Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 73
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Kings and Princes
Hi. Do we have a policy on how to identify the scions of the erstwhile princely states in India. I made a change at this article but it would be good to have a clear policy in place (likely to be many others). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- We sort of did. The 26th amendment of India's Constitution enacted in 1971 gave the rationale for the official policy. After 1971, the erstwhile rulers are nothing more than ordinary citizens. They are not Maharajas, Nawabs, Kunwars, Rajas, Choudhury (title, not the last name), Taluqdar, or the myriad other titles invented to signify privilege. As you may recall, in 2012, or thereabouts, I had created a bank of sources, for use in "princely" articles. An example is Reference [2] in Jyotiraditya Scindia, October 2012. If you compare it with the current version of the article, you will notice that the "House of Scindia" linked to "Scindia Dynasty" makes a conspicuous appearance in the lead. Also, there is an unreliably sourced chart "Ancestors of J. Scindia" at the end. All these vague insinuations of privilege need to be removed from Wikipedia. They not only violate WP policy, they directly violate the Preamble to the Constitution of India, specifically, "EQUALITY of status and of opportunity." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- On the other hand, despite many available sources, this for one, and this for another, the rape and forced cremation of a Dalit child in Delhi in early August 2021 does not have a WP page. It speaks poorly all around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Policy? What policy? If there is a specific one relating to Indian princes, it definitely is not listed anywhere on Wikipedia. Putting together a bunch of secondary sources on the 26th Amendment and posting them around in multiple articles on your own accord neither constitute an official policy nor make the legal interpretations of those sources factually accurate. On that note, I dispute the notion that royal titles of the erstwhile rulers were abolished by the 26th Amendment. First, besides the part about the Privy Purse being abolished, the text of the Amendment itself only says that anyone who used to be recognized as rulers of a princely state ceased to be recognized as such. However, the word "titles" itself is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Amendment. Second, the Kerala High Court ruled in 2012 that referring to Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma as "His Highness Maharajah of Travancore" in an official advertisement of government function is not unconstitutional. The High Court of Kerala in a judgement on Mujeeba Rahman vs the State Of Kerala stated that, though by the 26th amendment of the Constitution, Article 363 was repealed whereby the rights and privileges of the rulers of Indian States were taken away, still the name and title of the rulers remained as such and unaffected in so far as names and titles were not contemplated as rights or privileges under the repealed Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution. So the titles were not abolished by the Government; only their right to receive Privy Purse were cancelled and status as rulers withdrawn.[1][2] Third, there is the fact that there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India, where the court itself has continued to use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the nobility and members of their families. Some prominent examples are:
- "Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji, Maharaja of Alwar vs. The Union of India & Anr." (1978)
- "H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs. C.I.T." (1994)
- "The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vs. H.H. Maharani Usha Devi" (1998)
- "Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur Chamli Jan" (2000)
- "Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors." (2001)
- "Union of India & Another vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan" (2005)
- Nawab Aftab Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) (High Court of Rajasthan)
- It is hard to imagine that the highest court in the country would have accepted the use of these titles had they been contrary to law. Since this is Wikipedia, we should be referring to the scions of princely states according to how the reliable sources refer to them. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Policy? What policy? If there is a specific one relating to Indian princes, it definitely is not listed anywhere on Wikipedia. Putting together a bunch of secondary sources on the 26th Amendment and posting them around in multiple articles on your own accord neither constitute an official policy nor make the legal interpretations of those sources factually accurate. On that note, I dispute the notion that royal titles of the erstwhile rulers were abolished by the 26th Amendment. First, besides the part about the Privy Purse being abolished, the text of the Amendment itself only says that anyone who used to be recognized as rulers of a princely state ceased to be recognized as such. However, the word "titles" itself is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Amendment. Second, the Kerala High Court ruled in 2012 that referring to Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma as "His Highness Maharajah of Travancore" in an official advertisement of government function is not unconstitutional. The High Court of Kerala in a judgement on Mujeeba Rahman vs the State Of Kerala stated that, though by the 26th amendment of the Constitution, Article 363 was repealed whereby the rights and privileges of the rulers of Indian States were taken away, still the name and title of the rulers remained as such and unaffected in so far as names and titles were not contemplated as rights or privileges under the repealed Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution. So the titles were not abolished by the Government; only their right to receive Privy Purse were cancelled and status as rulers withdrawn.[1][2] Third, there is the fact that there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India, where the court itself has continued to use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the nobility and members of their families. Some prominent examples are:
References
- ^ Hanif, Mahir. "'His Highness' isn't unconstitutional: Kerala high court". The Times of India. No. Kochi. The Times Group. Archived from the original on 18 December 2013. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- High Court of Kerala 22 October 2013), Text.
- Clearly, we can't call someone "Maharaja of Jaipur" when there is no kingdom of Jaipur and no actual Maharaja, regardless of what courts or other governmental bodies say. What we need is some consensus on how to balance the fact that someone is the titular descendant of a former maharaja with the fact that there is no kingdom and they aren't actually a maharaja. My attempt at Padmanabh Singh attempts to do that but more input, so that we are consistent across articles, would be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so sure of that, but the effort can be made. Extensive experience in several European countries that are now republics shows that these abolished titles can be highly persistent. In Italy I think it is actually illegal to use them, but everybody does. In Germany I think former princely titles are referred to obliquely (head of the house of ... etc), but titles of nobility still very often used. We should follow what sources do, though they may differ. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is no question that the titles were abolished, and not just the privileges (the usual argument made by pretenders). I can produce at least a dozen scholarly sources, both secondary and tertiary, which state unequivocally, that the titles were abolished in 1971 (along with the privy purses and the privileges). I can't find a single scholarly source stating that the titles were not abolished. The consensus is that lop-sided.
- I can't stop a wealthy pretender from calling a wide-eyed cub reporter of modest background to his son's "crowning," and not watch the chips fall in the local news the next day where they may. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS Johnbod is correct. The effort can be made; perhaps, it should be made along the lines of MOS:INDICSCRIPT, which began as an RfC, I think. He is also correct about the European ex-royals. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- PPS @RegentsPark: They are not titular descendants in any legal sense. The kingdoms went in 1947; the titles went in 1971 (along with the speciality license plates, "Patiala 1," and the duty-free imports etc). The problem is that they own large tracts of lands and many palaces. It is those over which they attempt to claim their Maharaja-hood. They probably also throw a few crumbs every now and then at the villages they use to own, so the villagers are happy to perpetuate the usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Right. Since they are not really kings, it would be incorrect to say "Padmanabh Singh is the Maharaja of Jaipur". However, if I understand Johnbod correctly, there is a sort of claim to the "throne" (some are even fighting over the title). Perhaps we should come up with some sort of wording that makes the non-Maharaja nature clear while also preserving the lineage (e.g., "Singh would have been the Maharaja of Jaipur had royal titles and privileges not been abolished" or something like that). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- That I believe is a very encyclopedically dangerous route to take. I can produce scholarly sources that state clearly they are Mr and Mrs Singh and nothing more. If you allow "would have" everyone in India (given Louis Dumont) will be claiming a kingdom. The caste self-uplifters will be working wonders with language. We can say something like, "S/he is the grand-daughter/son (if notable and reliably sourced) of the last Maharaja of X." They are not custodians of a Family, Dynasty, or Hous; they have no status at present, other than as Mr and Mrs Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- The present day scions are notable not because of their titles but because of their involvement as sportspersons, actors or politicians. So that should be their main description. Apart from that I would suggest some sort of wording like “He is the descendant of X of the former princely state Y.”defcon5 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Right. Since they are not really kings, it would be incorrect to say "Padmanabh Singh is the Maharaja of Jaipur". However, if I understand Johnbod correctly, there is a sort of claim to the "throne" (some are even fighting over the title). Perhaps we should come up with some sort of wording that makes the non-Maharaja nature clear while also preserving the lineage (e.g., "Singh would have been the Maharaja of Jaipur had royal titles and privileges not been abolished" or something like that). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- PPS @RegentsPark: They are not titular descendants in any legal sense. The kingdoms went in 1947; the titles went in 1971 (along with the speciality license plates, "Patiala 1," and the duty-free imports etc). The problem is that they own large tracts of lands and many palaces. It is those over which they attempt to claim their Maharaja-hood. They probably also throw a few crumbs every now and then at the villages they use to own, so the villagers are happy to perpetuate the usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS Johnbod is correct. The effort can be made; perhaps, it should be made along the lines of
- I wouldn't be so sure of that, but the effort can be made. Extensive experience in several European countries that are now republics shows that these abolished titles can be highly persistent. In Italy I think it is actually illegal to use them, but everybody does. In Germany I think former princely titles are referred to obliquely (head of the house of ... etc), but titles of nobility still very often used. We should follow what sources do, though they may differ. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Clearly, we can't call someone "Maharaja of Jaipur" when there is no kingdom of Jaipur and no actual Maharaja, regardless of what courts or other governmental bodies say. What we need is some consensus on how to balance the fact that someone is the titular descendant of a former maharaja with the fact that there is no kingdom and they aren't actually a maharaja. My attempt at Padmanabh Singh attempts to do that but more input, so that we are consistent across articles, would be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. They are sportwomen, hotel magnates, etc as Mr and Mrs Singh. The problem is that they are constitutionally mandated to be Mr and Mrs Singh by the 26th amendment. Even if they have a frivolous case or two in the courts, the Constitution cannot be overturned by a court. It needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament. No Indian government (of the right or left) will ever revisit that issue even if they had the majority. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, and it is un-encyclopaedic to censor recognition of this in articles (while it may not be much of an argument for notability by itself), not least because they have presumably inherited any palaces etc. Why exactly is Wikipedia bound by what the Indian constitution may or may not say? Some form of words of the type RegentsPark suggests, should be agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we are not bound by the Constitution. If something happens and the RS picks them up, we will pick it up, not because the Constitution says so (although in most cases, a change in Constitution (in general, not limited to this conversation) is always picked up immediately). An apathetic sentence like "great/grand- son/daughter of the last X of Y" or an equivalent relation if sourced properly would be the most encyclopaedic. I would say it goes into the early/personal life section where the details about the family, and the origin, is discussed. For namesake descendants, or those whose notability doesn't come from it, lead mention would be undue, as usual. What about: if the local people invite them to the community events with a prejudice of them being the descendants (or at least some still dress up as such), and only if those become notable to the biography, could it be sourced? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, and it is un-encyclopaedic to censor recognition of this in articles (while it may not be much of an argument for notability by itself), not least because they have presumably inherited any palaces etc. Why exactly is Wikipedia bound by what the Indian constitution may or may not say? Some form of words of the type RegentsPark suggests, should be agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
No disagreement there. I had mentioned the Constitution of India in the context only of RP's point about some "royal" claimants attempting to pursue the matter in the courts. See my argument about the sources below. I mean the evidence in the sources is devastatingly unanimous. As for the local people inviting them to a community event @RegentsPark: had himself written an eloquently finessed description. Hold on, I will dig it up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Here is RP's description from the early life section of the Indian national cricket team, and his wife Sharmila Tagore, a film actress.[1][2] From 1952 to 1971, Pataudi held the title of Nawab of Pataudi, but following his death a pagri ceremony was held in the village of Pataudi, Haryana to crown Khan as the tenth Nawab of Pataudi.Footnote: Official recognition of titles was ended by the Government of India in 1971 but Khan attended the ceremony to please the sentiments of the villagers, who wanted him to continue the family tradition.[3] In my view, the footnote should be a full sentence in the main body; otherwise, it can give a confusing message. Also, it should be "crown Khan as the 'tenth Nawab of Pataudi' ." Without making that clear, we will be again giving a confusing message. Clearly he is not the Nawab his father was until 1971, nor his father the Nawab his grandfather was until 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Clarified further. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, @Johnbod: I did not see your post, or did not pay attention to it. You say, "There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, and it is un-encyclopaedic to censor recognition of this in articles (while it may not be much of an argument for notability by itself), not least because they have presumably inherited any palaces etc."
- Well, without meaning to sound presumptuous, here's what happened in India. In 1947, the Indian princes lost their kingdoms. That means they lost most everything that wasn't their personal private property. Villages they owned and received rental income from all disappeared. Large tracts of agricultural lands they owned that they "farmed out" to tenant farmers were all gone. In return for their losses, the Government of India gave them an annual remuneration called a "privy purse." They also received benefits and privileges, such as car license plates, duty-free imports, and so forth. Lastly, they retained the right to be officially called the Maharajah or Nawab of X, and for their successions to be recognized by the Government. (I'm sure there were other benefits, but I don't know all the details).
- Well, in 1971, not only did the privy purses stop being paid annually but the privileges were removed. More importantly, the title and the succession to the title were derecognized. In other words, after 1971, when a Maharaja died, he died as an ordinary citizen, and there was no question of any succession. The private property he owned, including palaces (which most likely had been converted to hotels) were to be passed on in the various proportions of ownership detailed in his will—as they would for any private citizen who owned hotels or houses. If he died intestate, they were to be inherited entirely by his widow per Indian law. If she predeceased him, the property was to be shared equally by all his offspring, male and female.
- It is very clear in India: there are no princes (let alone "Kings" which in any case the British never called them; Maharaja, Raja, Nawab were all translated as "princes;" there was only one King and he sat in London.), no thrones, no titles, no titular princes, no pretenders, no second-order claimants, no courtiers, ... there is nothing. But as you wisely say about the French and Germans ex-royalty, that doesn't stop various people from according these ex-royals the status of a prince. They bow low like Puss in Boots and bring offerings of dead rabbits and partridge. The press gobbles it up and the event becomes notable. So, we can report it, but we can't assert a defunct right. We have to state somewhere that Puss In Boots is a children's story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know all that, but it doesn't have much bearing on my point, or RP's. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure I see the point. You said, "There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, ..." I am suggesting there is not. There might be in terms of reportage in celebrity magazines, but we can't twist the words of the law in reporting the gossip. See my revision of Padmanabh Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this is an example of what we should not be doing. The short lead of his grandfather Bhawani Singh is another comical instance of misplaced republican fervour - nothing about what he did in a long life, but great detail about why he stopped being a Maharaja. I realize many Indian bios go much too far the other way. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree about Bhawani Singh. It should have a few sentences in the lead about his military career. It is not misplaced republican fervor though. He was not a ruling Maharaja like his father Man Singh II. He was a nominal Maharaja—without realms—for one year. I will add some sentences to that lead.
