Need difference between a seat and a government body in infoboxes especially for villages? XYZ Gram Panchayat be added in the seat field (the Seat of government is defined as the building, complex of buildings or the settlement) or in government body field?
@Vin09:@Deccantrap: The term government body implies the governing authority of a settlement. The seat of the government is defined as settlement itself on which the government is setup. Ex: Tenali Municipality is a governing authority and Tenali is the seat of the authority. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.--IM3847 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, thinking aloud and open to be corrected here:
A gram sabha is not "governing body" per se but a public meeting used as a mechanism for the governing body (such as the panchayat) to consult with, and be held accountable by, stakeholders. If this is true gram sabha will not be mentioned anywhere in any infobox (although it should be discussed at gram panchayat, or even a separate article created).
Seat of government field in the infobox is worth filling in only when:
The building or set up of buildings, which is the administrative center, is easily identified and noteworthy as in Municipal Corporation Building, Mumbai. This will be true only for a few of the local governments, such as the larger municipalities.
When the district, mandal, taluk, tehsil, or panchayat-level governing body is located in a city or village identifiable smaller from the geographic unit covered by that governing body. That is, Tenali (city) is the seat of government for Tenali mandal; Guntur (city) is the seat of government for Guntur district etc. Note though that often this information will be spelled out in the Headquarters field and thus the Seat of government field will still remain unfilled. On the other hand, the seat of government for Angalakuduru (village) is likely to be Angalakuduru itself (assuming the relevant panchayat doesn't sit in some other village that it also covers), and hence perhaps not worth mentioning.
In short, I expect the Seat of government field to be rarely filled in.
Slight amendment: looking at the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (page 7-8 of the pdf; see also page 92 for some special provisions applicable to some scheduled areas) gram sabha need not refer only to the meeting but also the body consisting of "all persons whose names are included in the electoral roll for the Gram Panchayat." But I am still doubtful that it, rather than the panchayat, should be regarded as the "governing body" given that the sabha's role is mainly consultative ("Gram Panchayat shall give due consideration to the suggestions, if any, of the Gram Sabha."). The law may be different in other states, which may lead me to make further amendments to my views. :) Abecedare (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare, I have been tortuously going through all of the village articles relating to Mawal taluka (Pune district) using the 2011 census reports. The census records 187 villages and that there are 100 gram panchayats, with two villages "not under any Gp". So, there are a considerable number of villages in that taluka whose administrative base lies elsewhere. Is the elsewhere to be shown as the "seat of government"? If so, I suspect it is far less rare than you might think. (There are one or two really odd examples in that mix, which I have yet to get my head around.) - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush: In the (more common than I portrayed) cases where the GPs cover more than one village, do we have sourced information about where the GP actually "sits"? For example, perhaps the GP is named 'X gram panchayat', and covers villages X and Y, in which case we can (IMO reasonably) infer that X is the "seat of government" for both X and Y. If so, I believe that we should include that under the seat of government or headquarter field, depending upon the terminology sources prefer, for at least Y. Abecedare (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I've not yet got as far as searching beyond the census but Mundhavare and the subsidiary villages mentioned in the Administration section there is a typical example. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I keep seeing party election symbols in political biographies, usually in the infoboxes. Those things exist to aid illiterate voters and, of course, such people are unlikely to be reading Wikipedia. Add to that our attitude documented at WP:MOSFLAG and I think there is probably a decent case to remove them as being cruft. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I do support your decision. I think its noted at WP:MOSFLAG that, flags shouldn't be used on articles of political personnel but it would be appropriate to used them on Political party articles.--IM3847 (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This is just an Idea to have a template for states of India. Currently, Template:Infobox settlement is being used. A more uniform set of parameters could be useful. For example, the U.S. has this template for their states Template:Infobox U.S. state. The U.S. state of California has representatives to their capital in the infobox. Could states of India list the representatives to centre as well? Should a template for India’s states be made? Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You're putting the cart before the horse. If you think that you have better way to organise Indian states' data than what is being used currently, you should propose the change and obtain consensus for it. Once we have an idea of what to change, we can then evaluate if it can be better implemented with a new template or with a modification to {{Infobox settlement}}. For example, your proposal to add a link to the list of representatives can be achieved with the parameters already present in {{Infobox settlement}}. We shouldn't create a template for Indian states just because there's a template for states of a different country. —Gazoth (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mumbai (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100006:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hoax information written in chaulukiya dynasty and chavda dynasty
The information which written in above two dynasty article are totally wrong ❌ chavda dynasty princess marry with Chaulukiya king not Chavda dynasty rename as chaulukiya and this two article playing with ancestral evidence also . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharari (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Titles and suffixes for articles on ministers and MPs
Some articles on Indian ministers have the prefix "The Honourable" in the infobox, for example Manmohan Singh, Rajnath Singh and Piyush Goyal. The additions are fairly recent, as the prefix was added to Manmohan Singh's article on 21 February 2019, Rajnath Singh's article on 28 May 2019, and Piyush Goyal's article on 31 May 2019. The usage doesn't seem to be consistent, as articles on P. Chidambaram and Manohar Parrikar lack the prefix.
The prefix is from honorific_prefix field of {{Infobox officeholder}}, which is meant for titles as per the template's documentation. Article 18 of the Indian constitution prohibits titles (except for academic or military distinctions) and this was upheld in Balaji Raghavan/S. P. Anand vs Union Of India. "The Honourable" is a salutation used in state ceremonies when referring to a person by their office, similar to the usage of "Smt." (short for Shrimati) or "Shri" when referring to a person. I don't think this usage qualifies it for addition in honorific_prefix field, but I wanted to get a wider opinion on this before changing a large number of articles to avoid edit wars (1, 2). I also don't think we should be adding the "MP" suffix using honorific_suffix, which I suspect is just copied from the British usage as such usage rarely seen in India. —Gazoth (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Get rid, just like we keep cleaning up the use of Bharat Ratna etc as prefix and suffix. Even insofar as those political honorifics might apply, they certainly do not outlive the term of office. This should be added to WP:NCIN if it is not already explicitly stated there. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Get rid of all salutations and awards used as prefixes/suffixes from biographical articles of civilians, for reasons already detailed by Gazoth. If the GoI designates certain modes of address for certain offices, these should be mentioned in the wikipedia articles of those offices instead (Prime Minister of India, Chief Justice of India etc).
For military personnel, it may be acceptable to list military decorations such as Param Vir Chakra as a suffix and highest rank acheived as a prefix, since that is at least permitted by law. Although even there I would prefer using the Award and Rank field instead (what is the wikipedia norm on this for other countries?). Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Maintaining style of "The Honourable" is valid and should not be erroneously removed. There is a very big difference between a "title" as referred to under Article 18 of the Indian Constitution and an "honourific style". The former refers to entitlements to the ownership and governance of land area and were declared ultra vires in the context of invalidating claims to land by Princely Rulers at the time of Independence. Honourific styles, however, are issued to officeholders in the context of government protocols as a mark of official honour to state officeholders. That is why, domestically, the President, Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of High Courts, Governors of states, Chief Ministers and state cabinet ministers are referred to as "The Honourable" in official documents and at formal events. It is not merely a courtesy or salutation and is both substantive and legally applicable to them, as they may continue to use the style even after retirement or resignation. "Military and academic titles" are different from these honourific styles, as a military rank is not an honourific but a commission that entitles a soldier to martial authority over their armed combatant subordinates. An academic rank, similarly, is not an honourific but an entitlement given the completion of a dissertation and subsequent ability to exercise certain academic privileges pursuant to University Grants Commission regulations. Some of the reasoning offered above, pointing out that pages such as those of P. Chidambaram do not have the style, is misguided - for it is pages such as P. Chidambaram's that are incorrect and must be updated to reflect the style.
Consequently, the honourific style of "The Honourable" should be maintained on the personal pages of all current and former Union Ministers of the Government of India. The same should be maintained for presidents, vice presidents and judiciary members - both past and present - so as to conform to correct practice and protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.38.15 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
First of all, you have offered no references or sources to substantiate your comment. Your claim that the "honorific style" is used in all official documents is trivially disproved by checking pressreleases from Press Information Bureau or this communique from the Rashtrapati Bhavan, none of which prefix the names with the "honorific style". Your claim that the style applies to the person and not the office is also contradicted by this document from the MEA which says (emphasis mine):
Shri Mohammad Hamid Ansari, now the Hon’ble Vice-President of India, who was then Chief of Protocol and who had also earlier served in Brussels.
If what you said was correct then the style should have been prefixed to his name instead of the title of his office. As for your contrived description of "honorific style", in Balaji Raghavan/S. P. Anand vs Union Of India judgement, Ahmadi wrote They, [framers of the constitution] however, mandated that the honours conferred by the State should not be used as suffixes or prefixes, i.e., as titles, by the recipients. This means that any prefix or suffix to the name is considered to be a title under Article 18.
Finally, you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia has to recognize Indian government protocol for formal events, but this is not the case. We have our own policy on honorific titles and the level of importance that should be given to them. You should make an argument that conforms to the policy instead of making baseless demands. —Gazoth (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(To Gazoth) Your churlish condescension aside, all the links you have offered do not support your claims that the honourific style of 'The Honourable' is not accorded. In the first communique from the Rashtrapati Bhavan, the usage of 'Shri/Shrimati' does not imply that the style of 'The Honourable' isn't valid. It is merely to specify the genders of the concerned individuals. Often, civilian officeholders are referred to by the term 'Mister', 'Miss' or 'Missus'; but that does not preclude them from holding other styles (for some external reference, in the United States, Bill Clinton is entitled to the usage of the style 'The Honourable' but doesn't use it conventionally). As for your second link, to a Ministry of External Affairs document, the document seems utterly unconnected to the issue - it is about cooperation between India and the European Union. Besides, the quoted section - regarding Hamid Ansari - falls under the purview of my aforementioned argument in this response.
Additionally, your ad nauseam reference to the Balaji Raghavan/S.P. Anand vs Union of India Judgement does not, upon examination of details, support your case. The judgement itself pertained to the permission of titles such as 'Bharat Ratna', 'Padma Vibhushan', 'Padma Bhushan' and 'Padma Shri' - which, as per the text of Article 18 (permitting only "military and academic distinctions"), would be invalid. However, the Supreme Court not only validated those titles but also claimed that it is at the discretion of Parliament to decide what titles should be appropriately permitted and that there is to be 'no penalty' for infringing the upon the Article's precepts.[1] This dilutes the value of your argument that Article 18 is to be used as the strict standard by Wikipedia, given that the court has itself overridden those standards in the past.
To that end, I should also point out that edit-protected pages (such as that of Narendra Modi) have long included the suffix of 'MP' along with his name. That this has occurred clearly violates your desire to "strictly" follow Article 18, which has already been dealt with in my previous paragraph. Besides, even if all of what I have said is false, you own admission that Wikipedia "doesn't have to follow Indian government protocols" implies that we can add such prefixes and suffixes (at least for incumbent officeholders) so as to specify their roles in government under the infobox. While I don't have as much spare time to edit every single article as you may do, these arguments demonstrate that the style of "Honourable" and post-nominals of "MP" should be added to every Indian Union Minister's Wikipedia page on their Infobox. You may go make those edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.38.15 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
You have still not provided any proof for your claims that the titles apply to the person, not the office and that the titles are applicable for life. Your dismissals of my proof to the contrary are weak at best. The only reference that you have provided is a link to an opinion piece which suggests that awarding of titles, although proscribed, is not illegal.
