented is reliable sources, and what it is turned into is "swaying" of authorities by Kurmis, etc. and then I am given second warning after my comment here. Need opinion on way ahead. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Hm. The warnings overlapped your "synthesis" contribution. That was a sort of edit conflict on different pages, if you understand what I mean. However, your tendentiousness in the debate which you refer to appears to be matched by one you are involved in at Romila Thapar. The common denominator is you, so perhaps there is a lesson to be learned? - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC) In that case, I request comments on Romila Thapar page also. Also, Sitush, please explain how my 'tendentiousness' on Romila Thapar page effect the topic of concern here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I have already explained. It is because you are the only common factor in the two articles. I didn't add - but do now - that you have received numerous warnings for tendentious and otherwise disruptive editing since May. You really do need to curb this, erm, tendency.- Sitush (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Could you present standards for your views on "swaying" authorities logicline please before giving numerous warnings? I requested on the talk page and I am requesting it now and all I am getting it is warnings. Where are the standards that say warnings can be given when someone points out synthesis? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) What you're calling "synthesis" is attempts to explain to you on Talk how you're mis-reading the sources. Nobody is attempting to put this "synthesis" into the article, I'm just pointing out that your "hey guys here's my source so let's go ahead and change the article" posts are quite inaccurate and should not be used to change the article. You are showing a clear pattern of making wild assumptions based on sources which say no such thing and trying to insert them into the article, and when called out on that you jumped on me for adding the slightest amount of interpretation on the Talk page. What's the WP term for that again, where you over-react to criticism by trying to find any trace of the same in others? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas, the substance mentioned is clearly from reliable sources. Let others also decide what is 'my interpretation' etc. when the substance is mentioned a clearly reliable source. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Nobody is doubting (most of) your sources, we're doubting your taking "in 1924 they formed the Kurmi Kshatriya Organisation" and using that to conclude "we should remove the cited term Shudra and say the Kurmi are Kshatriya". But by all means, let's have some outside opinions. I do note too that if you'd phrased this request in a neutral way ("can we get some neutral eyes on a discussion at Kurmi?") as opposed to coming in asking for help against alleged unfair allegations, Sitush and I wouldn't have been inclined to have to reply to your counter-accusations here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Yes I am requesting comments, not sending comments on tagteaming if you have noticed. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Tagteaming? That is quite an allegation. And you cannot prove it because it is not true. Read WP:Tag team. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The only allegation I see here is "Tagteaming? That is quite an allegation"! It is not true. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC) So why the hell did you raise the phrase, then? It was a sly allegation and it is factually incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC) That is another allegation. Though there is no comment where the logicline of 'swaying' authorities came from. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC) We should consider the point raised by Humour Thisthat2011. They are worthy of merit. Please keep all discussions related to a page on that page. This side discussions is not helping the cause of the Kurmi page. I will create a ling about this discussion there. This would help others to participate in this very important discussion. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC) A notice is served to MatthewVanitas(here) and Sitush(here) on introducing the word 'Shudra' at prominant positions and repeatedly insisting on keeping so on pages related to Hindu Jatis such as Kurmi and Yadav. Some legalities as per this link. Advising editors to desist from such a behavior. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC) That is a legal threat. Bye bye. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC) How is this a legal threat? Can someone point out any legal document that can throw some light on the subject under consideration please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Humour please understand wp:SYNTHESIS, a source says kurmis formed an organisation in 1924, that had the word kshatriya in it, to use that for a source is wp:SYNTHESIS, you need explicit statements, "Kurmis are Kshatriya". Please do not mis-understand me. Just trying to explain how wp:SYNTHESIS works as far as I understand it. I dont care who is what every one is human.Yogesh Khandke (talk) Yes I have added some reference in discussions here & here. Though I am yet to understand how laws in India carry no weight on Wikipedia. By Indian standards, calling Indian Jatis as Shudras would not be appreciated I think. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Humour please see talk:Kurmi, also please look at wp:FORUMSHOPPING.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't operate from India, doesn't have an India office, so Indian laws don't apply perhaps, are you referring to the Atrocities act?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC) WP does have plans for expansion in India and there is good reason for WP to stay clear of troubles with laws of any country, including India. It is irresponsible to lead the project into unnecessary problems.