- But what should we be doing with young Padmanabh? He is a polo player and a globe-trotting young man of wealth? Please tell me how you would have edited it. The Indian polo team has one offspring of ex-royals and one army man; the rest are civilians. None except young P. has a WP page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your latest edits have made it still worse; it now begins: "Padmanabh Singh (born 2 July 1998) is an Indian polo player. He has been a member of Guards Polo Club in the UK." - this, according to its article, the polo club with the largest membership in Europe. I'm sure most bio articles that we have on members don't even mention that fact, still less as 2nd sentence in the lead! I'm not going to expend mental energy thinking of the many ways we have of giving him a proper lead, since you are only going to rubbish and revert them, as you invariably do. Stop bullying RegentsPark & he can do it - he's on the right path. Remember that we can't have a completely different set of standards for handling India compared to the rest of the world. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Let's just stick to the res Johnbod. This is a useful discussion and no one is being bullied. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I am not writing the biography of the young man, only the lead as a summary of the main body. It is not my job to check the individual links. Nor am I bullying RP, I've known him long enough to not do that. The flaunting of patrilineality in India, a federal republic, which Britain is not, is obviously problematic. I don't mean that RP is doing that; the royal wannabes are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your latest edits have made it still worse; it now begins: "Padmanabh Singh (born 2 July 1998) is an Indian polo player. He has been a member of Guards Polo Club in the UK." - this, according to its article, the polo club with the largest membership in Europe. I'm sure most bio articles that we have on members don't even mention that fact, still less as 2nd sentence in the lead! I'm not going to expend mental energy thinking of the many ways we have of giving him a proper lead, since you are only going to rubbish and revert them, as you invariably do. Stop bullying RegentsPark & he can do it - he's on the right path. Remember that we can't have a completely different set of standards for handling India compared to the rest of the world. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS I've edited Bhawani Singh's lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that is obviously something of an improvement, so thanks. I think "titular ruler" is best avoided - it's surely not a common term, it wasn't at all clear to me what it meant, and the article is little help. Is Elizabeth II a titular ruler? She seems to meet the definition in the article. When did maharajas become "titular", and who says so? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- As for "titular ruler," it has been used in India from the early 19th century onward from the time the Mughals became rulers of a few square miles around Delhi, but retained the title of Emperors of Hindustan, and the British parked a Regent in Old Delhi. RP and I had worked on the article on the Regents, but I can't find it now. (Note also, OED, Third Edition March 2019; not old): "titular adj, nominal, esp. as opposed to real or actual. Usually, but not always, with the implication that no powers or functions attach to the title." After 1947 (or 48) the Maharajas/Nawabs, who were nominally sovereign in the Raj to being with, lost all power to govern. They only had the pension, the privileges, and the titles. "Extinguishable glamor," as Naipaul put it, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Here it is List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–57. It had begun in the time of Company rule. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the titular ruler of Hindustan. I haven't checked, but I'm sure many sources exist. Indirect rule by the British, as you know, continued during the Raj, with a British agent, resident, or regent stationed in the princely state's capital. But the Indian princes had some limited sovereignty until 1947, when they lost it all. Nothing remained but the title (after a small period of adjustment, that is). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- As for "titular ruler," it has been used in India from the early 19th century onward from the time the Mughals became rulers of a few square miles around Delhi, but retained the title of Emperors of Hindustan, and the British parked a Regent in Old Delhi. RP and I had worked on the article on the Regents, but I can't find it now. (Note also, OED, Third Edition March 2019; not old): "titular adj, nominal, esp. as opposed to real or actual. Usually, but not always, with the implication that no powers or functions attach to the title." After 1947 (or 48) the Maharajas/Nawabs, who were nominally sovereign in the Raj to being with, lost all power to govern. They only had the pension, the privileges, and the titles. "Extinguishable glamor," as Naipaul put it, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that is obviously something of an improvement, so thanks. I think "titular ruler" is best avoided - it's surely not a common term, it wasn't at all clear to me what it meant, and the article is little help. Is Elizabeth II a titular ruler? She seems to meet the definition in the article. When did maharajas become "titular", and who says so? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this is an example of what we should not be doing. The short lead of his grandfather Bhawani Singh is another comical instance of misplaced republican fervour - nothing about what he did in a long life, but great detail about why he stopped being a Maharaja. I realize many Indian bios go much too far the other way. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure I see the point. You said, "There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, ..." I am suggesting there is not. There might be in terms of reportage in celebrity magazines, but we can't twist the words of the law in reporting the gossip. See my revision of Padmanabh Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I know all that, but it doesn't have much bearing on my point, or RP's. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is very clear in India: there are no princes (let alone "Kings" which in any case the British never called them; Maharaja, Raja, Nawab were all translated as "princes;" there was only one King and he sat in London.), no thrones, no titles, no titular princes, no pretenders, no second-order claimants, no courtiers, ... there is nothing. But as you wisely say about the French and Germans ex-royalty, that doesn't stop various people from according these ex-royals the status of a prince. They bow low like Puss in Boots and bring offerings of dead rabbits and partridge. The press gobbles it up and the event becomes notable. So, we can report it, but we can't assert a defunct right. We have to state somewhere that Puss In Boots is a children's story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler's sources on princely titles
The logic, in my view, is straightforward. WP rules and guidelines require us to pay attention to
Secondary sources published by academic publishers
|
---|
1947–1949
1971 Constitutional Amendment aftermath
Princely India and Western Tourists
|
Tertiary sources
|
---|
|
Trade non-fiction
|
---|
|
Discussion
- I think it is fairly clear that that the titles no longer exist and that we can't label someone "Maharaja of xyz". The question, in my mind, is whether we should include text on their lineage (assuming reliable sources do that) and, if yes, should it be in the lead. For example, a search on Padmanabh Singh shows that the Indian press routinely refer to him as "Maharaja" so the lineage is an important part of his biography. I'd lean toward something like what's in this Forbes profile. An example [1]. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I think we could say, "He is a descendant of the former ruling family of Jaipur State from 1970 to 1971. I will shortly propose something for all royals, titular royals, and descendants of titular royals in India. Please hold on. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is also a problem with your edit which states that he would have been King had princely titles not been abolished in 1971. Much Indian royalty like royalty in many lands was governed by strict patrilineality, to the point that in patriarchal societies such as Rajputana rulers who had only daughters adopted sons to perpetuate the family. But India is a republic in which legal heirs are what a will dictates, or in its absence, what the law of the land does, which is gender-neutral. Saying that he "would have" perpetuates an outdated order of succession. Padmanabh Singh's sister is only a year younger. Had she been the first-born, she would not have been called the "Maharani of Jaipur." In that instance, we'd have to say, "Padmanabh Singh would have been King had princely titles not been abolished in 1971 and patrilineal succession continued to be favored," which becomes too complicated. Many in India might favor the patriline, but WP cannot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I think we could say, "He is a descendant of the former ruling family of
- Okay. Let's follow the academic sources and assume for a moment that princely titles were indeed abolished by the 26th Amendment. In that case, then all the claimants to royal titles such as Maharaja, Nawab, etc. are by definition Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia to name a few. Let's not say Padmanabh Singh is "titular Maharaja of Jaipur" or that he would have been Maharaja had titles not been abolished. Instead, let's say that he is the "current head of the erstwhile ruling family of Jaipur" or "pretender to the defunct throne of Jaipur" or both since he actively claims the title by having the press call him a Maharaja. Also, whom a former royal house considers to be its head is up to the family to decide and not bound by Indian laws and Singh became the head of his family by being symbolically crowned a Maharaja. Also, since he is a pretender, we have to include the succession boxes Template:S-pre and Template:S-tul that are specifically for pretenders at the bottom of the page. If reliable sources call someone a Maharaja when those titles have been abolished (something that does not even happen with European claimants), then that person is a pretender and this is the best way to acknowledge that. StellarHalo (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jaipurduring the British Raj. His grandfather was the last persona able to use the title "Maharaja of Jaipur" in independent India.
- A privately chose "head" of descendants of the former princes of Jaipur is like a privately chosen "head" of descendants of Thomas Jefferson. The first doesn't ipso facto receive ratification by the government of the day in India to use the title Maharaja, anymore than does the second permission in the US to call himself president. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I never said the privately chosen head of the erstwhile royal family has the legal right to use an abolished princely title. I was merely suggesting that we acknowledge the fact that Padmanabh Singh and his likes are the heads of their own respective erstwhile royal families and claim royal titles in the same way we do for the articles of the European pretenders I listed above. StellarHalo (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- But the Europeans are claimants to a throne. No descendant of a ruler of an Indian princely state is, as an ancestor signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947. Well, the only two that might have were the old Nizam of Hyderabad from 1948 until his death, and the Nawab of Junagarh, for they were deposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just because their ancestors agreed to disband their princely states willingly as opposed to being deposed by force, does not mean that descendants of rulers cannot claim a defunct throne. The specific circumstances of their monarchies being abolished are not relevant. In fact these people actively claim a throne simply by claiming to have royal titles such as Maharaja while their European counterparts don't even call themselves king. Some of them even have their own coronation ceremonies. StellarHalo (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Where is the scholarly literature about their pursuit of royal titles, or even informal claims to them? (I mean in books published by academic publishers similar to ones in my list above.) On the other hand, if you are talking about (the sociology of) how they are styling themselves to benefit from the fascination princely culture holds among tourists, or some voters, that is a different matter. There may be limited scholarly literature on that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just because their ancestors agreed to disband their princely states willingly as opposed to being deposed by force, does not mean that descendants of rulers cannot claim a defunct throne. The specific circumstances of their monarchies being abolished are not relevant. In fact these people actively claim a throne simply by claiming to have royal titles such as Maharaja while their European counterparts don't even call themselves king. Some of them even have their own coronation ceremonies. StellarHalo (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- But the Europeans are claimants to a throne. No descendant of a ruler of an Indian princely state is, as an ancestor signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947. Well, the only two that might have were the old Nizam of Hyderabad from 1948 until his death, and the Nawab of Junagarh, for they were deposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I never said the privately chosen head of the erstwhile royal family has the legal right to use an abolished princely title. I was merely suggesting that we acknowledge the fact that Padmanabh Singh and his likes are the heads of their own respective erstwhile royal families and claim royal titles in the same way we do for the articles of the European pretenders I listed above. StellarHalo (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
legacy
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
rmajor
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Saif Ali Khan is now the 10th Nawab of Pataudi". The Times of India. 1 November 2011. Archived from the original on 2 November 2011. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
@Fowler&fowler: clearly I was wrong to assume that the present scions are only notable as per WP for being sportspersons or business magnates and not because of their titles. Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar is notable for being the Maharaja of Mysore. A similar case is Shahu II of Kolhapur. defcon5 (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- :) And @MOS:INDICSCRIPTS. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. I think we need a policy to deal with this issue. We must be clear on one thing that the descendants of Indian princely states are different from European pretenders because there in no monarchy in India so they are not seeking any control of their former states. They just want to use the titles because who wouldn’t want to be called a king.