You have failed to understand Wikipedia's policy on titles. Even when titles are legally awarded, Wikipedia's policy is to de-emphasise them. When they are not even legally awarded, there is no reason to mention them anywhere. Your personal preference for them certainly does not count. —Gazoth (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the problem here is that if we allow it then there will be thousands of others, and then it starts sprawling like the stuff for Ambedkar. The sourcing in this case looks mostly localised. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Equivalent state cabinet minister
He was elected Secretary of the Freedom Fighter Organisation of Maharashtra Government, which was equivalent post to the state Cabinet minister. Really? Can anyone verify that this was an equivalent post? Does anyone know anything about that organisation? I'm trying to find sources for Dhulappa Bhaurao Navale and am getting nowhere, probably because they will be in Marathi and offline. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush: I could not find any information with a Marathi search, but there are multiple potential translations of each word in 'Freedom Fighter Organisation' (FFO) so the search is imperfect. However, there is something very goofy about the claim "elected Secretary of...equivalent post to state Cabinet minister" for two reasons. First reason is that in Indian bureaucracies, secretaries are appointed, not elected. So if FFO is indeed a state organization, it cannot have an elected secretary. The claim would make sense if SSO was a non-governmental organization. Second, it would be rather unusual in India (or any other parliamentary state for that matter) to have a position that is equivalent to a cabinet position. Overall I think the claim is uncredible enough that the default should be to strike it unless explicitly supported.Deccantrap (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think it is probably an AfD job. He seems to be a "local hero" and doubtless did much good work but he doesn't seem to meet WP:NPOL based on your thoughts and I cannot find anything that talks about him other than the personalised website that someone copied into his article. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that issues pertaining to notability and potential copyrights violation need to be resolved here. El_C16:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
What a mess. The subject could potentially be notable but the article is completely unsourced; its history replete with potential COI (common-sense suggest that the main article contributors, Abhi.sach1111 (talk·contribs) and 117.* IPs, are related to the subject and persons who run dhulappanavale.com); and, the web so polluted with circular references that the task of digging out genuine sources has become even harder. Would support deletion without prejudice to recreation if/when someone is able to wade through newspaper archives and find relevant and trustworthy information. Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, it seems that I am wrong about the copyvio. I misread Wayback. However, it is still obvious fancruft and I'd put money on there being a prior version of that website hosted somewhere, eg: geocities. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
That 2015 document documents when exactly the staggered terms of the (then) current members of the Maharashtra Legislative Council would end. So in spite of the promising title, the pdf doesn't help verify whether Navale was an MLC member from 1963 to 1972, as claimed. Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Need some suggestion regarding use of images from Loksabha, Rajyasabha and Supreme Court
Hi all,
I am interested in further developing articles regarding the various parliamentary committees and other institutional bodies. I had previously uploaded images of the MPs from the Loksabha on Commons, however recently they got deleted. I was subsequently told that GODL template at Commons was not totally applicable for these site. I have raised a question regarding same at the talk page of GODL template - Question .
These are the articles I have either created or have significantly edited :
Most of these policies allow non-commercial use - All copyrights are reserved with the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed.
In the referenced discussion, I was suggested that English Wikipedia accepts fair use rational - w:WP:NFCC . So please, before I upload these images I would really appreciate if somebody here could guide me as to what licence should I use for these.
There is currently a move request at Talk:Faiyyaz Khan concerning the articles of these two men. The discussion would probably benefit from some more input by knowledgeable users. Regards. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced edits to Karnataka Legislative Assembly page
Some Congress/JD (S) MLAs have submitted their resignations to the speaker. The resignations seem to need to be accepted, and haven’t yet been. (Three MLAs seem to be willing to rescind their resignations for example.[1]) So the seat counts by party should not reflect the resignations since they haven’t taken effect yet.
Numerous IP (and one registered) user have changed the seat numbers. I reverted these edits whilst attempting to engage on severaltalkpages including that of the article itself, but there has been no response. I think that this is vandalism (hoax/subtle) but I’m not entirely sure, so I’ve stopped after three edits. I’ve also requested edit protection.
At this point I’m not sure what else to do. Does anyone have any suggestions? The page seems to be prominently displaying misinformation at the moment. Docentation (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently reviewed an article which referred to "Gandhi ji" in the text. I understand that "ji" is a term of respect, but what's our style guide say about using it in an article? Should you use just plain "Gandhi" or the "Gandhi ji" form in formal writing, such as we strive for here? -- RoySmith(talk)15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Seeking help with potential content fork (Tamraparni)
I stumbled on Tamraparni, and I get the impression that it's some kind of WP:REDUNDANTFORK (possibly even a POV fork). But I'd appreciate the perspective of editors with more subject matter expertise.
To the extent that it's talking about the old name for Sri Lanka, it seems like it should be merged with Taprobana. To the extent that it's talking about the history of Sri Lanka, it seems like it should be merged with History of Sri Lanka (or one or more of its sub-articles like Prehistory of Sri Lanka, Early kingdoms period etc.). It largely does seem to be about the history of Sri Lanka, but the scope is not clear to me - it seems to cover a wide range of time (7th/6th century BC to at least 16th century AD). There also seems to be some blending of history with Hindu theology, which is what makes me think it's a possible POV fork, but again I'm limited by my lack of knowledge about the topic.
Another (orthogonal) aspect that makes this odd is the editing patterns on the article:
The vast majority of the article's edits have come in during two intense waves of contributions from IP editors. One lasted from April-July 2016, the other started May 2019 and is ongoing.
62.189.60.253 and the other IP editors from the most recent wave have focused their contributions on Tamraparni, but also make occasional edits to other articles, always to insert references to Tamraparni, sometimes (IMO) to the point of creating WP:UNDUE weight. e.g. Garnet, Staffordshire Hoard, Bun (hairstyle), Topaz
The editor(s) seem well-meaning (and the content is certainly extensive and well-referenced), but I'm really curious why the odd patterns. School projects? I tried making contact at Talk:Tamraparni, but haven't got an answer. (Also, sorry if it seems odd to ask here about an article that mostly deals with Sri Lanka, but I saw a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of India on the talk page, and that Wikiproject's talk page led me here.) Colin M (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
3. Rajbongshi is just title. Origin of People with Rajbongshi title is debatable. And Rajbongshi identity itself very confusing.
Halder, Tarun Kr. (2017-06-25). "Koch Rajbanshi identity question - An analysis from historical perspective" (PDF). International Journal of Applied Research 2017.
4. Koch-Rajbansi (OBC) and Koch(ST in Meghalaya) terms should be used. Rajbongshi people article is misleading original history and identity of Koch people.
The term "Rajbanshi" or "Rangpuri" is used for Indo-Aryan KRNB lects, Rangpuri speakers from Nepal, northern West Bengal and northern Bangladesh as well.[1]
I believe the Koch article was merged with the Rajbanshi article in the past. The notable people entries in the article use reliable sources which term the community of those individuals as Rajbanshi - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That's possibly because both pages were merged before. The fact that Rajbanshis speak a language from a different language family warrants a separate article I believe. Secondly reliably sourced terms like Koch-Rajbonshi complicates the matter. As for content, not all is Koch related, some are "Koch-Rajbanshi" related. Some, especially notable people section is totally "Rajbanshi" related. History part is mostly Koch and Koch-Rajbanshi I agree. That can be taken care off by only keeping things that directly point to the term "Rajbanshi". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Their origin itself is debatable. Rajbongshi word can't use koch related content. Royal family can be called as Rajvansi but Rajbongshi community don't mean origin Royal family. There should be three article Rajbongshi , Koch-Rajbongshi and Koch PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
If there is Rajbongshi history in this world. Let them write. But They are writing history related to Assam and Bengal. Which surely don't belong to Rajbongshi people. Rajbongshi is just title in Assam. There is no rajbongshi community in assam PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Rajbanshi is definitely used as a term by communities related to Cooch Behar kings in West Bengal. Sources on Swapna Barman and other notable people use the term Rajbanshi only, no Koch what-so-ever. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know exact origin of Swapna Burman. I've not seen her certificate. Let them write anything. But original content should remain with original identity. Rajbongshi can call themselves to be descendant of Koch but They are trying to hide Koch itself. Many times some rajbongshi redirected Koch article. That's unacceptable. PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Rajbongshi was related to Cooch Behar they are Koch and Mech origin. But they clearly accept to be descendant of Koch and Mech. So their identity is Koch/Mech converted to Rajbongshi. It's simple. But there is another origin community known as Rajbongshi who are deleting Koch article and creating there history from Koch-Rajbongshi word. That's acceptable. Either Koch or Koch-Rajvamsi can only write Koch history. PerfectingNEI (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
"Koch" and "Rajbongshi" has the same origin hence the term "Koch-Rajbongshi" came.They are known in different names in different places,like as "Rajbongshi" in North-Bengal,Bihar,Bangladesh and Nepal,"Koch-Rajbongshi" in Assam and "Koch" in Meghalaya, and since the term "Rajbongshi" is used broadly,the article titled "Rajbongshi" is appropriate for maintaining simplicity.Moreover it's also a political issue in Assam.For more refer to here https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/757628/1/jcb_11_1997_scheduled_tribes.pdf -Robo Zay (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Robo Zay: They aren't same origin. It's already proved. Nothing is appropriate . In Assam, There is no Rajbongshi community. In WB, Both are separate community. All human originate from same stock. Doesn't mean everyone will have same history. PerfectingNEI (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Rajbongshi can't be umbrella term. Keep that page if wish but remove history and Koch related things. Because modern scholarship speak about their different origin. PerfectingNEI (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of informations about their origin to be same.Moreover all of these modern works are done depending on the previous works i.e books,journals etc.They did nothing new & there is no reason to declare the other previous works unacceptable.And tell me one thing,if they are different,where from the term "Koch-Rajbongshi" came?.If you want to prove something go for genetic test among all the Koch and Rajbongshi people and resolve the problem with proper scientific documents.-Robo Zay (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
PerfectingNEI I told you to not edit/revert the Rajbongshi people article as per your POV when the discussion is going on here. Kindly don't do anything like you did here.
As for the problem here, Robo Zay is right calling "Rajbonshi" an umbrella term. Consider it similar to "Assamese people". Assamese people is an umbrella term for people of diverse origins, be it Ahoms, Brahmins, Kalitas, Bodos, Assamese Sikhs, Deoris, Chutiyas or other Tai groups, living in the Assam region. Similarly, the specific Koch tribe speaking Tibeto-Burman is a subset of the greater Rajbongshi community which includes groups speaking Indo-Aryan KRNB lects, Rangpuri, etc. and live in parts of Nepal, Bengal, Bihar and Bangladesh and can be ethnically diverse. Maharani Gayatri Devi was part Maratha, while if I'm correct, the inscription at Royal Palace in Cooch Behar mentions that the patriarch had Bengali ancestry as well.