-MangoWong (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of India, period. Therefore, there are no "unnecessary problems" involving content and those laws. This is a facade for "let's do it my way" and I am becoming frustrated by the number of people who, having failed to get their way using Wikipedia's guidelines etc, now resort to India's laws in an attempt to almost bludgeon their POV into various articles. Yes, there is systemic bias here but there always will be such bias in en-WP until the entire world has access to a computer, access to all sources, the time to use both of those and the ability to write/read in the English language. Even if a critical mass of India-based contributors develops that mass would have to overturn not merely consensus on an article but two of the very foundations of Wikpedia, ie: verifiablity using reliable sources. You need to bear in mind that consensus is not a vote and that any !voters who base their opinion on unreliable sources etc are discarded. To be honest, if the Five Pillars irk you then why not try WikiAlpha instead? They allow original research, they do not insist on notability etc - it is quite anarchic, actually. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Do you have a brain? I mean, a brain--which can logically process information? I have already explained that WP has plans to expand its operations in India. If WP is to have an office in India, how will its office not be subject to Indian laws? You are trying to lead this project into unnecessary trouble. As a Wikipedian, I am trying to stop you. Please stop living in an imaginary world and come to terms with the reality. It is interesting that you yourself say that a large number of users object to your edits. Why do you think you only are right? Are you omniscient?-MangoWong (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Some users, many of whom have been proven to be sockpuppets and meatpuppets, have indeed objected to certain things. The problem is, as I have said previously, their objections ignore the policies and guidelines. Having an office in India (if indeed that is the plan) will make no difference to the legal situation, since the servers etc are not and will never be in India so long as India has draconian legislation. The country is well known for (eg) clamping down on press freedom & for endemic corruption in politics etc - it would make little sense to move the servers to a location where they might be shackled. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC) May I suggest that we stick to content issues and leave legal issues to lawyers. ThisThat, do note that your statement above is easily construed as a legal threat and you could have been immediately blocked for making that threat. Please lead WP:Legal and WP:WikiBullying carefully. --rgpk (comment) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Given that bulk of those people who have brought up the "Wikipedia could be sued for using the word Shudra... I'm not threatening, I'm just reminding" angle on numerous caste articles in the last month are the same people who also fought the term Shudra along every other possible line of argument. It does rather appear that the "I'm just trying to help Wikipedia keep out of legal trouble" argument is quite disingenous, and just used in an attempt to remove a cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT aspect of caste history after other methods fail. Not that it matters in the slightest, but I would certainly hope that the Indian government would draw a distinction between calling a group "Shudra" in an attempt to defame them, and academic discourse which notes the historical use of the term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I haven't been following this discussion but, and this is addressed to the editors that MatthewVanitas describes above, let's be clear about this. Any further legal threats or even mention of legal issues will be subject to an immediate block. That is the policy on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas, don't misrepresent facts. The article is asserting that Kurmis are Shudras. Not in a historical way. Secondly, I have never edited any caste articles, and do not even have a single comment on any of their talk pages. So, there is no question of my having said anything or failed/succeeded in anything.-MangoWong ([[User talk:MangoWong|talk]]) 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Misrepresent? The article Kurmi currently says: They are regarded as being historically a Shudra (agricultural) class by academics, and as a backward caste by the government, which deprecates use of the Hindu varna ritual ranks,[4][3]. Explain how that is "not in a historical way". So far as your other contributions, nothing personal, but we've all been pretty on-edge about relatively new India accounts getting embroiled in caste issues since we've had extensive sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and off-site (particularly Orkut) canvassing resulting in very distracting mobbing of articles like Nair, Kurmi, Yadav, Ahirs, etc. Even having some brief history outside of India topics, or having a longer-running but little-used account become active, are still concerning since we've seen both "sleeper accounts" (sockpuppets started months ago and kept in reserve to allay suspicion directed at brand-new accounts) as well as a very popular technique of starting a new account, doing a few non-controversial edits on unrelated topics (Grand canyon, milkshake, Toyota Corolla) and then a day later suddenly barelling into caste arguments in a very familiar way, but with several inoccuous edits to allay suspicion of being a WP:Single purpose account for caste-warrioring. In summary, the article says "historical", legal threats however indirect are unacceptable, and great caution is needed when debating caste issues (not insults like "Do you have a brain?") since frankly patience has worn thin for many parties after all these puppets and POV-pushers have dragged down the efficiency of a huge and sorely-needed caste cleanup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra. Just look at the summary of the article. It says all. Where do you find the summary of an article--in the infobox. Did I put the summary there? What is this line doing if not asserting that Kurmis are Shudras? Haaaaa. O MatthewVanitas, please let me know, is it a crime for a new account to edit or talk about caste articles? Do I become a sock/meat puppet or SPA simply for having a new account? Do you not need some reasonable proof before implying such demeaning characterizations? There have been crazy/fundamentalist/commercially interested/trolling/dicky etc. users all over WP. Does that mean I can automatically begin to talk about them in relation to you? And how can you see legal threats where absolutely no such thing exists? I have only the vaguest idea about what is Orkut. And I am an SPA if I only take interest in one article. But you also make me one when I take interest in more than one. How can this be logical? Why bring this up even?