- Some of these ex royals want to be head of family because that gives extra incentives within their family aka patriarchy and that’s how property is inherited in those families. Most of these property disputes end up in Supreme Court of India. Some of these families still hold coronation ceremonies. These are widely publicised in Indian media.
- Someone of the point that I would like you to include are: There are three category of people were are dealing with
- Group 1: rulers of princely states before Independence of India
- Group 2: titular rulers from Independence to 1971
- Group 3: post 1971 scions
- I don’t think we have any problem with Group 1
- For Group 2 the best lead I think is of Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi
- “Mansur Ali Khan was the son of Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi, the last ruler of the princely state of Pataudi during the British Raj. Upon the death of his father in 1952, and under terms agreed to during the political integration of India, Pataudi succeeded to a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title "Nawab of Pataudi," which lasted until 1971, whereupon all were abolished by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.”
- For Group 3 .. I would suggest “X belongs to the Y family that once ruled the Z princely state.” Or “A is the son of B, the last Maharaja of C”
- If someone from group 3 holds coronation ceremony we will also mention the abolishment of such titles ie the 26th Amendment.
- If a newspaper insists on calling him the “king of Mysore, or King of India or Thalaiva or King Khan” we can mention that “He is referred to in the media as the "Baadshah of Bollywood", "King of Bollywood" and "King Khan", ”. like we already do in articles like SRK defcon5 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's one thing I see to improve in the Pataudi's article. Extend the royalty info in the body. The privy purse and its explanation was all set in the lead, which imo is a bit undue when it's not explained in the body, and all the citations were set in the lead and not the body which probably be the opposite. Also, the career in cricket was not described in the lead, which again imo is a bit undue, most probably because his notability arose from cricket[?]. (This is just related to his article.)
- In general, I think we should find a suitable balance as to what we put in the lead giving due weights, determining how much notability the subject gained/gains from the royalty. — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DEFCON5: and @DaxServer: Very well put. I pretty much agree with you. I have been myself toying with "Group N" schemata by editing some pages, e.g. Group 1 Jiwajirao Scindia, Man Singh II, and Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi (who I might note in passing seems to be wearing a field hockey jersey, unless I've misread the symbols of course.), Group 2 (Madhavrao Scindia, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Bhawani Singh), and Group 3 (Jyotiraditya Scindia, Chitrangada Singh Saif Ali Khan, and Diya Kumari and Padmanabh Singh). And yes the lead of the Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi article is not a summary of the article body. For now, I'm trying to whip the language of the lead into some kind of NPOV form in respect of the royalty issue, flitting from article to article like a bee on caffeine. I beg your indulgence on those pages for some time more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: Also, the notability of articles like Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur, Shivranjani Rajye, Chitrangada Singh, Pragmulji III and several others need to be reconsidered. They are notable for being son or daughter of X and Y. defcon5 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Those are all excellent points, but I'm reluctant to get into issues of notability right now, which are the same for people who are not descendants of royals. They could be descendants of industrialists, Bollywood stars, and so forth. It is the same with the Bharat Ratna articles. There are issues there to be sure, but they are unrelated to the decolonization of the Raj. I think it is best to keep the focus on the princes for now, i.e. on the problems arising from the new ways of styling their roles. In my experience, these proposals take a long time and much effort to implement. The broader their scope the harder it becomes. Once a proposal receives affirmation, though, it can be extended to related contexts with much less effort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: Also, the notability of articles like Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur, Shivranjani Rajye, Chitrangada Singh, Pragmulji III and several others need to be reconsidered. They are notable for being son or daughter of X and Y. defcon5 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- @DEFCON5: and @DaxServer: Very well put. I pretty much agree with you. I have been myself toying with "Group N" schemata by editing some pages, e.g. Group 1 Jiwajirao Scindia, Man Singh II, and Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi (who I might note in passing seems to be wearing a field hockey jersey, unless I've misread the symbols of course.), Group 2 (Madhavrao Scindia, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Bhawani Singh), and Group 3 (Jyotiraditya Scindia, Chitrangada Singh Saif Ali Khan, and Diya Kumari and Padmanabh Singh). And yes the lead of the Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi article is not a summary of the article body. For now, I'm trying to whip the language of the lead into some kind of NPOV form in respect of the royalty issue, flitting from article to article like a bee on caffeine. I beg your indulgence on those pages for some time more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- StellarHalo is correct to say that "we should treat them on WP like we treat the pretenders from other parts of the world such as Europe". But defcon5 & Fowler are mistaken in thinking that any active degree of pretending is necessary to be a "pretender", or of claiming to be a "claimant"; most of the European examples listed above made no actual claims at all, and many often said so, like the grandest of them all, Otto von Habsburg. English lacks a good term for the heir to a royal "claim" who is completely accepting of his position in a republic. The important thing to note is that all those examples give in the lead the sort of information (however phrased) that Fowler et al are trying to suppress in the Indian cases. This just won't do. If a person is the head of the family that were formerly rulers of a significant princely state (one could count the guns in the salute) then this should be mentioned. Minor families and minor relations I'm less concerned about. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod: The European pretenders are claimants to thrones of monarchies. The 562 rulers of Indian princely states, big or small, existed at the pleasure and under the protection of the British Raj. They had no sovereignty in foreign affairs, defense, or communication, and only a limited one in internal affairs. When the princes traveled abroad, they used the British Indian passport. They were creations of the British, part of a strategy of indirectly governing the less profitable regions of the Indian empire. Please find some scholarly references published in the 21st-century which refer to the descendants of former Indian princes as "pretenders" or "claimants" to anything. Please also see my reply to SH above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- As usual, you sail clear past my points, and repeat irrelevant stuff you've already said many times. In fact none of these are points of difference with European "pretenders" - the German princes had had no political power since 1870 or earlier, much further back than the maharajas, and few of their states had ever been independent sovereign states. In fact I think the average Indian royal does a good deal more "pretending" than the average Euro one, without asserting a claim with any seriousness. As I've now said several times, I don't support that vocabulary anyway. For the heads of the important princely families, there is no doubt that they are notable, usually mostly notable, for that, and we should not suppress that information, but treat them as the Euros are treated. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod: The European pretenders are claimants to thrones of monarchies. The 562 rulers of Indian princely states, big or small, existed at the pleasure and under the protection of the British Raj. They had no sovereignty in foreign affairs, defense, or communication, and only a limited one in internal affairs. When the princes traveled abroad, they used the British Indian passport. They were creations of the British, part of a strategy of indirectly governing the less profitable regions of the Indian empire. Please find some scholarly references published in the 21st-century which refer to the descendants of former Indian princes as "pretenders" or "claimants" to anything. Please also see my reply to SH above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't care what terms WP uses for the Europeans. In
- Imo, these titles are affectations and words like "claimant" and "pretender" don't apply here. However, and I think that's what Johnbod, defcon5 and others are getting at above, the fact that someone is direct progeny of an actual maharaja, and assuming that news outlets make a big deal of this, then that is a part of their notability and we need to say something about that. For example, we could say, in the lead, "Singh is the titular descendant of Maharaja xyz, the last ruler of the princely state of Jaipur". We don't call him a Maharaja, we make it clear that the last Maharaja has come and gone. The body can then explain the abolishment of privy purses, titles etc., material that is probably overkill in the lead. The point is less what is the legal position of these people and more one of how they are viewed in the world. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, that is what I have said several times. I don't think it is necessary to go into too much detail on the abolition of the titles - presumably there is a link we can use for that. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- RegentsPark: Defcon5 and I don't really disagree. His point above about Chitrangada Singh, for example, if I have understood him correctly, is not that she is notable because she is the grand-daughter of the last ruler Gwalior but that as it is the only thing she is notable for, her notability should be reconsidered, and her page AfD'd (perhaps). Note he uses "reconsider."
- As for your point about mentioning the relationship in the lead, I have already done that in each of the group 3 subjects (ie grandchildren of the last rulers). But young Padmanabh is the great-grandchild, i.e. in a putative group 4, which we have not considered as the relationship is tenuous. Man Singh II had died nearly 30 years before Padmanabh was born.