I don't know exact origin of Swapna Burman. I've not seen her certificate. - You can't disregard what Barman self-Identifies as or what's written in the reliable sources like this which clearly says she is a Rajbongshi.
A solution, I believe, would be to move the Rajbongshi article to Koch-Rajbongshi (a better umbrella term) which is already used in the lead and merge extra contents from "Koch people" article into it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: I did what is right. If you don't agree then that's your problem . For your kind information Rajbanshi and Koch are different SC people in WB. So, Go according to official record. PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said, the term is a generic umbrella term used for people in Nepal, Bengal and Bangladesh as well similar to Assamese people. Tell me whether Ahom is a subset of Assamese people or not. By your logic, you should be using sources which explicitly uses the term "Koch" in Koch people article. Any sources which mention "Rajbongshi" or "Koch-Rajbonghsi" should not be used in the Koch people article. Look there seems to be a blur as far as sources are concerned and I don't think any of the terms "Rajbongshi", "Koch", "Rangpuri" are that distinct - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There is simply not enough reliable content to be used in 3 separate articles. A merger of newly created Koch people article by you to the Rajbongshi article is just fine. Now if you insist then the Koch article can be kept albeit without any content relating to Rajbangshi / Rangpuri /Koch-Rajbanshi. Pinging Abecedare, Sitush for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Don't try to transfer content from Koch people to Rajbongshi people. If Rajbongshi people are koch origin then Rajbongshi people content should be transferred to Koch people. Koch is tribe , Koch-Rajvamsi were officials and royalties of coochbehar and Rajbongshi people are different confusing origin. Why is it so hard to understand ? You are free to do whatever you want but never delete Original Koch identity. PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC
Rajbongshi are just claiming to be koch origin but It's not clear identity. But Koch is clear identity. Nobody should try to suppress Koch Identity PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Rajbongshi page should delete Koch term from It's page. Google search don't show Koch Page. Instead It is showing only Rajbongshi PerfectingNEI (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't attack me. You are the one who created the Koch people article yesterday (10 July 2019) from a redirect. Rajbongshi people article already had info related to Koch. So it is likely that content has been transferred from Rajbongshi people article to Koch article instead of the other way around. Rajbongshi/Rangpuri is a clear identity in West Bengal, Bihar, Nepal and Bangladesh. IMO, a handful of Koch activists with their POV on Rajbongshi people is not enough to warrant a separate article [1] especially since the language spoken by Rajbongshis is of Kamrupi origin (region also settled by modern Koch in Assam). Pinging Chaipau for suggestions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Of course, I've created and that page must exist. Koch is clear identity ethnicity and Rajbongshi is unknown origin people. If you are talking about Rajbongshi language then there exist separate article. I'm not interested.PerfectingNEI (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The situation is complex, and we should revert to status quo ante. Too many irrelevant and WP:OR issues have come in. Chaipau (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
PerfectingNEI, Don't you understand simple instructions? I told you not to POV edit or put tags at Rajbongshi people article till the we reach a consensus here but you still continue to do it [2]. Wikipedia doesn't need go as per your POVs and whims. Rajbongshi article had been there for quite sometime. Can't you wait for a little more time?
Chaipau Since it is complex, I suggested a merger like what supposedly happened sometime back. Now if it is extremely necessary to abide by PerfectingNEI's POV then atmost have 2 articles. One "Koch" and nother the "Rajbonshi" which will contain info related to everything which is not explicitly related to "Koch" ie, articles with overlapping content can be added in both articles with proper attribution. And as far as status quo ante is concerned, do you what this version to be restored? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: We are editors. Our purpose is to write right content in right place. I haven't found anything related Rajbongshi people . I found content related to Koch people. If Rajbongshi don't have content then that's Rajbongshi problem, not ours. It's not our problem. Wikipedia is international platform. So, We are going with International standard. Stop forcing your POV on me. PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: You are instructing to stop doing right thing. Why it's so hard for you to understand simple thing that Rajbongshi is misleading article. Koch content should go to Koch page. If Rajbongshi don't have anything then that's Rajbongshi problem. Please stop reverting my edits and stop forcing your POV on me and Stop judging me. PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Then you should also know that Wikipedia is a community based on teamwork. Since I told you to keep the matter here, you should be doing that. Discussing problems here and making disruptive edits at the same time at articles you do not like is not how it goes in Wikipedia. That's rather uncivil and bad faith. There are Rajbongshi related sources in that article where the terms "Ranjbanshi" "Rangpuri" or "Koch Rajbangshi" have been used. Pinging Abecedare - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've not done a single mistake. Wikipedia is team work. So, I'm adding my knowledge with correct information. Truth must be accepted irrespective of Teammate wishes. Truth is greater than Teammate. Sir, @Malcolmxl5:@Oshwah: please look into this matter. I've presented all the correct information but my content aren't accepted by one editor. Thank you. PerfectingNEI (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
You should learn some basic guidelines. A discussion is open. Only two of us are arguing over here can't decide the fate of Rajbongshi people and Koch people article. Let other people come and wait for sometime. As for google search, I got over 110 million hits for "Koch people" [3] but for "Rajbongshi people" only 160 hundred thousand hits[4]. So "Koch" is searched many times more than Rajbongshi at Google. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
You are unable to understand me. People search koch people but google show Rajbongshi people . That's what i'm saying. Let us just go with official and intellectual source. PerfectingNEI (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That wouldn't go well with Rajbongshi/Rangpuri people in Nepal, Bihar, Bengal and Bangladesh.
If two articles is a must then I'd suggest to keep both the articles with contents explicitly related to one removed from the other. But whenever both ethnicities are mentioned in a source as a compound term "Koch-Rajbongshi", we should mention in both articles. For example, we can remove the population data on Meghalaya from Rajbongshi people article since the source associated mentions only the term "Koch" [5] but in case of Assam, since the source uses the term "Koch-Rajbongshi", I believe we can use the numbers in both articles. But for now let's just wait for a few days to let others come and discuss and don't edit those articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Rajbongshi population in entire northeast in 1871 was less than 2000 , Today, Rajbongshi in Assam is more than 30lakh. So, It's very confusing. Let us not focus on number of news report. Let us focus only correct contentt. But Koch article and Koch history is must. Rajbongshi page should remove the Koch history part. Rajbongshi can be linked as some of them may be descendant of Koch royalty. Many Rajbongshi are actually genetically different people. Many of them claim Aryan Kshatriya and Some just claim Hindu Kshatriya. PerfectingNEI (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
PerfectingNEI's contention is wrong. "Rajbongshi" is an appellation used by the Koch people, from North Bengal. There was a Koch people that spoke a Tibeto-Burman language—and there might still be some people in Bangladesh that speak the Koch language—but over time, at least in Assam, it has turned into a jati, where neo-converts from Tibeto-Burmese language speakers were placed, irrespective of whether they came from the original Koch tribe, or others like Tiwa. The Rajbangshis originate in the original Koch tribe. https://www.epw.in/journal/2014/47/reports-states-web-exclusives/politics-janajatikaran.html I suggest we revert to status quo ante. Chaipau (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau: Your concept is completely wrong. Neo-convert from Tibeto-Burman were placed in Koch caste. It's historical fact. Only in WB , Koch-Mech origin people claimed Rajbanshi . In Assam, They were and are happy with Koch term. Only few people called themselves as Rajvamsi in Assam. I've already said you there exist different type of Rajbongshi who claim completely different origin. In Assam, certificate is issued as Koch-Rajbongshi. It's better to use Koch-Rajbongshi instead of Rajbongshi. PerfectingNEI (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau:@Fylindfotberserk: A news paper(Never heard about it before) article don't decide the truth. I don't agree with both you. Just go according to source. Fylindfotberserk , you used to speak a lot about according to source. Now, what happened to you ? Please go according to source. If source use Koch-Rajbongshi then that should go to koch-rajbongshi . Every community originated from single stock but everone have different story. Let write everyone's story. PerfectingNEI (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say I'm going to use that as a source. We are just discussing things here. Only you seem to be in a hurry. Wait for people to come to a solid consensus. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Best way to solve problem is to write koch content in koch page and rajbongshi content in rajbongshi page and then link their similarity and also mention their differences. PerfectingNEI (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I have been working on a draft of an Indian pianist: Milen Manoj Earath. I would be grateful if someone specializing in this field from around here takes a look at it and possibly even re-review it? Thank you,
Yours Sincerely,
Refluxdonut (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have started peer review for India's first feature film Raja Harishchandrahere. I am planning to take it to FAC in the near future. However, I dont have any previous experience with FACs so thought of putting PR first. I would appreciate if you can put your comments. Any constructive criticism is appreciated. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
About Article Lead
Hi guys can someone look into this matter urgently. User Tubslubeamorepersempre and Gridlust had added lot of information in the lead section of the articles West Bengal, Bengal and Bangladesh. I am not sure how far those information's are accurate/correct, although they have provided source, nevertheless I still think the lead hasn't been properly written as per Wikipedia standard. I am new to Wikipedia so, don't have the expertise of writing an important articles like these. Please help make necessary changes as per your knowledge and expertise. The lead of all three articles must be rewritten, its reading more like advertisement of the article. Thank You--Aakanksha55 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That I know that Gridlust had been blocked but my concern is that Lead of all three articles are written like advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Awadhiyas banning widow remarriage seems trivial to me since a lot of communities do not let widow marriages happen. I don't think this section, edited here, which writes:
Customs and Traditions : The Ajodhya Kurmis of Bihar and Kanaujia Kurmis of the U.P. pride themselves on their prohibiting the remarriage of widows and have attained higher rank than the ordinary Kurmis.[1][2]
should be in the article. Not to mention the references write, they attained "higher status" in the eyes of the "Brahmins". I wonder how important is that.
@Fylindfotberserk: The Kurmis were famous for their historically egalitarian treatment of women, which along with their work ethic, made the British extoll their virtues. Widow remarriage was common among the Kurmis in the 19th century. I don't know about the quality of the sources used in the article, but they seem to be saying that some among the Kurmis, who fell for the Sanskritization, i.e. mimicking upper-caste values and behavior to gain higher caste status, which began in the early 20th century, also began to frown upon widow remarriage. That sounds plausible. While the prohibition on widow remarriage may have been widespread in other communities, it was not among the Kurmis, and therefore unusual for them. Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Don't know about the quality of the sources either, but the second (1931) source looks more believable than the other one (2013) which reminds me of Bhim Singh Dahiya's Jats the Ancient Rulers (A clan study) for some reason. If the content needs to be kept then the 1931 source would do just fine IMO. However, specific sourced points like, they "attained higher status in the eyes of the Brahmins" need to be mentioned instead of something like "have attained higher rank than the ordinary Kurmis" which reeks of superiority complex. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Actually, this is already discussed in the first few paragraphs of the Kurmi page, cited to Bayly, Pinch, and others. You could paraphrase those paragraphs, so as to avoid close paraphrasing, put them into this new article, and remove these two sources as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: FYI, I removed the above quoted text as a copyvio because it was too close to the cited source (in case anyone is thinking of reinserting it!). --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: :) Would have helped if I'd taken a look at the article. Well, what it reliably has is taken entirely from the first three paragraphs of the Kurmi page. It is a content fork, and should be AfD'd, in my view. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, all that is already there in the Kurmi page, but consists of oblique mention here and there. There isn't a systematic treatment that has become large enough to be a spin-off and an independent article. He has created a content fork in the form of an unreliable stub. It needs to be AfD'd. You should do the honors. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, this article needs a little attention. The article title suggests it should be on an Indian topic, however the body, including the first line, infobox narrate differently. I am currently trying to find the article history. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
We need to allot a common page to the same event organised on the same day, across both the countries. Also, ain't Kargil Vijay Diwas our primary event of celebration in these spheres? ∯WBGconverse12:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The Indian Society of Cinematographers is one of several association of cinematographers in India. We can verify that it exists and was founded in 1995 but till date I have found no indepenedent coverage of it that goes beyond a singlesentence.