-MangoWong (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) No-one has said that you are a sock, meat or SPA. There have been numerous proven examples regarding other users, however. You are incorrect about how the article represents sudras. FYI, infoboxes only appear in about 3% of WP articles, are not necessary and in the case of caste articles it is my contention that they should not be used. They are bling, usually inserted by relatively new editors. If you want to remove that infobox then you are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. Population, classification etc are all pretty meaningless in these boxes & I have argued this for some time. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas did try to sully my name by bringing up these characterizations in relation to me. AFAIK, there has been one sock on that page. Even then, why bring that up in relation to me? And how could I be incorrect about what the article is saying? Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra. What is this line doing if not asserting that Kurmis are Shudras? What else does it mean? (I would like to have a direct answer, no skirting!) And why do you try to obfuscate the issue by making it appear that I object to the infobox. No. I have no objection if the infobox stays. I only object to that one line in it. It should be changed. It can say anything as long as it does not mention "Shudra". Besides that, I think the article is focusing too much on "Shudra". There is no need to mention it in the lead. The rest of the article should also not focus too much on this. Plus there is no need to mention anything about diet etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) You have misread MV. Regarding the article, why not take the matter there. That is where the discussion should take place and would have taken place if it were not for TT2011's rather non-neutral opening of this thread. However, I will tell you now that shudra is staying and the reasons why it is staying are explained on Talk:Kurmi. It is pretty much non-negotiable because it satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC) So, you have no answer to my question? Who is being sly now? I don't think there is anything non neutral about bringing an India related issue to this page. It is meant for such issues. You might have described ThisThat2011's actions if he had taken it to individual users who were already in dispute with you. He did no such thing. Only you indulged in such actions. Bringing an issue here is perfectly neutral. I think it is better to continue with the issue here. It seems to make you misbehave less often. And simply because something passes WP:V and WP:RS does not mean that it is fit for inclusion in the article. There are lots of other things which have a bearing on inclusion.-MangoWong (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC) The non-neutrality refers to the wording of the original message in this thread by TT, which was an issue raised within hours of this thread opening. Furthermore, the detailed debate should indeed occur on the article talk page, not here. Basically, it should have been worded something like "There is currently a dispute regarding XYZ at article ABC. Input from other people would be welcomed." The reason for not answering your other points was precisely because this is the wrong venue. As for what should or should not be in an article, well, if the content relates to the subject, complies with the policies/guidelines for verifiablity etc then it deserves a place in what ever the article may be. It is that simple. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I might have seen more value in your non neutrality complaints if I could have seen you yourself behaving in a neutral way. You are no saint in this regard. You had taken to canvassing for support only from folks who can be expected to say things against TT2011. It is obvious that you had tried to organize a "wikikill" on a fellow ed with whom you had a dispute. You were obviously trying to do this as a way of avoiding discussion of the real issues. Doing something like this is not neutral and is one of the most despisable things that I can imagine a Wikipedian doing. You are incorrect about how the article represents sudras. You have claimed on this page that my understanding of the issue is incorrect. I have already showed where the article asserts that Kurmis are Shudras. Despite this, how can my understanding of the issue be incorrect? Since you have made the contrary claim on this page, you should explain yourself on this page too. Besides this reason, another reason is that discussions on the Kurmi talk page seem to be unproductive because of your stubborn attitude. You seem to be less stubborn here. So, there is better chance of a productive discussion here, in a more public forum. There is no point going there and coming back here with a status quo in hand.-MangoWong (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC) "Avoiding discussion of the real issues"? That is simply absurd; have you seen Talk:Kurmi where Sitush and I have tried, and tried, and tried, and tried to reason with an endless array of POV pushers who wander in, all to complain about literally one word in the article? Not a single one of them has managed to convince an admin (several have come by) or anyone at ANI or POV of the soundness of removing the term "Shudra". Does that not tell you something? You are simply one of a long line of complainants, not a single one of whom has gained traction at any outside arbitration venue, because simply put you are unable to come up with a legitimate argument that does not strongly smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are multiple sides to the story, we are including multiple sides, you and others want to remove one side of the story to spare hurt feelings about past (and continuing) discrimination within Indian society. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong, I have no idea what a "wikikill" is but can assure you that I mean no harm to anyone here. I have myself had a death threat recently, however, plus some other ridiculous stuff. If you could point me to one instance of this discussion here being "productive" then I would be grateful. The fact that you say "there is no point going there [Talk:Kurmi] and coming back here with a status quo in hand" speaks volumes: you are clearly set on achieving a change. That change is not going to happen from this venue, so you need to take it somewhere else. I have previously suggested the options to Yogesh K at Talk:Kurmi but they have been ignored on more than one occasion. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, there is an undue effort to avoid discussion of issues. Both the above posts are also efforts in the same direction. I have been claiming repeatedly that the article asserts that Kurmis are Shudras. Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra. I have also asked what this line is doing if not asserting that Kurmis are Shudras. I have only silence from MatthewVanitas. Sitush claims my impression of the issue is wrong. I have been asking how my understanding is wrong, and I have no response from Sitush. The long line of folks who object to one single word are users, not POV pushers. If there are tons of people who object to something, and only you two are rejecting the objections, maybe you are the POV pushers. Consider this possibility too. The folks who object to one word do not become POV pushers by virtue of objecting to one word. If someone writes the article on "African American" to basically say that African Americans are Negro, folks will have good reason to object endlessly. The same applies here. You two are the POV pushers. Moreover, none of you seem to have any real life familiarity with this subject. Because of your unfamiliarity, you don’t know how to apply common sense and discretion to this subject. You have no idea why this word is objectionable, and instead of asking, you make wild assumptions about discrimination, POV pushing, etc. And you seem to have picked lots of trash ideas from hostile Western sources which are out to vilify India. They have a single track line—India--weird, Hindu=demon. That most of them never ever visited India is of no consequence. Don't talk about draconian laws and frequent clampdowns on press freedom unless you have some good sources. MatthewVanitas I don't see why you keep saying out of context things? Why do you mention ANIs and inability to convince admins etc.? Presently, I am discussing these issues and I have never had the opportunity to get involved in any ANIs related to this issue. How could I be expected to achieve a success at nonexistent ANIs with nonexistent admins? If I have failed in any ANIs, show them. And admin opinion does not carry any extra weight in ed discussions on article issues. On article issues, while editing or commenting on article content, their opinions are valuable, but only as eds. And which admin did get involved with me in discussing article content related issues? You stop saying absurd things. And there are good reasons to not to focus too much on "Shudra". Ask what those reasons are before making assumptions. Its not about sparing hurt feelings. Its about not playing up "Negro"/slave trade/slavery in an "African American" article. That you two are trying to avoid discussion is evident because TT2011 is the first ed who tried to discuss the issues in a comprehensive manner. And Sitush tried to organize a "wikikill" on him by indulging in blatant WP:Canvassing. [1] [2] Wikikill=trying to get someone banned/permanently blocked/somehow making someone unable to edit WP. That you are trying to avoid meaningful discussion is also evident by your taking an obfuscatory, circumlocutory approach on my question regarding the line in the infobox. Why don't you admit that the infobox line does make the assertion that Kurmis are Shudra. Why avoid admitting explicitly that the article is making a wrong assertion? Why talk about removing infobox when there is no objection to the infobox itself. And just a couple of days ago, you two were discussing the prospects of removing Indian eds from India related articles. Why do you want to do that if you do not want to have a free run at distorting India related articles without any discussion? [3]. At Dougweller’s talk page too, MatthewVanitas is arguing that indic centric eds be kept away from India articles. One thing that is productive here is that your motives for your uncompromising behavior are becoming clear. MatthewVanitas has taken it upon himself to play up historical wrongs and wants to play up “Shudra” because of that reason, regardless of how Kurmis themselves feel about it. Sitush thinks that just because something passes WP:V and WP:RS, it is non negotiable. He has no idea that these policies have no bearing on material inclusion. They are about source selection only. Which material gets included, how much and where, is a whole different issue. And Sitush & co. also do not put any value to consensus. Change is going to take place in the article. If you don't like it, you take it to some other venue.-MangoWong (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC) They are bling, usually inserted by relatively new editors. Sitush, you say that infoboxes are usually inserted by new users. The implication being, some new user had put up the offending line. Just to make things clear, could you pleeeeaaaaaase specify which "neeeeeeeeeeew user" that waaaaaaaaaaaaas?-MangoWong (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC) My personal suggestion would be to archive this thread; it has served its purpose of drawing attention to the ongoing discussion over at Talk:Kurmi. I see little to no point in having this discussion scattered over many noticeboards... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam article