- If someone is a great-great-great-great-nephew of the last Maharaja of X and his cousins who trace a more direct lineage are all females, and if the media makes a big deal of his Maharaja-hood, do we give him WP notability? I'm suggesting Group 3 is where forms of notability that are derived from cultural ways of interpreting descent should stop. If tomorrow young Padmanabh manages to become polo's Jahangir Khan, sure we'll mention in passing that he is the great-grandson of Man Singh II. But in my view beyond Group 3, they'll need to be notable for something other than heredity and gender. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod has much more faith in Wikipedia links than I do. My principle, borne out for example in the leads of all the first-level Kashmir-related pages (WP:TERTIARY(for due) in one citation containing a list of references. It might seem like overkill to some, but it works. The Kashmir-related pages have become quiet after the consensus achieved here in my proposal of August 2019. Something similar is what I will propose here later today.
- Johnbod also says something about the top gun-salute states, but the small states of Rajasthan were never the top ones. I'm guessing Jaipur is 17 or 15 gun salutes not 21 like the big five (Kashmir, Baroda, Gwalior, Hyderabad, and Mysore). There is another even more important aspect here. How far back in history do we go? Surely, Indian rebellion of 1857? Not a single one of the princely states uttered a peep. Yet this was the decisive event of both Company and Raj history.Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS @RegentsPark: Speaking of Awadh and great-grandchildren, I have just created Kaukab Quder Meerza (my version permalink). It shows how low-key the descent should be phrased for "Group 4, the great-grandchildren." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- PPS Also copying the others who have thus far participated in the discussion: @StellarHalo:, @DEFCON5:, @Johnbod:, @DaxServer: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) Needless to say, we WP:GNG. All and any "local" guidelines, such as for sport, are only indications of presumed notability under the GNG, so if a prince or princess gets sufficient suitable coverage, they are in, whether their ancestors hid in cupboards (surely the sensible move, frankly; even the Afghans could see that) or not. If the princes were suspicious of what their fate would be under an independent Indian state, well history shows they were right to be so. The Rani of Jhansi doesn't presumably have any surviving descendents. I don't think "we" are favouring anyone (though clearly there is some disfavouring going on), we just deal with what our editorship throws up, and can reference. Trying to blame interest in these figures on the West ("tourists" etc) won't work - we all know the Indian public is far more interested in them. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod has much more faith in Wikipedia links than I do. My principle, borne out for example in the leads of all the first-level Kashmir-related pages (
- Indeed, that is what I have said several times. I don't think it is necessary to go into too much detail on the abolition of the titles - presumably there is a link we can use for that. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not interested in issues of notability. Please see my reply here to DEFCON5. Notability, as I say in the reply, is unrelated to the Raj. I'm interested only in language that describes a person's relation to the ruler of a princely state that is supported both in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:TERTIARY. Nor am I interested in rationales for the rulers of the large princely states and most others sitting out the Indian rebellion of 1857. (Had they all chosen to join, it is not clear at all that the British would have survived in India, at least in the near term.) When we make a big to-do about one group, we discriminate against others. But that is not my main concern, which as I say above is to establish a common language for describing all descendants if they are notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do please stop these tiresome outdents all the time! Needless to say, it was you who introduced 1857, which is indeed entirely off-topic! Quite why academic scholarship should be concerned with these figures escapes me, but a diligent search may turn up some useful ways of putting things; likewise a search of the Indian press. One of your approved examples above, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, seems pretty poor to me. I found the "royal" mention very confusingly phrased, even knowing the general background; heaven knows what a (say) Brazilian reader new to the subject would make of it. But I await your promised draft with interest. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did introduce 1857, but I did not offer a rationale for why it was in the interest of the princes to sit it out. The Indian press? Of course not. They are a part of the "sell" to tourists both foreign (mostly) and Indian (the ones who can afford the nightly rate at the palaces). Do we source the lead of the 2020 Delhi riots to the Indian press? Of course not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- That was a story that received considerable international coverage, even if much of it was based on the more neutral parts of the Indian media. Whether we were correct to mostly prefer outside sources is a question - perhaps we were. But there are very many areas of Indian life where this international coverage does not exist, & we source directly to Indian media. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did introduce 1857, but I did not offer a rationale for why it was in the interest of the princes to sit it out. The Indian press? Of course not. They are a part of the "sell" to tourists both foreign (mostly) and Indian (the ones who can afford the nightly rate at the palaces). Do we source the lead of the 2020 Delhi riots to the Indian press? Of course not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Bharat Ratna and Padma awards
This is a sidetrack but it is somehow releated to the use of titles in India. The government of India clearly states that Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not titles and cannot be used as prefix or suffix to names. See here But a lot of Wikipedia articles use them as honorifics and titles. Eg. Sumitra Guha, Nandalal Bose,Teejan Bai, Nanaji Deshmukh. If any policy regarding titles is formed, this should also be included. defcon5 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agree Also, all the instances where Bharat Ratna or Padma Awards are used as prefixes/suffixes should be removed asap. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agree This is long overdue; the prefixes must be removed ASAP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agree They are not needed either as titles or post-nominals. And it is not just the Indian awards. I have just disabused Ratan Tata and Amartya Sen of British post-nominals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion to Remove caste from all Wikipedia articles dedicated to Indians celebs such as Politicians, Authors, Sportsmen, Filmstars etc.
There is a misconception among Indian Hindus that a person born in a so-called "High Caste" is different from the rest. Let us take an example of the modern-day Brahmin & Kshatriya caste or community.
A person who never read, nor touched a single Hindu scripture in his entire life, will still be labelled a Brahmin! just because he is born in a family of self-proclaimed "High birth, Upper Caste". I urge Hindus to read their scriptures to get the definition of a Brahmin before labelling anyone whomsoever in open. Next, we have our modern-day Kshatriya castes & communities, a person who never hold a sword nor indulged in any kind of battle or warfares in his entire life are still labelled Kshatriya. They boast of their identity of Warrior class lineage.
These delusional beliefs make them believe Somehow they are indifferent from the rest. Frankly, speaking this 15th-century insanity may be promoted & defended by a bunch of illiterate rural Indian villagers who are known to be the chief architects of Indian casteism & racism & the Indian politicians who are well known to fuel this age-old insanity to satisfy the ego of their vote-banks.
The Kingship-Monarchy and Brahminical caste-hierarchy were abolished centuries ago by the Hammer of Law & after the advent of the Indian constitution such Racism & Casteism prevalent among Hindus has been controlled to some extent in rural areas still the majority of uneducated villagers boasting in their occupations of their forefather's believed themselves to be something "Born twice, Born thrice", High Birth as high as the Sky, indifferent from the rest prefer to call themselves Upper castes only to justify their delusions.
If someone belongs to the Hindu religion, then automatically he will be attached to a particular caste according to his surname which I found not only to be dogmatic but also draconian & absurd.
Even in this 21st century Indian Hindus still believes they are attached to a particular caste & community even if that person never did any stuff unlike his forefathers to suit their occupation according to their caste & clan. Hindu religion might be the origin of Indian-casteism (a.k.a the last fort of Caste-hierarchy on earth). These Rural Casteist beliefs should not be propagated, not in this way. Such absurdity may be prevalent among self-proclaimed "high birth Hindus" living in a delusion & rural Indian villagers believing the majority of the Indian residents are somehow inferior since they are born in a particular so-called "Upper Caste". It does remind me of the Nazi Racial Supremacy. This is where it strikes me.
So, therefore, I urge to remove all castes attached to Indians over Wikipedia. ChongPong|Talk, 2:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ChongPong (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @) 15:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: cross-posted at )
Hello, i noticed there are lots of unreliable sources on 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election#Surveys and polls, like NK Digital Magazine, Sudarshan News, Ekhon Biswa Bangla Sangbad etc. It would be great if someone clean the section. Thanks --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Belagaavi Airport#Requested move 25 September 2021
Input is needed at this AFD. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Would you consider helping out at IRC help?