Over the past year there has been an effort to spam wikipedia with mentions of the organization. Part of that effort has been to append "ISC" to the names of its 20-odd members, including in article lede and infobox (see Chota K. Naidu, Ramachandra Babuetc). The issue has been discussed a fewtimesearlier and though participation has been low and the opinion divided, one rationale proposed for allowing "ISC" to be affixed to the name of its members' biographical articles' ledes is WP:POSTNOM. The counter-argument is that ISC does not qualify as a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject and that no independent secondary source uses "ISC" as a post-nominal. WP:CREDENTIAL is clearly inapplicable too, IMO. See also this partially-related discussion on this noticeboard.
So should "ISC" be used as a post-nominal in the ledes of its members' biographical article? Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
No, ISC does not meet WP:POSTNOM's requirements. I looked into sources for the two subjects mentioned above and I was able to find only a single source that used the post-nominal between them. The suffix is rarely used, to say the least, and does not belong in the lead. —Gazoth (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. I agree with Gazoth that ISC doesn't have enough sources to be notable as a POSTNOM. Did you ping any of the editors who have been adding "ISC" to pages? Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Great question, Johnbod. I did some research on Netflix, and the first three relevant movies that I found–Lagaan, Barfi!, and Dil Se—all included ISC after the cinematographers' names in the opening credits. It's certainly a small sample size, but I would bet most of the others follow suit. I took screenshots, but I presume I'm not allowed to share them here. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Secundus Zephyrus and Johnbod: Just pointing out that yes, in a film's credits, a cinematographer might want to indicate what professional society they belong to (and that might even be a condition of being a member of that society) but we are under no obligation to do that. That's a contract the subject has with the film's production company, not with us, and it doesn't mean that everybody can reasonably be expected to follow suit. There are also members of various directors' guilds and various casting societies. What about magicians who are members of a magic society? We don't by default include these professional membership post-nominals in biographies. I'll also note that many of those BSC additions were added a looonnnng time ago,[8][9][10][11][12] and who knows if there had ever been a discussion about society post-nominals. Some were even added by the same person, perhaps because they thought it was the correct course of action, but perhaps without a content guideline as its basis. Here's one added by the guy who the article was about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment Questionable on this one. POSTNOM talks about the use by reliable secondary sources and I've not seen much evidence of that. At most, it should be used on the person's individual article but there needs to be sourcing around this to show it's commonly used AND that this person either currently is a member, or was a member and maybe even some dates. From the editing that's been happening thus far, I strongly believe that we're seeing WP:COI to be very charitable but more probably WP:PAID editing without the required declarations from the group trying to promote itself. I'm not in favor of supporting that in any way. So without the secondary sourcing, I support removing any of this. Ravensfire (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Conditional kill DeleteI don't have a huge problem with it directly after the subject's name in the lead (provided that elswhere in the article we include sourced content that says "___ is a member of the Indian Society of Cinematographers") but I absolutely don't think it belongs in the Infobox in the |name= parameter or in the |title= parameter, which is how it is typically (and totally erroneously) presented. In the infobox's |name= parameter it looks like it's a royal honorific, and I'll point out that even at Elizabeth II we don't see any of that "her royal highness" or fancy English royal post-nominal nonsense. This professional organisation stuff just seems like club membership, and I don't consider it any more important than roadside service membership or a membership at Makro, that we should go out of our way to respectfully bow at its inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I've amended my response above to the clarified negative because of Deccantrap's comment below. WP:POSTNOM wants "honor" or "appointment" for these post-nominals, and that's not the mark being hit here, since as far as anyone can tell, the threshold for inclusion is: you worked a camera for an Indian film. And while we see some British cinematographer biographies with these post-nominals, it's still unclear what guidelines (if any) the contributors were adhering to when they added that stuff. (See my comments a few responses up.) Also, in a world where directors are considered the apex of creative input in film, we just don't see articles so laden with director guild-type post-nominals, and going down the film chain, we also don't usually see writing guild post-nominals, or casting guild post-nominals. So why cinematographers somehow get the pass is unknown, especially since the people who keep spamming this content are notoriously silent. Kill. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Abecedare: As the one who opened the discussion, did you have a position on this that you cared to express? No pressure, of course. If you want to abstain, I get it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
No In case my opening statement was too neutral :-), I want to clarify that I too don't support such addition of "ISC" because (1) of WP:POSTNOM, (2) independent secondary sources don't do so, and (3) it is clearer to the reader if we mention ISC membership explicitly (with join dates etc as Ravensfire points out) when that is sourceable, instead of adopting a style suited to film credits. Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Mild support for inclusion. I'm generally sympathetic to widening WP:POSTNOM a tad for things like this, & think that the ISC can squeak by as an "honour" because it seems highly selective. But there is a case for just covering it lower down. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I appreciate your non-committal stance. I'm not clear on what the qualifications are for inclusion because their website (which is run by someone with a Gmail address) doesn't say, so I'm unsure on how exclusive it is. I guess I'm just not clear on why this is somehow different from labour union membership. Tom Cruise is no doubt a Screen Actors Guild member. They don't just hand out memberships, you have to accrue a certain number of hours or speaking roles before you become eligible. After that, you probably have to pay a fee and dues or whatever. But in biographical articles we never indicate post-nominally what labour union a person belongs to, whether it is an actor or director, or anybody else. And we probably never mention it at all in most articles. And as I noted earlier in some other diatribe, there are any number of professional memberships that a person can sign up for, like for magicians there are super-exclusive magic societies and I would imagine those memberships require serious skill evaluations, rather than just a few IMDb credits and an initiation fee. And considering the Indian Society of Cinematographers has been engaging in an aggressive marketing campaign here at Wikipedia for about a year I think, I'm having strong feelings that it's not as legit as we might care to think. But I'm not going to fight you on this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing them as similar to the older British and American associations, which are certainly not trade unions (which you might have to belong to work in thwe field, like US & UK Equity for performers) but as a very selective organization for people at the top of the tree in that field. So more like a national academy of academics, without the government sponsorship. That a decent proportion of their small membership have articles is significant. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It's difficult to say much about the society given the paucity of sources. From the snippets of information I have been able to gather, it seems more accurate to say that ISC was established in 1995 by an (already) well regarded group of cinematographers than to say that it confers prestige by granting membership. The criterion for the latter, along with any activities of the society following the [inaugural meeting, are completely unknown.
That though is somewhat of a side-issue since even if we could learn more about the society and show that it was a selective and prestigious club, using its initials as a post-nominal would still not comply with the concerned guideline, secondary sources, or serve the reader. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Award ribbon inclusion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hey all, I got involved in a revert situation with another editor, so I'm coming to you guys for clarification. Do you typically include decorative ribbons for awards like Padma Shri, Padma Ratna, Padma Bhushan etc in biographical articles? If you do, how are these ribbons typically presented? I don't know what community guideline would address this. In a case like this it seems odd to me to have these ribbons mixed in a bulleted list. But I'll defer to the community regulars. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb:MOS:INFOBOXFLAG advises against such use (note that the guideline is applicable, in letter and spirit, to icons other than national flags). The little-recognized ribbon conveys no information that the award-name 'Padma Shri' doesn't, besides adding an inconsistency in the list-layout and being visually distracting. Abecedare (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with the Infobox flag argument. One of the reasons why we don't use flags in the infobox is because we don't want to unduly draw attention to one parameter over others. Similarly, the additional decoration of these ribbons tend to draw attention to those awards as being particularly more important over other awards. I don't see the need for this. However there might be some uses for the ribbon like in groupings like I've seen some ribbon bars like here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is even appropriate to use in this case. The ribbon is meant to be worn by military personnel in place of the medal when wearing the medals is inappropriate. Using a military decoration for civilians makes no sense. —Gazoth (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Its not about one's perception but its about facts, those ribbons can be wore by civilians, this award is A CIVILIAN AWARD, not a millitary award, these ribbons are for civilian purpose and the recepients can wore in ceremonies and official functions. No military personnel will ever get a Padma award during their service, those ribbons are for civilian use only not for millitary use. Ribbons would not have been provided along with the medals or represented with the awards if it were for a particular use such as for the millitary personnel. Secondly ironically Sachin Tendulkar or MS Dhoni are millitary personnel too, Sachin a group captain in Indian Air force, MS is Lt. Colonel in Indian army, so this also justify the provision of ribbons. Thank you I rest my case. Dey subrata (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: It would be helpful if you'd remain on topic and discuss whether or not the decorative images belong in bulleted lists the way you've added/restored them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not bowed out, I am keeping my eyes here, but no one after me, made any vital point. Above all other discussion are proven baseless from my point. Again I must point out,
1st: The award is a Civilian Award, not a millitary award.
2nd: No millitary personnel will ever receive a Padma award during their service, thus above point of wearing by millitary personnel does not come in picture and thus those ribbons are for civilian use only.
3rd: Padma awards are three, Padma Shri, Padma Bhusan & Padma Vibhushan, along with Bharat Ratna, its 4 Civilian Awards, those ribbons can be wore by recepients in ceremonies and official functions, and ribbons are mostly wore when there is multiple Padma awards received, and thus those ribbons shows the ditinctions between the awards.