A certain referenced statement that i think is important has been removed from the article "Islam in India". As it can not be edited by IP users, i am not able to edit it. see its talk page. 117.204.84.41 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify which statement please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of place names

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Places in India.

I think India is big enough to use the same convention of disambiguation with levels below country and not with country as do Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. The all use "X, statename", "X, territoryname" or similar if disambiguation is needed. If no disambiguation is needed, the articles on localities in India can use the plain place name of course. So no mandatory disambiguation as is done with the US. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment left; very interesting and important proposal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India):

I suggest that places in India use the state or district for disambiguation and not "India". India is such a large country, 2nd most populous, that it will be much more clear to use a lower level. Otherwise, it would be like using "Europe" for places in Europe.

A list of places that would need renaming is at Talk:List_of_cities_and_towns_in_India#Analysis_of_disambiguation_tags.

If these are renamed, all articles left as "X, India" should be set index articles, as in Category:Set indices on populated places in India. This is good for automatic checking with bots. Bots could even create these set index pages.

Maybe you can reply at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kerala State Football League

This new article is by Indianfootballwiki (talk · contribs) who I have just blocked for repeatedly creating hoax articles and adding false information. My first thought was to delete it, because I am suspicious of anything this author writes, but the list here does not contain any of the fantasy football clubs he invented, and more or less agrees with the list headed "Kerala Clubs" at the foot of this page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

looks ok. AFAIK, there are no hoax clubs in the list.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna list at Jāti - any basis in RSs?

A recent edit at Kurmi substituted the link Jāti where previously we referred to them as a "caste", so I went to check out the article. It raises some interesting points, particularly regarding the British uses/misunderstandings/interpreatations of community jatis, though I'd feel a lot better about is if it had footnotes.

That said, there is a nice, clear-cut list of where the communities fall, in the section Jāti#Classification_of_castes. This looks extremely problematic, as a) it has no footnotes whatsoever, b) this is precisely the kind of list that draws in IPs to say "what? the Foo caste aren't Vaishya, they're noble and awesme Kshatriya warriors! EDIT!" Already I note the Kurmi (where we are currently endlessly debating the K vs. S issue) is filed smack dab in Kshatriya, apparently by an IP since it's mis-capitalised "kurmi". If this list is not sourced, it is completely useless. Further, even if it were explicitly sourced, it presents a massive vandalism risk, and I submit that if there is some cite-able list (not necessarily authoritative, even just a "as per the Raj in 1901, here's their list"), it must be put into some non-tamperable format, such as a separate template with a high protection level and watchlisters, or as a image scanned from an original text, as I used to deal with the constant tampering at 36 royal races.

For the moment, I will WP:BEBOLD and remove this uncited list. Here is a link to the pre-deletion version for anyone curious, or those who have a strategy to add some form of list for historical perspective: [4]. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed at Varna (Hinduism)