You may be aware that we operate a live help desk via IRC. On a typical day more than 75% of the queries we get are India related. I would be very grateful if experienced editors who have familiarity with Indian languages and cultures would join us. If you are interested, please just come to IRC chat and tell the existing editors that you would like to help out. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Times of India
The problems with
- @Kautilya3 I've started a discussion at RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Circular references from The Times of India, perhaps you could make your point over there as well? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- What I am recommending is already covered by the WP:RSP entry. No further discussion needed. Editors need to see that The Times of India is already regarded as an unreliable source, and they can't keep citing it willy nilly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking of Indian news, when are we blacklisting Republic TV? (1) TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Besides the memes being hilarious, the last RSN discussion is in November 2020. Do you want to start an RfC in RSN, and ask if it should be deprecated and/or blacklisted? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Probably ther is no point. I haven't seen anybody cite the Republic as a source in a long long time. It looks like even the right wing knows it is useless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I see it being cited on film related articles [on my watchlist] regularly. And I see others removing them citing WP:REPUBLICTV, I guess it's going somewhere. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can start an RfC on RSN if no one objects here. It's currently cited on over 1,800 articles, see republicworld.com which includes articles such as Bharatiya Janata Party, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Mamata Banerjee and many other high importance contentious topics. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please do so. Usage in high-profile articles make it significantly important for the RfC — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I have started the RfC now. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please do so. Usage in high-profile articles make it significantly important for the RfC — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can start an RfC on RSN if no one objects here. It's currently cited on over 1,800 articles, see republicworld.com which includes articles such as Bharatiya Janata Party, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Mamata Banerjee and many other high importance contentious topics. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I see it being cited on film related articles [on my watchlist] regularly. And I see others removing them citing WP:REPUBLICTV, I guess it's going somewhere. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Probably ther is no point. I haven't seen anybody cite the Republic as a source in a long long time. It looks like even the right wing knows it is useless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Besides the memes being hilarious, the last RSN discussion is in November 2020. Do you want to start an RfC in RSN, and ask if it should be deprecated and/or blacklisted? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking of Indian news, when are we blacklisting Republic TV? (1) TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- What I am recommending is already covered by the
Thanks! Tayi Arajakate, can you kindly check the usage of Times Now and Zee News across en-wiki articles? I cannot make the tool work. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- TrangaBellam, did, Times Now's usage is similar at over 1,900 articles , Zee News is much more at 4500+ articles, see zeenews.india.com and zeenews.com . Note there's some overlap in results between the two addresses of Zee News. I also checked the archives at RSN and while there are some mentions here and there from years ago, there has been no significant discussion on either of them. Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Back to TOI, I more or less agree with adding the unreliable source tag. If there's support then a WP:BOTREQ could be made to add them en masse. If not then we could add them as we go, like I did. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging Headbomb, who may be able to tell whether a bot like that can be used or not. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Technically, nothing prevents a bot from doing that. The main issue is doing that for a source that's not across-the-board bad, because that's b} 13:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Technically, nothing prevents a bot from doing that. The main issue is doing that for a source that's not across-the-board bad, because that's
- Pinging Headbomb, who may be able to tell whether a bot like that can be used or not. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- TOI: One toned down alternative would be tagging it with
{{Better source needed}}
, example. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)- In the above link, the first TOI source was simply supporting the the film's existence, its director and producer. That's pretty much ) 13:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- In that case a bot is out of the window. I've seen a lot of TOI articles where they simply confirm the existence, dates, awards, details and other announcements - surrounding a film. In the context of films, it might be okay to use for souring those simple facts? Or do we still want to use other sources. Higher quality sources might not publish all the minute soap opera details like TOI does. After all, WP:ICTFFAQ#TOI considers it reliable within the film project scope, with an exception of BLP details. So, I guess we're back to square 1.
- My new suggestion would be going thru the citation usage in important articles (the list started with India, Narendra Modi, ...) and verify the citation, tag them with unreliable source or the better source needed tags, unless it verifies an uncontroversial statements. If one is not sure they can just tag it, with either of the two, and put an edit summary explaining as such? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- In that case a bot is out of the window. I've seen a lot of TOI articles where they simply confirm the existence, dates, awards, details and other announcements - surrounding a film. In the context of films, it might be okay to use for souring those simple facts? Or do we still want to use other sources. Higher quality sources might not publish all the minute soap opera details like TOI does. After all,
- In the above link, the first TOI source was simply supporting the the film's existence, its director and producer. That's pretty much ) 13:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Back to TOI, I more or less agree with adding the unreliable source tag. If there's support then a
- Times of India is a reliable source and there was no consensus to depreciate it in WP:RSN discussions.Even the The Hindu copied wrong information from Wikipedia. We should go article by article we cannot depreciate The Hindu for doing it actually The Hindu is considered most reliable.Times of India and The Hindu are one and two newspapers in India.Both are Newspaper of record182.65.253.165 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Times of India is a reliable source and there was no consensus to depreciate it in
Redirects for Ammendments
I've created redirects for
The article was moved right after she got married, now it has been moved back citing impending divorce. I have no clue about all this, but interested people may want to look into getting this (and the sub articles) titled correctly. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Does Indian States have official flags?
I have noticed the use of flagicons with West Bengal in the infobox of articles like Paschim Medinipur district, Darjeeling district and all other articles about the districts of West Bengal. Does West Bengal or any other Indian states have official flags? Can someone knowledgeable on the topic shed some light on this. Thanks DEFCON5 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- No Indian state has an officially recognized flag at the moment but many of them have MOS:FLAG ("the bulk of these recommendations are also applicable to official seals, coats of arms, and other representations which serve similar purposes to flag images.") -- Ab207 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- They all have their own seals, some are them are based on the national seal with minor modifications while others are more distinct, the West Bengal emblem used in those two articles appears to be one of the latter. On a sidenote, Jammu and Kashmir have unofficial flags which shouldn't be used in this manner, the latter was used in an official capacity till 2019 and can be used in historical contexts. Tayi Arajakate Talk07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- They all have their own seals, some are them are based on the national seal with minor modifications while others are more distinct, the West Bengal emblem used in those two articles appears to be one of the latter. On a sidenote,
Tag & Assess 2021 Update
My abject apologies due to continued ill health, I could not give due attention to this drive.
Update: As of this moment, we have completed 45.9% of the articles needing assessment; more than 5000 articles have been assessed this month. Since there is still a way to go, the drive is being extended for another month till 31 October 2021. We hope that by then, we would have finished the backlog and bring it down to zero. :D
Kudos to @MPGuy2824:, @Titodutta:, @Venkat TL: and @Vis M: for their solid contributions.
Requesting all participants to update their tallies.
We would appreciate more volunteer help to share the load. Please join in. :D
Thank you very much for being patient with me, Sincerely, Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've updated everyone's numbers using a common quarry. It counts only distinct page ids per assessor, and starts from 1 Sep instead of 29 Aug. So, some of your numbers might have reduced. Please inform if you see an error in the query.
- Shout out to @Soumitrahazra: who hadn't added their numbers. They've assessed over 1000 articles. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so (query clause: comment_text LIKE '%India% %Rater%'). If we are following an honor code for manual assessments, maybe you can add a +X to your total from the query. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is just extra work to look for manual assessments. I will update my total count manually. @MPGuy2824, @Titodutta, @AshLin, I think instead of looking for the word Rater, the query should count the talk pages with presence of the word assess in the edit summary. This is what was said on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Assessment/Tag_&_Assess_2021 page. All the assessments manual or semi automated have this feature. Can you please tweak the Query script, for this? Venkat TL (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think so (query clause: comment_text LIKE '%India% %Rater%'). If we are following an honor code for manual assessments, maybe you can add a +X to your total from the query. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Input is needed at this AFD. All opinions welcome. Please note that the current title of article has been modified from
) 14:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Proposed 18-month moratorium on move discussions for Allahabad
There is a discussion currently taking place at
) 10:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)- The requested moves are to Prayagraj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Help on Bangalore Karaga
I have removed 44kb of unsourced, essay-style material from Bangalore Karaga, most of it dating back to 2009. The stuff I removed may or may not be true, but it was all uncited. We need more sources to rebuild the article, and I'd appreciate it if anyone chipped in, or just left some sources on the article in the comment, or on its talk page, or on my talk page. Stuff from books can be emailed to me if you don't have the time to add it to the article yourself. free barnstars for people who help! W. Tell DCCXLVI t | c 05:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
discussion
ok Jksimonboliver (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Indic scripts down in article body
Does the
- This is absurd, it's the English Wikipedia, just because we don't have a rule that says we can't have hidden text that includes swear words in articles, doesn't mean that we do it. —SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- While there is no rule against indic scripts in the body, there are two other policy rules that apply. WP:RS, they need to provide a reliable source that verifies that the indic script representation is accurate. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- One alternative that we all do is adding the IPAs. Most of them are not cited and basically become OR. Some are disputed and edit warred. The rarest of them, the high-importance articles, are resolved by citing RS, as RS exists mostly because they are high-importance. I don't know how we resolve those disputes for everything else. (I generally don't edit them, as I don't know much at the moment.) How do we approach them, broadly construed? — DaxServer (talk to me) 20:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- While there is no rule against indic scripts in the body, there are two other policy rules that apply.