4th: The irony, many sports person who received Padma Award, are also been appointed in Miliatry, Navy, and Airforce. So this way also the above given logic is infact illogical. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: Why are you rehashing this same argument again? This is a discussion about whether or not it is common or useful to include a ribbon icon in a bulleted list, when none of the other items have such decorations or warrant such decorations. As I argued above (which you have remained silent to, for whatever reason) such decorations unduly draw attention to one item over others, and as Abecedare noted above, The little-recognized ribbon conveys no information that the award-name 'Padma Shri' doesn't, besides adding an inconsistency in the list-layout and being visually distracting. That is yet another argument you chose to ignore. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you kidding me "conveys no information that the award-name 'Padma Shri'", I am so sorry, from the ribbon I absolutely can understand that thats a Padma Shri and other is Padma Bhushan or the other is Padma Vibushan. You don't know that does not mean the world does not know. And this is wikipedia, its the palce where things are added so that people can know including you "NOW". With your logic one can now say, Croatia won the worldcup. One does not know about certain things does not mean, it has not happened or its not certain or its not the truth. Secondly, you now making your point more weak by saying this, as now from those ribbon you can now have th opportunity to know about the Padma Shri ribbon or Padma Bhushan ribbon, thus making it more valuable that people need to know. Secondly where in the world its written that you can't add ribbons in bulleted list. For an example here, flags and ribbons both are used in the bulleted list, and its every where, similar and same, Why exception in this or this is an ego war going on. Dey subrata (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Its going nowhere, see there is no guidelines regarding this case. This is an exceptional case may be, I don't know about other state, is there any ribbon been associated with national awards of other countries or states, but in India its been given along with the medal and certificate and I personally know people who wear ribbons and medals. So this ribbons represent the medals. So ribbons can be added there in the bulleted lsit been added in every millitary article. Dey subrata (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: Do you have any source for existence of service ribbons for these medals besides personal knowledge? If so, we can mention that and retain the images in the respective articles about the awards. If not, those service ribbon style images should be removed from those pages too, though the ribbon design (which is sourceable) can be described in words. Abecedare (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: Your claim that the ribbons are in every military article is meaningless, since this is not a military award. Paul McCartney is a Featured Article. Featured Articles represent Wikipedia's highest quality articles. McCartney has received numerous civilian awards including Member of The British Empire. There are no ribbons in the bulleted list. Contrarily List of awards and nominations received by Paul McCartney#Orders, awards and honours has a table, where various ribbons are presented, so at least there is some visual context for their inclusion, i.e. that most of the awards in that list have ribbons associated with them and a space for them to be included less obtrusively. Here are some more Featured Articles:
Extended content
Osbert Lancaster, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE)
In none of these Featured Articles do we find any ribbon decorations in any of the prose or list sections. There simply is no established, well-received precedent for this, and it's totally unclear to me what standard of quality you are looking at when you require its inclusion. The Prince Harry article? An article that doesn't even have the very thing we're discussing, i.e. ribbons? What, in your mind, makes this case so special that it should deviate from the majority of our highest-quality articles? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, the Padma awards and Bharat Ratna come with distinctive two-inch wide ribbons so that the awards can be worn around the neck, (see [13], [14] etc) and the service ribbon equivalent (to be worn on the chest?) are an on-wikipedia invention. Even if that understanding is incorrect, and editors can produce reliable sources for the claim that the ribbons can be and are worn independently by recipients in ceremonies and official functions, my argument for not using the their images as essentially decorative supplements for the award names still stands. Similarly, IMO the civilian vs military debate would be good to resolve (with sources!) so that we can possibly include such details in the articles about the awards but that debate is tangential to the issue at hand. Abecedare (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No there is no article on ribbons specially, because it not even necessary or big thing to be discussed "that a ribbon is provided only to wear" not to decorate on walls. A average person can say that. Articles only describe which ribbons is for which award. Why should be there any article where it will be directed that ribbons are to be worn or to be decorated as show piece. And why should those images be removed?? where is it written that a millitary personnel can wear his service ribbons or his wikipedia article can display the ribbon but a civilian can't wear ribbons or his wikipedia article can't display those image of ribbons? after all when ribbons are provided, are provided to wear only not to put as show piece. I sit or is it not? What a logic!! I don't think I need to produce any document to or to provide a reference to tell human can't exist without water.
See these are also SERVICE RIBBONS though associated with CIVILIAN AWARDS but are service ribbons, as those CIVILIAN AWARDS are awarded because of their "SERVICE TO THE NATIONS IN THEIR FIELD". Secondly, like this ribbon , an Army man wears this ribbon one can easily recognise that the person is a receipient of Shaurya Chakra, similarly when some one wear this one can easily understand that the person is a recepient of Padma Shri, so its conveys message, not for fun. Thus if a millitary service ribbon can be added in their artcile and so is a Civilian service ribbon can also be added. I don't think its so much big thing to discuss in the first place. Lastly, there is no such guideline that it can't be added for civilian awards, thus no one have any right to remove. Thank you Dey subrata (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Lastly, there is no such guideline that it can't be added for civilian awards, thus no one have any right to remove." Nonsense. There aren't established guidelines for every possible type of edit. If various community members decide that it is aesthetically distracting, or places an undue emphasis on one award over others, then the decoration can be removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Non sense!! I think many people lack common sense as far the above conversation goes. Now coming to "...aesthetically distracting, or places an undue emphasis on one award over others..",
The awards are highest possible awards one can receive in the country. Thus I don't see why there is any problem if putting the ribbons give an emphasize.
Secondly, the awards to be emphasized as they are the Highest possible honours one can achieve through their service for the country. For an example, when we discuss abount a good holywood actor, we always ask "Did he receive an Oscar?" because it shows that, yes the oscar has more an ultimate achievement for an actor in hollywood. Similary, a person who serves India (Indian society) in their particular field, are recognised by the Highest National awards which they receive, very few people receive Padma awards out of 1.3 Billions. And even very fewer receive Bharat Ratna (48 till now), you can calculate the percentile on your own and automaticlaly will get answer whether these awards are to be emphasized or not.
Thirldy, when a person receive A Padma Award or Bharat Ratna, he or she is called with award name before taking their name in any official ceremony or function by Govt., he or she should be called out as "Padma shri firstname sirname" or "Barat Ratna firstname sirname" . For example, its similar to the "SIR" title that is given in UK. For example, when we engineers in India take name of Father of Engineering in India, we take it as Bharat Ratna Sir Mokshagondam Visvesvaraya. So, its with "common sense" NOT "non sense", BHARAT RATNA or PADMA SHRI, BHUSHAN, VIBHUSAN are to be emphasized above any other award, because its the "HIGHEST" and "ULTIMATE" honour and National Honour that one can receiev in India. There is no problem in it emphasize rather logical to give emphasize.
Fourthly, if 2-3 community memebers are not using their common sense or their reasoning, I have nothing to say. Another example I want to give, why its to be empahsized,... who ever recieved a Bharat Ratna, or Padma Award, you can find it in every recipients' articles, that its been mentioned in the "LEAD OF THE ARTICLE", why?? Because thats the highest honours one can achieve, thus its emphasized. Similarly for the millitary highest honour "PARAM VIR CHAKRA" whoever the recipient, it will be always in the lead of the article. I don't understand, why the "HIGHEST HONOUR OF A COUNTRY" should not be emphasIzed!!
Fifthly, Whereevr I put those Ribbons, I have seperately categorised the awards in "NATIONaL HONOURS", "SPORTING HONOURS" & "OTHER HONOURS", So, their is no way its shown that other awards have no value. Rather its gives a good distictive read.
Sixthly, cosidering the point of "emphasize", a average person can say, Award by a Media Group or an Organisation is very very inferior to the NATIONAL Honours like of Padma Award and Bharat Ratna. I hope peopel will use their brains now or common sense before calling "non sense" to people just because they are here for more time than me. Dey subrata (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not said that its to used as title, that is, he or she should not use it in any documents but I said in any govt. funtion or ceremony if their names are taken, they are taken as Bharat Ratna Firstname and sirname. I was talking about giving emphasize of their achievement. Dey subrata (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you failed to understand from your provided reference, it telling you can't use it any kind of document or in anyway for personal/community or any other kind of benifit. Bharat Ratna Awardee is always taken their name can be taken their name in any ceremonies an fuction or even other way. For example here "BHARAT RATNA JRD TATA AWARD" been named by govt authorities only. Dey subrata (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Order of the British Empire has two ribbons associated with it, -for Millitary personnel and for Civilian. So seems both are used for different purpose. I don't see a problem in putting them in the article. And in case Indian honours its different, only Civilian. And I know what featured article means. And putting those ribbons in the article does not violates any rules for the article to be a FA. Its very illogical that "a" FA status article does not include ribbons, for that we can't include it in another. No where its written that someone able to make a featured article without including any ribbons, and from now you have to follow it. No, absolutely not. "This is called NONSENSE". This is perhaps against any creative community ideas. Those article are made by people like you and me, they are not made by supreme power. Secondly, an article get a FA status, that does not mean, there is absolutely no scope of improvement or revamp. It itself is against wikipedia rules i think. Putting ribbons in the award section only enhance the person's achievement rather diminishing. Thirdly, we must go with the assumption that when a person go through any aticle he or she must go thoroughly. We should not assume some one will half read an artcile, that anyone reading the article and find out that the person is a recepient of Bharat Ratna, he or she will stop reading or ignore other awards. I as a reader reader will not do such, do you, will you ignore, if then I feel pity for you. Dey subrata (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
We're not here to "enhance" a person's achievement. We're here to provide a balanced perspective about who the subject is and what they've done. With your limited experience at Wikipedia, you don't know what the community's attitude is toward various things, so you're not speaking from a place of authority or even of familiarity. I have been involved in hundreds of discussions about various aesthetic matters and I know what sorts of things people feel. Consistency is one of them, simplicity is another. I also know that when Featured Article writers roll up their sleeves to work, they're scrutinising every square inch of that article. The lack of colourful decorations in those high-quality articles says a lot more than your "I don't see why there is any problem if putting the ribbons give an emphasize" argument, which only betrays your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia principles. That's not meant as an insult. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is way too confusing for anyone with little knowledge of Indian civil awards to follow but, in this representation, the color bars are essentially meaningless and look like editing errors and I suggest we just remove them. I also note that Abecedare's request for references hasn't been answered so, even if we forget about aesthetics, they should go. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No - There is no accepted standard for decorating quality articles with these ribbons. Above (in the collapsed section) I listed a ton of Featured Articles about various award recipients from various disciplines. The ribbons are visually distracting and serve no encyclopedic purpose. Having done some more guideline searching, I find WP:ICONDECORATION, which states:
"Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good ... An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function."
As one can see here (where the issue originated), the award is clearly described as "Padma Shri, India's fourth highest civilian award." There is no further information that could be delivered, and with such unambiguous language, there is no further comprehension that the reader needs, or that the reader gets from seeing the ribbon. Nobody is going to read "Padma Shri, India's fourth highest civilian award" and be confused. "Hmm, wait, which one is that again? Oh the cute pink one with the two lines? Wow, he won THAT?!" According to the guideline, the icon has to improve our understanding of the subject, the footballer, not of the award. The vast majority of the world does not know what that decoration is by sight, and it doesn't add to their understanding of footballer Sunil Chhetri. The text helps, but the image does nothing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No The discussion has increasingly veered into (unsourced) claims about side issues but as far as inclusion of the ribbon/award images in pages other than those about the awards themselves (as in here) is concerned, my answer and reasoning is similar to what I said before. WP:ICONDECORATION and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG advise against such use. The ribbon convey no information that the award-name 'Padma Shri' doesn't. The decorative image only adds an inconsistency in the list-layout and is visually distracting. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No, for the reasons given above and because we're not some sort of colouring book. If someone wants to see what the things look like, they can go to the relevant article. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No Does anyone on earth have a picture of a Bharat Ratna awardee wearing a service ribbon on their on their chest? Or, for that matter, the medallion itself on a lanyard, on any day but the day it was awarded? In the absence of specific protocols, Wikipedia tends to describe not prescribe. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The people who have rejected/denied requests seem to have no idea about what Swiggy is, or
how big/impactful it is in the country. It's so biased that Zomato has a page just because they have international exposure or operations elsewhere.