This thread has now served its purpose; if you wish to discuss this issue further, please do so here, which is the appropriate venue. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm starting to wade into Varna (Hinduism), as the article is very convoluted, hard to read, repetitive, poor wikification, and far too much reliance on WP:Primary sources as opposed to secondary academic analysis. The article looks pretty quiet, no Talk movement since 2011. This article is "class=start" which is a bit ridiculous given how fundamental this is to Indian sociology. Yes, it's an obsolete and deprecated system, but it still goes a long way towards explaining how the current situation came to be. I'd appreciate anyone else interested in pitching in on this keystone of caste-system articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Adding a quote from here: while varna was generally accepted as the basis for identity, on the whole little agreement prevailed with respect to the place of the individual and the jati within a varna hierarchy. Srinivas, describing social relations in the mid-twentieth century, regarded such a “lack of clarity in the hierarchy” as “one of the most striking features of the caste system,” adding that “it is this ambiguity which makes it possible for a caste to rise in the hierarchy.”[30] Such ambiguity only becomes a striking feature, however, when observers expect to see the opposite, that is, a complete congruity between theory (varna) and practice (jati). Such expectations were increasingly palpable in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when India became for nascent (imperial) anthropology a “laboratory of mankind,” wherein scientific methods of observation (anthropometry among them) were expected to produce clear and straightforward sociological (and racial) patterns that conformed to varna-derived theories.[31] Hope this helps. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Just adding here, "India became for nascent (imperial) anthropology a “laboratory of mankind,” wherein scientific methods of observation (anthropometry among them) were expected to produce clear and straightforward sociological (and racial) patterns that conformed to varna-derived theories.[31]", a behavior very clearly exhibited still. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I'll have to dig more into those sources (and what it is they're citing in the "[30]" etc. footnotes), but at first glance this is indeed the kind of material that needs to be in the article. Again, not to make it British-centric, and of course the history of varna prior to the British needs to be dug into extensively. The articles are also weak on the modern Indian government's efforts to eliminate varna distinctions, attempts to use SC/ST and OBC to redress some long-standing repressions, etc. The first issue should be to try and smooth up the copyediting, and also remove any controversial uncited material or POV. Secondly, to improve organisation/flow and avoid repetition, third to expand the article using the sort of in-depth academic examination as you link above. Sound like a plan thus far? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Most of the English Literature is colonial and post-Independence of India. What I am trying to say is, it was because of Colonial history that many people lost social status (because of poverty, loss of authority, etc.), so also that colonial policies - that could order some Jatis out of some service like Police - that led to so called 'Swaying' authorities movements - is completely overlooked. When Colonial Authorities started making those rules, requiring iron-clad lines of varna (like skin color difference, misplaced in Varna system) for jobs, one can not blame any Jatis, like Kurmis, that didn't need such 'declarations of Varna' earlier. Hindu religious leaders are very clear on Kshatriya status, as pointed out earlier. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I am curious here, and well aware of past accusations about "Hindu Nationalists". If all of these issues were down to the colonial period (caste is, I believe, a Portuguese word), why is it that the various varna are mentioned in Sangam/Purana etc literature and why is it that those sources are used by many here to buttress their various contentions to ritual rank? The system existed before colonial times and all indications are that it was "enforced" in those early times, hence machinations such as hypergamy were employed to ameliorate some of the effects or, indeed, to bolster those effects (only the oldest son of a Kerala-region Brahmin could usually marry a Brahmin, for example). - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Look, let's leave the Kurmi issues on Talk:Kurmi and try and approach the varna and jati castes as broad conceptual articles. I would, however, dispute that "Hindu religious leaders are very clear", as there were plenty of divergences over time and place. Look at the contorversy over the coronation of Shivaji: he was suddenly "found" to be descended from Kshatriya clans when his military power simply could not be ignored, though it is quite possible he was of Kunbi Shudra origin. It was not done by some all-India consensus, it was done because some key local Brahmins saw the writing on the wall. I dispute your implication that the Brits somehow arbitrarily mis-filed some agricultural castes as Shudra as the Brahmins vainly struggled to haul out long-standing Kshatriya references for them; it appears (per sources, and we can get into that in article talk) that when the British started formally codifying things in a unified way, many jatis saw a chance to make a pitch for a higher varna, knowing that if they could convince the British, it would be hard for any other Indian groups (including the Brahmins) to contradict the Raj. That's how you get all those temple entry and other social upheavals at the start of the 20th century; jatis were redefining themselves in ways the orthodox Hindus disputed, but the jatis now could sue in British courts, etc. to press their case rather than simply accept what other communities decreed. Mandelbaum's "Society of India" has a great passage on this here: [5]. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC) About 'The system existed before colonial times and all indications are that it was "enforced" in those early times', is again partly true. There are many examples, as noted by different sects, of Kings ploughing fields, etc. Some Hindu movements also point out that, by Karma Yoga i.e. work, one could move across Varna. "when the British started formally codifying things in a unified way" is somehow anathema to Varna understanding, which is not too iron-clad at all. The same book also says, that during and after 1941 Census, listing of Jati and Varna was eliminated, terminating the use of census as a tool for Jati mobility. So how are we on Wikipedia doing iron clad research on Jatis and Varnas? About Shivaji, assertions that the contorversy over the coronation of Shivaji: he was suddenly "found" to be descended from Kshatriya clans when his military power simply could not be ignored, though it is quite possible he was of Kunbi Shudra origin, is again Synthesis. When there is a debate, one can not take sides and in your own words "it is quite possible he was of Kunbi Shudra origin" etc. Again Shivaji was considered as a Kshatriya by a Hindu priest is what you also mentioned, regardless of 'the writing on the wall' theory put forward from a Wikipedian admin. What I can say is that whenever there are some debates/disagreements, it is not a job of Wikipedia to take sides and write authoritative History. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Building on Sitush's point: it doesn't help the "varna doesn't matter" or "varna is a wicked Britisher imposition" case to note that a huge number of articles (and basically all of the ones with a current Kshatriya vs. Shudra fight) were quite happy to prominently list Kshatriya credentials in the start of the article, and spend substantial time justifying them. But once Sitush and I started trying to detail the undiscussed controversies (which are very clear in academic works), all of a sudden people wanted to start saying "oh, varna doesn't matter" once they realised they couldn't force out "Shudra" and keep all the Kshatriya puffery. The motives behind some of these argument are rather suspect, in that context. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) If there are controversies, why is Wikipedia taking sides in a controversy? As also, why are recognitions by Hindu priests ignored as social recognition, for example in case of Kurmis or King Shivaji? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) WP is not taking part in controversy. The aim is to keep it that way. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC) TT2011, yet again you are spraying stuff around that is barely related to the subject heading & the thread is deteriorating in consequence. You first point was a good one but even then I knew exactly where you were going to go with it - it has become a very predictable routine. Can we try to stay focussed, please? Carping on about Kurmi/Kuni etc, reiterating points you seem unable to drop despite umpteen explanations, is distracting to say the least. As for this thread itself, it would probably be best taken on the to article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