- One problem with Indic scripts is that they're not sourced. Provide a reliable source for such a script and you've done something I don't know that I've ever seen done and something that isn't forbidden by guidelines, at least for the article body. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you do not include the Indic script, then it is practically worthless. Almost all WikiProject Pakistan articles allow this, with all local languages. I tried this for Uttarakhand and Dehradun, it did not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratham12Chawdhry (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
1971 Pakistan-Bangladesh-India
Opinions are welcome at Talk:Pakistan/Archive 21#1971_war. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
State flags
@Mx. Clarks: (contributions) has been adding "proposed flags" to various state articles (e.g., [2]). Could someone confirm that these flags are the actual state flags. Tha "proposed" qualifier attached to the flag names makes me a trifle uneasy. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I tried searching for any news articles, but couldn't find any. I did a reverse image search for Telangana and was able to find two Imgur galleries [3] and [4] with matching Telangana and Odisha flags. Reverse search for other flags might reveal other galleries. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- One can dig into this reddit thread (reverse image matched Bihar) — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Lakshadweep reddit — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Puducherry reddit. I probably will stop now. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. From the reddit thread, this looks like a competition of sorts and apparently Indian states do not have official state flags. Mx. Clarks has been uploading images of these flage and the [5] descriptions give the impression that these are imaginative renderings. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DaxServer: Any idea about all the emblems Mx. Clarke has added?--RegentsPark (comment) 20:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. From the reddit thread, this looks like a competition of sorts and apparently Indian states do not have official state flags. Mx. Clarks has been uploading images of these flage and the [5] descriptions give the impression that these are imaginative renderings. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Mx. Clarks has conveniently used minor edits to add flags to a lot of Indian articles. Some of these images are with captions like “unofficial”. These have to be removed. Currently no state have official flag. 2 states had proposed their flag but are not adopted. DEFCON5 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DaxServer and DEFCON5: The user has uploaded a whole bunch of flags on commons which is always a mess to clean up. Does anyone know how to go about deleting all those files from commons? Otherwise we'll have drive by flag fetish editors repeatedly adding them to state articles.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark You can use VisualFileChange.js on Commons to mass tag for deletion. I can tag them if you want, but which criteria should I tag with? Derivative works? Do you know more? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DaxServer and DEFCON5: The user has uploaded a whole bunch of flags on commons which is always a mess to clean up. Does anyone know how to go about deleting all those files from commons? Otherwise we'll have drive by flag fetish editors repeatedly adding them to state articles.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated sources
When you remove deprecated sources from the article, you also need to remove or fix the content sourced to them. If that is too much work, at least replace them by {{citation neeed}} tags. Otherwise all their disgusting POV will remain for ever, and it will even appear as if it is coming from high-quality sources. See this edit for example.
If you don't have time for anything, then you might just leave a note on the talk page saying the source is deprecated and it should be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
RM: Faizabad division → Ayodhya division
An editor has requested for
Mangalore
Could someone bring an end to the ongoing slow edit-war at Mangalore? — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Census of India is a primary source
It goes without saying that the Census of India is a primary source. But there seems to be a tendency among editors (both newbies and long-term editors) to pick up spreadsheets from the census web site and tabulate them.
At a minimum, we should be using the District Census Handbooks, which make at least some effor to interpret the data and sometimes visibly give up. For example, the 2011 census handbooks don't report the 2011 language data. They only report 2001 language data. Even then, I see subtle variations in how the data is described. For example, the Pithoragarh district census handbook says: "Distribution of different mother tongues according to population with percentage as returned in 2001
". The Tawang district census handbook says instead: "Number of persons who returned the language in...
". We need to use language that reflects the uncertainties instead of writing dubiously factual statements like "X% of people speak Y language". If the Y language is not something recognized by linguists, we need to be even more careful.
Similarly, we should be saying X people are classifed as
Let us start getting disciplined now, before the caste census nigtmares hit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Don't really see the "nightmare" manifesting anytime soon. Agree as to rest. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
List of prime ministers of India
Could someone verify the lead at List of prime ministers of India, which is a Featured List? — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DaxServer: Thanks for noticing. The article which is nothing but the lead is in very poor shape, full of vague but popular POV. It needs to be FLR'd and delisted. How it managed to become an FL is a mystery. It could be that no one pays attention to these articles. I've fixed a few things, one of which was that Bose was a prime minister of "India" during the war. But they forgot to mention that Nehru was the interim PM from 1946 to 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Father of India; converting a redirect to a disambiguation page
- Mahatma Gandhi
- Sardar Patel
- BR Ambedkar
- Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
- Subhas Chandra Bose
The correct location for this would be
- Oppose no basis given for the proposal. Venkat TL (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- talk) 12:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as it is commonly used by the media. See "Gandhi Jayanti 2021: Inspirational quotes by 'Father of the Nation' Mahatma Gandhi". Firstpost. 2 October 2021. Venkat TL (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the dab page. Take Ambedkar, for example. He was the head of the drafting committee of India's constitution; he didn't write the constitution: it was discussed sentence by sentence by the Constituent Assembly. But, ... as is well-known, large parts of the Government of India Act, 1935. The preamble and the directive principles are largely inspired by the Constitution of Ireland and the Constitution of the United States. Compare the two preambles: Ireland and India; Ireland's is not secular, of course, but many ideas there are similar, especially the last sentence. Ambedkar was a sharp man no doubt, and a profound leader of the Dalits, but generally such lists either become all-inclusive (a phone book) or represent POV. Perhaps a page called "Founders of modern India" (note "fathers" is not gender-neutral) could be created starting with Alan Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji, ..., Tilak, Gokhale, Annie Besant, ... Gandhi, CR Das, the two Nehrus, C. Rajagopalachari, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Maulana Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Sarojini Naidu, Amrit Kaur, ... and others such as CV Raman, Tagore, JC Basu, ... or simply delete the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a strong rationale here; the primary usage of the term is for Gandhi, by a very large margin. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Mother of India; redirect to Mother Teresa needs more thought
- talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Mother of India should be deleted as per current redirect with no references. talk) 12:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Quite interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Mother of India should be deleted as per current redirect with no references.
- Bharat Mata seems the obvious redirect. I'll change it. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, ... India is the mother in ...
- India is also Hindustan, which is masculine—its maleness heard far and wide in the Indian Army's most popular marching song.
- ..., still, yours is probably a better choice than MT, who in any case has been promoted to Saint Teresa of Calcuttaby the Vatican, ...
- ... I would have preferred Mother India (disambiguation), with pride of visualization given to a a Muslim lady. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- PS In any case, I've rewritten the Bharat Mata lead, made is more comprehensive and accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Indian media coverage of the China clash
Sushant Singh, a respected editor of the Indian Express on security affairs, who either quit or got axed in the midst of the China border clashes last year, wrote a commentary on the recent PLA video releases of captured Indian soldiers. I recommend everybody read the piece to understand the deplorable state of Indian media and how not to use it in Wiipedia. Here is a sample:
The Hindu was the only national daily that prominently reported the [soldiers'] release on its front page on June 19, and almost every other newspaper, television channel and web portal remained silent till then. Prior to that, journalists asking the Army for information on soldiers taken captive were stonewalled and asked to abstain from reporting. The journalists complied, most out of habit and a few others presumed this concession was to prevent harm to Indian soldiers in captivity. I wrote about the media coverage of the Ladakh crisis in The Caravan in December 2020.