Wikimedia India Chapter is to be de-recognized by WMF and shut down, from September 14, 2019, for the inability of the community to abide by Foundation requirements and lack of leadership. The community has accused WMF of not taking them into confidence and have sought a public hearing on the issue.[1]∯WBGconverse14:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @BlackcurrantTea: for the link. The talk page still doesn't have the information. Anyways! My comment was more sarcastic as i know they don't do anything. Am surprised they managed to do something, which eventually happened to be wrong and resulted in the shut down. I don't know if @DBigXray: was also sarcastic. If he wasn't; i am right in saying they didn't do anything in first place! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
While genetic studies are not allowed in the caste/tribe article bodies, is it OK to add these in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections like in this recent edit? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I am in two minds about this, hence I asked Fylindfotberserk to post the above here after they first posted it on my talk page. One of my concerns is that of stuff becoming outdated and not supplanted by whatever the more recent research may be; another is that in the case of some caste groups this could end up being a big list. - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it better not to allow these articles. Though the example above appears to be peer reviewed and, therefore, would qualify as reliable, the reality is that genetic studies are constantly shifting. A study could get outdated, it may be only one study amongst many with results and conclusions varying across studies. Uncontextualized pointers to single studies is never a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 20:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Can someone point me to where the "genetic studies in caste articles" question was discussed? Sitush, you perhaps? I'm baffled as to why a complete ban is necessary. Vanamonde (Talk)00:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This paper is not a caste paper, but a tribe one. What is the difference? Well, in North India, there is caste endogamy and village exogamy. In other words, a daughter by tradition out-marries a husband of the same caste in village of no traditional preference. She can thus finds herself randomly placed in relation to her natal home. Consequently, a human version of adaptive radiation a la Darwin's finches will not be successful for caste in North India (for there are no genetic islands). However, marriage traditions among tribes are very different. People marry locally. The Bonda (a type of Gond) speak a Dravidian language in one village, but an Afroasiatic in an adjoining one. It is the evolution of such diversity that is traced in the paper. As for genetic studies, some genetic studies are widely accepted. For example, humanity's common African origin, the consensus view among geneticists, is now accepted truth. However, genetic studies attempting to correlate a specific caste status with ancestral origin in certain place of imagined value are the ones that have not cleared the bar. The shorter the time span being considered, the less reliable the results. Such controversial papers do not belong to the main body nor to the external links. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
North Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic tribes are the new favorites of geneticists. A lot of papers have come up lately. So just like what Sitush said, we can end up with a big list. Moreover, genetic studies are not unaffected by different migrations theories either. It is not unheard of geneticist striving to prove his/her POV migration theory. Compounded with ever changing technology as RegentsPark has pointed to and differing models for "Admixture tests", I believe it is best not to mention genetics in the main caste/tribe articles at all. If it is that much important, we can create a separate article, name it "Genetic studies on North Dravidian tribes" or something, similar to this and this articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I was tired last night. So let me attempt another response: RegentsPark and Sitush are correct of course. I have myself written about the evolving genetic literature on the domestication of the chicken. However, if there really is a glut of such articles on tribes in India, we still have to say, "It depends on the article." For the European Journal of Human Genetics is a peer-reviewed journal, which no Wikipedia guideline that I know can consider unreliable. (It is not like Nature Scientific Reports or PLOS One, mega journals which will publish a preliminary announcement within three months of its submission, upon payment of a hefty publication fee.) The time between submission and publication for this paper is seven months. As I've already said, you can't put a blanket ban on the genetic studies. The migrations of modern humans from Africa into India is widely accepted and has now made it into standard history text-books of India. The litmus test for notability should be the reporting of a result in scholarly tertiary sources, especially text-books or surveys of literature in the field, which summarize and evaluate different sources, and so are less affected by WP:UNDUE). If a paper has not been so reported, we can simply say, "Citing it would be UNDUE." But we can't take a personal position on the reliability of genetic methods. I also don't see how we can ban a paper in the European Journal of Human Genetics from appearing in the external links. If many such papers are in danger of showing up, we can put them in a collapsed list. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Obviously all these papers are reliable when used in genetics specific articles. The African origin theory is mainstream. No doubt about that. I had added genetic data in the past (early 2010s) in some caste/tribe/ethnic articles myself. I'm just saying that the most sensible thing to do would be to create a separate article on genetics, specific to these ethnic groups. While I don't know what purpose a hanging external link would serve, but I totally believe that deducing origin/relatedness/specific DNA types of ethnic groups based on a single paper will be a blunder. I agree with your "litmus test for notability". Wouldn't be a problem if scholarly tertiary sources like text books, etc are used. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess I am suggesting that instead of creating a separate genetics-review article, and you will find that many such articles will be required, which will tie you up in further controversy, it is best to simply revert in a caste article any citation of a genetic article that has not been cited in the tertiary literature. We do so on the grounds of the citation not being DUE for that article, and we reference WP:TERTIARY which says: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight" This high bar does not apply to other citations, i.e. outside of genetics. Pinging @Fylindfotberserk, RegentsPark, Sitush, and Vanamonde93: If we can get a consensus on this, we will have WP policy behind us. Think of the time before WP:INDICSCRIPTS, and all the heartache. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we should have a high standard with respect to inclusion of genetic studies, but I worry that this standard is too high. There is a very wide spectrum of genetic findings, from those that are tentative and controversial to those that have been shown to be robust; a common origin in Africa isn't the only thing geneticists firmly agree on. Inclusion in a tertiary source is, in my opinion, a sufficient condition for inclusion of a given finding on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be a necessary condition; it's too tight a restriction, and tertiary sources evolve somewhat slower than I would expect or want Wikipedia to. Personally, I think the language we have at WP:DUE is quite sufficient; it already would support the exclusion of tentative findings. Vanamonde (Talk)16:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
What does one do with sources in genetics about which an average Wikipedian is unable to make the determination of tentative findings? Each such article, and there will be many in any given slice of time, will tie up the community in an RfC. Recall the Nature Scientific Reports multiauthor on Rakhigarhi. Wikipedia is a conservative resource, in my view. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think many (if any) of us are qualified to sort the wheat from the chaff here: certainly, there won't be much expertise available to come to a sensible consensus about most published studies. That said, I've got the impression that genetics is taught in Indian schools in some depth when compared to, say, the UK.A lot of the studies which I have seen appear to be written from the perspective of trying to prove a predetermined result, they use small samples of people whose self-identification is accepted, and in some cases they have been seemingly sponsored by the community that is being studied and are then touted favourably as a means for achieving a long-standing socio-political claim. I'm usually in favour of using secondary sources but the variability in quality, the methodology and the rapidly changing nature of the science all concern me in the case of genetics. I'm not usually a fan of using tertiary sources because, after all, Wikipedia itself is tertiary, but in this instance I think Fowler&fowler has a point. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Sitush. A lot of papers start with "it is proven by archaeological/linguistic studies that XYZ language family originated in XYZ location and "our" genetic results also prove that...". I also agree with what he said about the "sponsored samples". Most of the time newer studies will use the same old samples, raw files, dataset, etc. Same "Gujaratis from Houston", "Punjabis from Lahore", etc, samples have been used multiple times. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently a minister in the government of Jharkhand. I have been unable to confirm this. According to "Samay Live" a politician of this name was murdered in 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwQ4wjo-ok). He is listed as a leader on RJD's web site, with no picture. He is also listed at National Election Watch, as standing in 2005, 2009, 2014. Surely there must be somewhere we can find the election results, and the cabinet makeup of Jharkhand?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi all, in these 214 edits at Puri Jagannadh, some of the article quality has drifted. In the |birth_place= parameter, the info went from Kothapalli, Andhra Pradesh, India to Bapiraju Kothapalli Kotauratla Mandal Narsipatnam Andhra Pradesh, India. Can someone please help simplify this? The reference is here, but alas, I can't read it. It's also unclear what the subject's name should be. There's a note at the top of the article indicating that the family name is Petla. Anyhow, some assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The interview mentions only Bapiraju Kothapalli and Narsipatnam is the Mandal(subdistrict), Kotauratla need not be mentioned as its the sub post office closeby. I don't think I could read interviewer's name anywhere. --Rahmanuddin Shaik (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the help, Rahmanuddin. I've changed it to Bapiraju Kothapalli, Andhra Pradesh, India, unless you think I need to mention Narsipatnam. If you do, please let me know and I'll add it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Punjabi discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you were a non-Punjabi-speaking admin, would you consider this discussion problematic? Google Translate ain't exactly giving me the info I need. Any summary would be appreciated! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: 1) The shooting will start in 2-3 weeks, if it will not start you can delete the content. Tell me if you get money for all this as I am just a fan of Amrinder Gill that's why I create article. 2) I am also a fan of Gill. A lot of my articles were deleted. It's not in my hands to delete any article only admins can do that. If we will create an article again and again before time they will protect the article like Parmish Verma article. It's not about money No one else is creating Punjabi articles these days, most people are here for vandalism. 3) A lot of promotion people contact me to create paid articles but I never did that. I am inactive on Punjabi Wikipedia from last few years. I was busy than now I am free and will help you here on Wikipedia. Warm Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it would be fine adding, because even Sir would be happy as it would define him 'The son of soil, son of coffee'.
Its definitely pointless arguing further, every community has to get the credit of the people that it has produced..
There is ambiguity in the caste brother. If you give the full name then you have to specify..
Or else readers might assume the other ' Hegde's '
Please understand..
Its actually misleading readers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.82.214 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Please start signing your posts by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~ This is a requirement and it will append a signature and time stamp so that readers will know who posted what. Your opinion about it being "fine" to add is irrelevant, because we have a long-standing practice of only adding caste information if it is self-identified. Rather than wasting time arguing fruitlessly about this, why don't you try to find that self-identification? That way we can move forward. We're also not here to give "credit" to communities. This is an encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you for finding that. I would imagine there have been many discussions on this subject. I just would prefer that we codify this somewhere, because it's a pretty common area of editing, and of dispute, and there are ArbCom ramifications. My instinct is to open a discussion at MOS:BIO to propose the addition of brief language that instructs users on what the prevailing community preference is on this. So I'll do an informal RfC below to take the temperature of the community before moving forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: thanks a lot for taking the lead in fixing this once and for all. I agree with your speculation. I can only imagine how many edit wars would have occurred since this is not codified. --DBigXrayᗙ13:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
OLY as honorific suffix
Recently, "OLY" as an honorific suffix is being added in the "Olympian" article infoboxes and leads (after the subject's name) e.g. [15]. I've come here for clarification since I do not know whether this guideline is applicable in this case. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like it was a relatively new initiative in 2017. But oddly, the text says "All Olympians can apply for the OLY post-nominal lettering at www.olympians.org - Get yours TODAY!" They have to sign up? That's stupid. Does the committee send them a package of cardboard letters? Anyway, like the issue with the Indian Society of Cinematographers (ISC), this seems like a contract that Olympians have with the Olympics organisation, not something that Wikipedia is blindly obliged to observe. @Tanmay Subhedar: If this is something you care about, I recommend bringing it up at WikiProject Biography to see how others feel about it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Putting out this message out there to seek collaboration and/or any assistance any of you could offer with regards to two pages: Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad and the Bengal Sultanate. Aiming to better the quality of the former to satisfy the criteria of possible future FA nomination and the later to the quality required for a possible GA nomination. I had worked on the former and helped promote it to a GA in 2012, but given schedule with regards to school and personal life I do not see being able to work on these two alone.