A number of categories starting with word "Indian" are proposed to be renamed see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 13 .Shyamsunder (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hari S. Kartha

Hari S. Kartha could use some help. The article needs sources, but I don't know where to look. I found a reference for his being the editor of Janmabhumi newspaper, but couldn't find more. I'm guessing the needed sources would be offline or not in the English language. Cloveapple (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've merged Hari S. Kartha into Janmabhumi. I'm not sure it satisfies WP:CREATIVE as the only reliable sources I could find about him were trivial and just mentioned his position as chief editor.  Office of Disinformation  11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How to spell bulbul tarang in Hindi and Urdu?

Bulbul tarang

The article bulbul tarang has no local-language spellings in its lede; does anyone know how to spell this in Hindi and Urdu? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Phonetically: "बुलबुल तरंग"  Office of Disinformation  17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I have the same problem with your version as I had with my phonetic guess at Urdu (I'm a Persian speaker): neither one brings up a resassuringly large number of ghits for the instrument in question on GoogleImages. Yours does get the instrument as its first hit, but no other pics of that same item. I would expect that if we had the spelling right we'd get pages and pages of people selling, discussing, etc. the instrument, and GI would be full of various pictures of them. I don't know if my methodology just isn't a workable way to verify the spellings, or if we're both off somehow. Ideally, I'd like to find someone who is familiar with reading about the instrument and knows exactly how it's spelled. If nobody here is 100% sure, I can go to a specifically South Asian music forum and ask the musicians there. Thanks for the stab though, I tried the same for Urdu. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Deletion of a SIA page

The set index page Begar, India has been deleted. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What can be done to prevent such deletions? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, please ease up on the moves and creation of new dabs with redlinks. Most of the pages (e.g. Rameswaram) are WP:PRIMARYTOPICs and should reside in their current titles. Likewise, there's no point in creating dabs with redlinks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