Alternatively copying and pasting this on other relevant WikiProject discussions. Looking forward to your response. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk!)07:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, one possible idea might be take one ofe these articles for Wikipedia:INCOTM. We discussed to revive the project a couple of times, but that didn;t happen. I do hope that will improve at least one article, regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Sneaky vandalism of 2016 Uri attack has been taking place somewhere since July 2019. Blatant vandalism began from 14 August. All of which went unnoticed. I undid a few revisions, but i think there are still a few inaccuracies/false information. A look at the article, and facts is requested. Also, extra sets of eyes are requested on the article. I also think some other similar articles might have faced same problem since the independence day of both the nations. Vigilance is requested. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk)15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, India experts! This article had been marked as using patronymic naming structure, so Asha instead of Rangappa throughout. That was removed yesterday as OR and all mentions changed to using Rangappa, and I don't have enough knowledge to know whether it was correctly done. Can someone who knows what they're doing take a look? --valereee (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: This can get complicated because first generation Indian immigrants with patronymic names often adopt their father's given name as their (conventional) last name, and that is then passed down to subsequent generations. Asha Rangapp's father's given name is Jai, so 'Rangappa' doesn't appear to be her patronymic name (it could be her paternal grandfather's given name but I haven't been able to verify/refute that).
Now all of the above is OR. So lets look at the sources: her bio on her personal website does refer to her as 'Asha' but that may be just a matter of projecting modesty/relatability. We are better off following the practices of the cited sources, such as NPR, Elle, India Abroad etc, all of which refer to her as 'Rangappa' after the initial intro. Would reconsider if we find an explicit statement from her that 'Asha' is the correct or preferred moniker for such use. Abecedare (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare, thanks -- I think I'm just going to leave it for now, then. I, too, wondered if her own website referring to her by her first name throughout meant anything, but decided if she actually objected to being referred to as Rangappa, she'd have likely said so somewhere at some point. --valereee (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Uttar Pradesh until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100002:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jharkhand until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100002:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Source for religious demographics in small communities
The website https://www.census2011.co.in/ apparently has been blacklisted as a URL that can occur in English Wikipedia articles, possibly for being a commercial site. Is there another source that gives religious demographics for small communities? I haven't found official census reports give much information at that level (see recent editing at Hapur for an example of where such a source would be useful), as opposed to official figures being readily available for Indian states and the nation as a whole (note the sourcing at India. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As I announced on the wikimediaindia-l back in June, we are planning to return to fundraising in India in 2020. Next week, we will be running some small and brief pre-tests to test out our payment infrastructure and to gauge response to our localized messaging.
If you see a donor on a talk page, OTRS or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donate@wikimedia.org.
If you have specific ideas to share, please feel invited to add them to our fundraising ideas page.
We have gathered feedback from CIS, focus groups, and community members but you can also send feedback regarding the fundraising campaign directly on my talk page. Your feedback might not make it into the banners for the 2 hour tests, but we will definitely factor it into our campaign for next year. Many Thanks Seddon (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Pallava dynasty
I have added new info on Pallava dynasty's page with an apt citation. A user is determined to remove them somehow, just because he thinks that it's redundant. Kindly look into it.
In December 2011, an anonymous user added at B. D. Jatti that he was born to a "Lingayat Banajiga" family. In April 2012, with this edit, the claim was shifted from the lead to the body by a different user. And on 9 September 2012, the same "Lingayat Banajiga" fact appeared in this article of The Hindu.
Here is the relevant quote from the April 2012 version of the WP article:
Born in a Kannadiga Lingayat Banajiga family at Savalgi in Jamkhandi Taluk of Bijapur district, Jatti entered politics as a Municipality member at Jamakhandi in 1940 and later became its President. He was eventually elected to the Jamakhandi State Legislature.
And here is the relevant quote from The Hinduarticle:
Born on September 10, 1912 in a Lingayat Banajiga family at Savalgi in Jamkhandi taluk of Bijapur district, Jatti entered politics in 1940 and was eventually elected to the Jamakhandi State Legislature.
The content not only seems to be copied from WP but also factually wrong, as can be seen from the following quote from a scholarly source:[1]
Nijalingappa had mainly to deal with a dispute between two sizeable factions. Both were dominated by Lingayats, but to maximise their leverage, both drew upon legislators from other castes and all regions of the state. Nijalingappa, who belonged to the Banajiga sub-group among Lingayats, himself headed one of these factions, and the other was led by B. D. Jatti, who was a Panchamsali, another Lingayat sub-group.
The main purpose of this post is to remove the "Banajiga" misinformation from B. D. Jatti, but I didn't do that directly, as most people consider The Hindu as a reliable source. So I want others' opinion regarding this. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@NitinMlk: Nice catch! Given your finding of the language overlap; the wikipedia edits preceding the Hindu article; and, especially, the higher-quality source you found that contains contradicting information, there should be no objection to not citing The Hindu article for Jatti's caste information. As a sanity check, pinging @Sitush: in case there was some caste-related subtlety that flew over my head. Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. A very good catch and a worrying development because, generally speaking, we do not find mirroring of WP information by The Hindu. I'm wondering whether it is worth emailing the newspaper to see what they have to say about it. I've tried that with The Times of India in the past (which definitely takes a lot from us) and got nowhere but perhaps TH will take a more responsible attitude and issue internal guidance for their journalists and sub-editors. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sitush Yes, please mail them. They will either share their source or issue a clarification. both of these options will be useful. --DBigXrayᗙ10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Interested in this also, for reasons bigger than just this article, or The Hindu. Please add me to {{ping}} list, if/when there is something new to report. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
it is a near certainty that the whole business will be challenged in the Supreme Court.
What will happen inside Kashmir is anybody's guess. But it is likely to be a long-drawn out affair.
A key question then is whether to change Jammu and Kashmir page to its new status if and when it happens, or to keep it as a historical page until the matters are fully resolved and make a new page on Jammu and Kashmir (union territory).
There are way too many references to "state of Jammu and Kashmir" all over Wikipedia. Some of them can be changed to Indian-administered Kashmir (which now redirects to a section in Kashmir). But I suspect that not all of them can be. It would be convenient to keep the current page as a historical page.
I think we need a task force to handle the change. A lot need to be changed. Can we start a list of articles to be updated/changed? New articles may be required. I favour new article on J&K Union Territory and current J&K as a former state as we did with several former states like Bombay State. I favour new article because geographical and political change will change everything in the article. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
But this could potentially be a temporary move and if so we should keep J&K article together and just change its status. I favor keeping the old article and just updating its status. The aim of this move I think was to repeal Article 370, and the bifurcation was just something else, so there is the possibility that the state could be brought back together just without 370 in place. C1MM (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I too am increasingly convinced that we'd be better off with developing the new Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) article, while leaving the current Jammu and Kashmir more or less unchanged aside from tense updates, and a few additional sentences/paragraphs covering the new developments. I think so because:
The new J&K UT will have a significantly different area, geography, population, demographics, economy etc. By trying to retcon all these changes into the current J&K article we risk mixing up facts about the two entities (especially since available secondary sources will almost surely do so too over the next few years), and losing all the current information about the state (which as Nizil hints, would remain of historical/encyclopedic importance) down the article history memory hole.
As Kautilya says, there are likely to be legal challenges, news developments etc related to the formation of the UT over the next few years, which can be adequately covered at Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) with less risk of them being considered undue, as they would be at Jammu and Kashmir itself.
I agree that the Ladakh page can stay as is. It has always been a distinctive region within the state, and the page has been written in that way. It needs only minor edits to reflect the change of status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
How about creating an article, Jammu and Kashmir (state) for the 1952-2019 entity, similar to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) for the 1846–1952 entity? The article Kashmir already exists to cover aspects of the region that rise above the political geography of the day. "Jammu and Kashmir" as an article right now is about the Indian state which will soon no longer exist. 체셔🐈 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO that would be complicated. We would have to cut-paste move a lot of relevant content from the current article to the proposed article. Besides, the current state and the proposed union territory are vastly different. They are going to have different geography, administrative units, demographics, etc. The other solution (ie. creating a separate article for the union territory) is less messy and saves time. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
What is convenient for Wikipedia editors in terms of workload may differ from Wikipedia's policies regarding what titles should represent. At some point there will probably be a move discussion to clarify the question, "what are users looking for when they enter 'Jammu and Kashmir' into the search bar"? The territory that will form the new union territory of J&K is, honestly, the focus of the vast majority of Reliable Sources' commentary, political drama, and so forth about J&K-the-state. Very rarely are people looking for information on Ladakh when they search for J&K today, and this split into two union territories will accelerate that trend. There are so many edit requests from people right now who want to bring the Wikipedia article in line with this reality, and resisting/reverting them until some undetermined time when the confusion will have ended, is a waste of our time IMO. 체셔🐈 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@チェシャねこ: I understand the spirit behind your proposal. But I don't think we need to create a newJammu and Kashmir (state) article. Instead, once all the dust has settled (in a few months/years), we can consider moving the current Jammu and Kashmir article to such a title with a parenthetical qualifier, and usurping the plain title for the union territory. However, such a move discussion will depend on establishing that the union territory is the primary topic for the title, which we cannot do at present without relying on a crystal ball. Even otherwise, I would recommend postponing any debate about ideal article titles and for now focusing on getting the content, sources, maps and links right. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
yes. This Kashmir related new articles thing is really annoying. Like Nizil said, we have a few articles for former states from modern history like Bombay State, and Saurashtra (state). Like Kautilya said in the first post, anything can happen. We already have Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill article, which is also a thing. In the future, no matter what happens, the article remains (if passed then as a "law/act", and if not passed then as "bill"). So instead of creating new articles, we should add a para or two to the existing articles about the proposed states and whatnot. If officially created, then we can create the articles. Till then, I think Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), and similar articles should be merged and redirected to appropriate articles/sections. If the states dont get created we will have to add more content in the existing articles. —usernamekiran(talk)20:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
In the near future (few days) J&K UT will almost surely be recognized in law, once the president has assented to the bill and the required notification is issued.
In the medium term (few weeks/months) J&K's UT conversion could possibly be put on hold by the Supreme Court in response to current and/or forthcoming petitions
Given all this possible flux, we should avoid picking an article name that necessitates a renaming discussion with every news cycle. Therefore I would suggest keeping it as short and simple as Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) with the lede sentence spelling out whether the entity is proposed, recognised, disputed, or previously existing, as the case may be. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
One possible solution is a redirect. Jammu and Kashmir redirect should be created which can be appropriately redirected as per need: to State article or to UT article. Or it can be made disambiguation page listing Princely State, State and UT because all three are separate entities with different geography.-Nizil (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that we should not discuss page titles at this time (echoing Abecedare). They can be changed easily. The key question is what pages should be present.
If the Supreme Court stays the proposed reorganisation, the question becomes moot. No changes need to be made until the Supreme Court decides.
In the event that the proposed union territory comes into being, my position is clearly that it should be covered in a separate page. Changing the present Jammu and Kashmir page to become a page on the union territory is not viable. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has existed for 70 odd years, and is the subject of numerous wars, conflicts and diplomatic battles, covered in hundreds of books, thousands of research articles and tens of thousands of news articles. There is no basis to the suggestion that it should be removed or altered.
Having said that, I also suggest that the new page should be minimal. It only needs to cover the events that occur inside the union territory after it comes into being. No need for a big History section, Geography section and what not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Jumping into this conversation but wanted to have another voice here. Given the PIL yet to be listed for hearing before the SC, I am of the opinion that there should be an article on the Reorganisation Bill (which currently exists) and proposed changes with regards to the reorganisation of the State should for now be dealt with under a section in the existing article on the state of J&K. We cannot be sure of how the changes with regards to the proposed UTs roll out. Newly created articles on J&K and Ladakh UTs will end up being filled with information which none of us can be sure of, as we have little confirmed information, given the modality of the government. --Tamravidhir (talk!)09:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I am of the opinion we do not need a separate article for Ladakh. The geographic region corresponds exactly with the proposed UT, so only some changes in #Administration will be necessary. DeluxeVegan (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
That could be done, but if the same is done the article should have a detailed section on its pre-UT history as a part of the J&K state. --Tamravidhir (talk!)09:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say that the J&K state article should stand as it is (state until 2019; as done with the princely state article). Further, the Ladakh article should be the Ladakh UT article (with no requirement whatsoever I see to change the article name). Lastly, a separate J&K UT article. Changes should be made in all other documents on districts and divisions of J&K accordingly. --Tamravidhir (talk!)09:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
To add, the article on J&K UT, however, seems to have enough reliable sources and is properly organised. The J&K (state) article should stand as it is. --Tamravidhir (talk!)09:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment by Fowler&fowler:@Abecedare:, @Kautilya3: Since this is a highly contentious area, in which I can readily see people have been attempting to finesse their POVs in various ways, please note that whatever is the form of the Indian reorganization, it does not obviate the mention of the disputed nature of the region. The the first few sentences of all these pages should invariantly read:
The citations are to Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of the UN and International Agreements. Please note that the lexical subterfuge "it shares borders with the Indian states of ..." is POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk»09:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Yes, that needs to be neutral. The intro could be tweaked as:
Also, in my view it should be one longer sentence, not two, as the statehood is disputed as well." (Webster's Unabridged, the premier dictionary of American English says,
"Jammu and Kash·mir geographical entry \ˈkash-ˌmir, ˈkazh-, kash-ˈ, kazh-ˈ\ or Kashmir, disputed territory in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent; claimed as a constituent state (summer capital Srinagar, winter capital Jammu area 53,665 square miles, or 138,992 square kilometers; population 12,541,302) and partly administered by India, but also claimed and partly controlled by Pakistan ")
It is true that Britannica does separate the two, but Britannica does not have to deal with drive bys who will add their favorite nuggets between the two sentences in order to drive the dispute to the back of the bus. PS Also, while we are at it, although this is a minor point, instead of "Use Indian English," it might be better to say, "Use Commonwealth English" Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Indian English is fine just as Pakistani English is on AJK and GB due to their specific relevance. Also we shouldn't make unilateral lead changes here without addressing the same in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan in similar vein to the ones suggested here. Gotitbro (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gotitbro: I have changed all three to Commonwealth English, which includes both Indian and Pakistani English. I have done so on the grounds that these are all three disputed regions and it is best to use the language that precedes the dispute. Please keep an eye on all three regions. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: While I don't think that was necessary it is in the end an inconsequential change. My main point was about the leads of the AJK and GB articles which should be similar to the one we have for the JK article right now. If you can do that would be nice. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gotitbro: Wikipedia guidelines require only that the text be in consonance with reliable sources, especially in this instance, the WP:TERTIARY sources, to ensure due weight. The long standing lead sentences of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which we have used as a general template, say for Gilgit Baltistan: "geographic region of Gilgit-Baltistan, in the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. ...contains the loftiest peaks of the Karakoram Range—K2 (Mount Godwin Austen; at 28,251 feet [8,611 metres] the second highest mountain in the world), Gasherbrum I (26,470 feet [8,068 metres]), and Broad Peak I (26,401 feet [8,047 metres])." and for Azad Kashmir: "area of the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Azad (“Free”) Kashmir, established in 1947 after the partition of India, is neither a province nor an agency of Pakistan but has a government of its own that is regarded by Pakistan as “independent,” even though it is protected by and economically and administratively linked to Pakistan." This is more or less what the Wikipedia pages say. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Caution: Hi, all. Just read this news article from The Dawn. We need to be cautious of any misinformation being propagated through Wikipedia articles. Hence, reiterating the responsibility Wikipedia has in disseminating information, which, given this discussion, we have stood for. --Tamravidhir (talk)
List of articles (Total 1686) under WikiProject J&K which will need updates probably. Once the dust settles, we should focus on updating them.-Nizil (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, not only dust settles, but we should also look at WP:COMMONNAME. I don't really want to see all the articles being re-assessed right now (or until the new names become "common name"). Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Mate, you renamed it to "Indian revocation of special status to Jammu and Kashmir". But this page is going to list the international reactions, so let it be something along the lines of "International reactions to the Indian revocation of special status to Jammu and Kashmir". Maybe? --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
All responses are properly cited via RS. Feel free to click edit button and improve if you feel there's something wrong. --Saqib (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Being cited to reliable sources does not obviate cherry-picking. Creating lists when prose would do the job is rarely a good idea. But I have zero interest in getting involved with article sections like that, which just ends up being nationalist pov magnets. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I can agree the page is tilting towards becoming a biased one. I invite others to join in and add something to maintain the balance. --Saqib (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd go a step further, and recommend that it be titled "revocation of article 370". That's what it's really about; it's unambiguous, and short. "Indian revocation" is redundant, because no other country could have revoked a piece of the Indian constitution. Vanamonde (Talk)13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
that title is even better. But should it be just "revocation of article 370" or "Jammu and Kashmir's revocation of article 370"? —usernamekiran(talk)15:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
'Revocation of Article 370' is not technically correct because that would have involved a constitutional amendment, which wasn't done. A so-called 'Article 370' now exists, but it is unrecognizable. The title is in line with what the major international newspapers used. I agree that "Indian" can be removed.
On the more substantive point of Saqib, the plan is to slowly fill in all the details of the episode, including the clamp down, the Presidential order, its legalities (or illegalities), the Parliamentary debates etc. Then we will have the next several months or years turmoil to cover. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I agree that Indian should be removed. If I were searching for this topic, I'd be very likely to type something like "India's revocation of ___" or "Indian revocation of ___". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO something like "Revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India" makes more sense. On the current one I have same view as of Vanamonde that only India can revoke as it is part of Indian Constitution, so "Indian Revocation" is bit confusing. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
In my view the most accurate and NPOV title would be "Revocation of the Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir by India." I would prefer "Special Status" to have beginning capital letters. India or Indian in the beginning would make the article more about India, whereas it really is more about the status. "India" is needed, but only insofar as it references the status, for the benefit of those who do not know what Special Status is, and most Wikipedians likely do not. "Constitution" is not needed in the title because (from my reading of Kautilya3's comments) it is not clear that the constitution has been amended, and in any case, the revocation is more notable than its constitutionality. Also its best to avoid possessives in the title. I have not been following this news much, but these are my views. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I like this title, Fowler. I thought of it without putting "the", and it didn't sound right.
And, no, there was no constitutional amendment. To extend parts of the Indian constitution to J&K, you only need the concurrence of J&K government. But there is no government in J&K at the moment. It is under President's rule. So the Centre can claim to be the acting government of J&K and give its assent to itself. Almost everybody that knows anything about anything, knows that it unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will shoot it down. But it will take about a year for that to happen, and meanwhile the BJP can crush the Kashmiris. Or they hope that the Kashmiris will stop complaining once their land prices shoot up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I see everyone talking about "revocation". But that's not all that happened. The bifurcation of the territory was also important. In fact, that's what the people of Ladakh (esp the Buddhists of Ladakh) are talking about. They're even calling it "independence". And pro-India Farooq Abdullah has cast the division in emotional terms. So the title should be more like ""Indian change to Jammu and Kashmir's status".VRtalk13:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I second User:Fowler&fowler here. The title "Revocation of the Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir by India" seems to me the most appropriate and suitable. Though, in my opinion, the 's' in 'special' and 'status' should not be capitalised. The reorganisation of the state happened because the revocation paved way for the same, which could be covered briefly and duly in this article. Irrespective, a separate article on the reorganisation Act exists. Lastly, will take the utmost opportunity of this moment to deeply regret and condemn the tenth night of blockade in J&K. --Tamravidhir (talk)16:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I want to put it on record that "Indian annexation of Jammu and Kashmir" does not seem such a POV term any more. In course of time, that is how scholars will see it. This is no different to what India did to Nizam's Hyderabad. There it was a Muslim minority that India had to battle and cow down. Now it is the Muslim majority. Overwhelming military force was used to cow down a whole population. All this talk of President and Parliament is just constitutional gimmickry. The talk now is that the Supreme Court is not going to interfere, or it will take so long to do it that whatever it says will be irrelevant. As to the world's reaction to all this, the less said the better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I keep coming across articles such as Marathi Buddhists which seem to be intersects between states and religions or castes and religions. Is this particular one actually a community that is discussed as such? I can't see the sources but we get a lot of somewhat naive creations from people interested in topics relating to Dalits and, of course, the Mahars in Maharastra are a significant Buddhist Dalit population. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sitush: No, its not a "community" or tradition, or sect. Its just an identifier. However, Navayana Buddhism is a thing, as described in Marathi Buddhists. "Marathi Buddhists" would be no more different than Gujrati Buddhist, Tamil Buddhist, or Texasian Buddhist. But Navayana Buddhism would be different than Chinese Buddhism. I believe redirecting the Marathi article to Navayana would be a fair call, or even deleting it (AfD) as there is nothing to merge. Everything is already in the target article. —usernamekiran(talk)22:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Hi. Ironically, i meant exactly opposite of that. I mean, "Texas Buddhist Association" is a legally recognised organisation (notability is not in question regarding this discussion). Whereas Marathi (or Maharashtrian) Buddhists are not. They are not recognised socially, or religiously either. Whereas Navayana buddhists is a religiously/socially accepted community/group/subtype. Marathi Buddhists simply refer to Buddhists residing in state of Maharashtra, and or Marathi speaking Buddhists. —usernamekiran(talk)17:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
^ abAkhtar, Rais; Kirk, William, Jammu and Kashmir, State, India, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 7 August 2019 (subscription required) Quote: "Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947."
_Ribbon.png){kind=small}
_Ribbon.png){kind=small}