These are WP:NOTDAB but WP:SIA pages. And there is a lot of use in these SIA pages, e.g. see Hosur, India - several India templates linked to Hosur, but meant Hosur's in more than a dozen different districts. I collected this information, so people can take more care with their links in the future. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But please do not move pages until you send them through WP:RM; you are moving primary topics to disambiguated titles. —SpacemanSpiff 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note also that WP:SIA is not a standalone guideline. You need to figure out whether or not a title is a primary topic or not. Thus, Rameshwaram doesn't need disambiguation because the city in Tamil Nadu is clearly the primary topic. Set Index articles are not disambiguation pages and you shouldn't disambiguate just to create an SIA. You might also want to consider whether a SIA is necessary for places with the same name because all you'll end up creating is a disambiguation page anyway and an SIA is not meant to be a disambiguation page in the first place. --rgpk (comment) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you disagree with Rameshwaram, but why got Begar, India deleted? I repeat SIA are not DAB pages. And one does not need to disambiguate to create SIA pages, these are separate matters. SIA pages, if they are at "X, India" are completely separate from the article names. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are better off asking that question to the deleting admin than on this page. —SpacemanSpiff 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you only attack me, and not him? You could also go to his page and say he made an error. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no attack anywhere in my posts, I have been patient despite the fact that you have created unwanted effort for everyone else by breaking links etc and you accuse others of being "anti-Indian". Quite some nerve really. —SpacemanSpiff 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I create content, I fix links going to "X, Y" but meaning "X, Z". You attack me again, by calling this work "unwanted". I fixed a lot of links in templates. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

States of the Indian Union inferior to U.S. states?

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, can you refrain from phrasing this as accusations of racism/nationalism, and instead focus on the technical reasons why specific state names are used in various country articles, and how those also apply to India? Yes, there is a chance that endemic bias plays a role here, but unless you have some hard evidence of that and can address it dispassionately, it's unlikely to be a productive argument. Further, as you yourself note at the page, many other non-Anglo countries use the same naming conventions as the US; it's unlikely that Brazil somehow has more English-speaking supportive contributors than India. Lastly, you have already posted a request for input (and in more neutral terms) earlier in the page. This kind of POV phrasing gets close to WP:Canvassing, so suggest you remove this (feel free to remove my comment here too) and stick to your original posting, and keep it to technical arguments as to how state-based naming would make India articles more clearly titled. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No MV this is all pervasive, on Ganga too, it was told that it cannot be called national river, when it was pointed out that the Bald Eagle is called National Bird of the US, the argument put forward was that it was a bird. So we have these stupid circular arguments. Which makes one wonder whether the only reason is that this wikipedia has one set of rules for India and another for US/UK?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to go any deeper into the Ganga/Ganges thing, but the article does indeed say the following: In November 2008, the Ganges, alone among India's rivers, was declared a "National River", facilitating the formation of a Ganga River Basin Authority that would have greater powers to plan, implement and monitor measures aimed at protecting the river.[89]. Secondly, yes, endemic bias is an issue of concern, but vague accusations are just going to raise ire, when instead what would be more productive is an actual analysis of how alleged endemic bias is negatively affecting Wikipedia. The naming convention issue seems like it should be easily resolved on technical merits, and if somehow that can't be sorted out without some sort of bias blocking it, then that leads to a larger discussion. Thirdly, the section title is still inappropriate; even if it were a discussion on endemic bias, it would need a neutral title like "Discussion of alleged endemic bias in India articles", not a clear leading question "is India inferior?!?!?!?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Article on Phensedyl (cough syrup) abuse?

There appears to be a goodly amount of media coverage of abuse of Phensedyl (cough syrup) in South Asia. Rather than just a passing mention in India/Nepal/Bangladesh legal/drug/health articles, might it be best to centralise it to Phensedyl (currenly a redirect to the chemical article Promethazine), or DAB it as Phensedyl abuse or similar? This appears to be one of those topics where it might be easily overlooked academically, but yet still has enough media/NGO coverage to cover its social impact. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this "addiction" unique to South Asia or a just a delayed entrant to South Asia? I would think it's the latter, in which case a general article would be better and perhaps a section on South Asia should suffice. —SpacemanSpiff 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I should specify: I think that Phensedyl overall (as a commercial product) may rate an article separate from its purely chemical article, and that this new article could have a section on abuse, which would include its South Asia abuse. We could just put all the South Asia content into Promethazine and then add S. Asia categories to that chemistry article, but that might be distracting. Form a new article for the commercial product based on the chemical Promethazine? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)