He also linked a Wikipage section,
) 07:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Got this in my Twitter feed. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't really looked at the links, but China in the best of times is a much more closed society than India. For that reason alone I would cut much slack to the Indians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- This issue here is not China vs India but whether the Indian news media is a reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I mean a China-India clash is not the best context to judge reliability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- This issue here is not China vs India but whether the Indian news media is a reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Infobox picture in Education in India
The picture showing the children of well-heeled parents is not only unrepresentative of a country in which the vast majority of children go to modest state-supported schools, but has also been uploaded by a banned editor. Could someone do the needful? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- A good point. The image appears to be out of place as one lands of the page for some reason I cannot account for at the moment. I have replaced it with a placeholder image depicting Indian schoolchildren with the prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru until a more suitable image can be found. Kindly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.155.222 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, students of The Doon School are representatives of Indian education. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I put the old image back - it's been there for ages< & is certainly better than the Doon School decades ago. All the images in the article need regular checking. That sculpture should go for a start. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to be this school, or, well, it is also on its page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I put the old image back - it's been there for ages< & is certainly better than the Doon School decades ago. All the images in the article need regular checking. That sculpture should go for a start. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, students of The Doon School are representatives of Indian education. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Scoopwhoop.com
Any ideas about this "news and entertainment" website? In particular, is hindi.scoopwhoop.com reliable for historical material?--RegentsPark (comment) 12:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's a Buzzfeed-esque site, their quality varies wildly, it ranges from rather serious documentaries to whatever this is. So really depends on what you are talking about. Though in general, I wouldn't rely on any news site for historical material. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, if someone who can read Hindi can take a look at Draft:Alan Singh, that would be very helpful.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Certain that Tod got this from some bardic chronicle, if at all. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I can't find a reference to an Alan Singh in Tod (there is an Alan Deva but not associated with Amber or a "Chanda dynasty"). The only possible references are the ones in Hindi. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Certain that Tod got this from some bardic chronicle, if at all. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, if someone who can read Hindi can take a look at Draft:Alan Singh, that would be very helpful.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Newcomer requesting help with article
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Club. I created a sandbox page to revise it but would like specific feedback , instead of general feedback. Can you please help? Here is a revised draft I rewrote, after the first one was declined but with general feedback and not specific feedback on the sections. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Bengal_Club
Thank you
Anderson1970 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Anderson1970 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- @conflict of interest, if, for example, you're connected to the club, you need to make that known. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir#Requested move 20 October 2021
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir#Requested move 20 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 15:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Bapu#Requested move 2 October 2021
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bapu#Requested move 2 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 17:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Vizol Koso#Requested move 5 October 2021
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vizol Koso#Requested move 5 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 23:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
New article for monastery split from Telhara, Nalanda district
Hi, given that the historical monastery receives more news and academic attention than the locality itself, is it okay if I create a new article for the monastery? Some advice needed if it’s okay to proceed. Thanks.KashKarti (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Atmanirbhar Bharat#Requested move 22 October 2021
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Atmanirbhar Bharat#Requested move 22 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 13:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, everyone,
I was going through expiring drafts today and came upon this draft that I think might be for a notable organization in India. It needs some clean up work but if the content is accurate, it sounds like a sizeable group doing social work in the country. I was hoping someone with content building skills could look it over. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede. Venkat TL (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Pawayan#Requested move 9 October 2021
There is a sudden explosion of new content on this page [6]. Can knowledgeable people monitor it and check it for accuracy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Virat Kohli
Could some knowledgeable in Virat Kohli / Cricket involve with the article and improve its stability. It was setup for a third GA nomination and yet failed (delisted in the past). I believe there is a content dispute going on right now. Thanks! — DaxServer (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Kachwaha
The Kachwaha dynasty was established by Dulherai after the end of Raja Alan Singh Chanda, the ruler of Chanda dynasty. Therefore, in the history of Kachwaha dynasty, include the history of Raja Alan Singh Chanda, the ruler of Chanda dynasty.[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Opinion on a book at Yudhishthira
- Chatterjee, Mallar (2017). Yudhisthira: The Unfallen Pandava. Readomania.
The description says "The Unfallen Pandava is an imaginary autobiography of Yudhishthira" and thus I've removed it as a ref from the page [7]. Is the book reliable in the context, and should I restore it back? — DaxServer (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Good removal. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Mathematics in India#Requested move 18 October 2021
Opinions requested - secularism
Opinions requested regarding secularism in the modern Republic of India at Talk:Religion_in_India#About_secularism of the Religion in India talk page. Thanks in advance. W. Tell DCCXLVI t | c 18:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests needs work from an expert in History to fix the bias and weight issues. Venkat TL (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Thiyya
This Thiyya has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Malayalam .language of Kerala, where the caste is from,Thiyya wikipedia already exits for years :
https://ml.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%80%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%BC
In 2020 July, Kerala state government has issued an order to record Thiyya as Thiyya and not as a part of Ezhava nor its subcaste. In India, converting or writing one caste as another is a criminal offense.
Link to order kerala government's order from their official site :
https://education.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/govt.order_3072020.pdf
See the Kerala state government order and the followed news report given on right.
I hope Wikipedia also abides by the Indian Kerala government's official government order on the Thiyya caste.
So I request you to remove the redirect of
)Pls deal with the repeated political-POV attempts to push Ayyavazhi
In the article titled
Earlier today, I had removed the "Ayyavazhi" related text from the above-mentioned article with the edit comment "Ayyavazhi is not a recognised religion, just political movement of select few. it is classified as part of hinduism in indian constitution. Wikipedia is not a place to push for WP:POV politcal agenda. I have removed this sections", seehere] (my edit there is time and IP stamped as "18:20, 2 August 2021 58.182.176.169". My edit was reverted by the user LauritzT, which I undid after leaving a message here on this notice board. I also left a message on the article's talk page so that future editors on that article can be guided by the India Project's decision if ever there is edit dispute on this topic again. Whichever way you guys decide, based on the past discussions on this topics, is fine by me. I am concerned that people might try to sneak in POLITICAL POV agenda on less watched articles.
I will not be involved in this further. I call upon India Project experts, who know the topics and have knowledge of prior decisions/decision on this matter, to please take care of this issue to its logical conclusion, i.e. whatever is your decision please ensure it gets applied to the article mentioned above.
Thanks you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rohit Thakur (politician) § Requested move 2 November 2021. Venkat TL (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Pseudo-secularism#Requested move 25 October 2021
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pseudo-secularism#Requested move 25 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 21:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Akhtar Hameed Khan Featured article review
I have nominated
No response to semi-protected edit request
I made a semi-protected edit request here on 30 October 2021 but nobody has responded. Please do what I have requested there, that is, link the word, "unbelievers" to the Kafir article. Please also link the first occurence of the word, "non-Muslim" in the Dhimmi article, to the Kafir article, that is, for the first sentence of the article, "Dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي ḏimmī, IPA: [ˈðimmiː], collectively أهل الذمة ahl aḏ-ḏimmah/dhimmah "the people of the covenant") or Mu'ahid is a historical term for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection", add a link for the word non-Muslims like this: non-Muslims. 116.75.72.217 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Edit requests sometimes take time to be responded to. Please be patient. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- GenoV84, can you please do the needful (I saw that you edited one of those articles recently)?- 223.186.75.23 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Venkat TL, can you take a look at both those sentences and add the link as asked?-
- DaxServer, can you do the needful?-
- Karsan Chanda, can you add the links in those 2 articles?-
- Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, can you add the links in those 2 articles?-
- Karsan Chanda, can you add the links in those 2 articles?-
- DaxServer, can you do the needful?-
- Venkat TL, can you take a look at both those sentences and add the link as asked?-
- GenoV84, can you please do the needful (I saw that you edited one of those articles recently)?- 223.186.75.23 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Alan Singh
(Rajput Treachery and Mina Foster-father) The story of (THE MINAS: Seeking a Place in History) the subject in the book (The Social and the Symbolic: Volume II) is that of Alan Singh Chanda.[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Add this story to Alan Singh Chanda page? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Please help me. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Karsan Chanda: As I note in this edit, that source is of no use in the Draft:Alan Singh article and is also of no use in asserting any sort of dynastic rule by the Meenas. Quite the contrary actually, since the source says that the Meenas, through their mythology, are inventing a past that did not actually exist. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
There are indeed quite a changes to the Featured List - promoted version vs now. Could someone review the changes? (@Fowler&fowler if you'd like to :) ) — DaxServer (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DaxServer: Unfortunately, I don't know too much about them after Zakir Hussain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Proposal
We can organise an editathon, to destub articles and improve to GA status. Also, reviving the newsletter, revamping the Wikiproject design etc. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)
Please can a speaker of the relevant language (probably Hindi) look at the newspaper cuttings on this school's website. Do these cuttings indicate that the school is sufficiently notable to justify a Wikipedia article?
Please add any comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, not at all justify the notability Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 07:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India
I have nominated
Requested move at Talk:Mughal Museum#Requested move 1 November 2021
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mughal Museum#Requested move 1 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR talk 20:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriental studies § Proposed merge of Asian studies with Oriental studies. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Location question
Kamal Ahmed (music director) says this person was born in Gurgaon (present Haryana). A source says Gorgaun or Gor Gaun UP (which I believe is United Provinces in 1937). I have found a Gurgaon in Uttar Pradesh, which is not in WP anywhere that I can find. Is this article currently wrong by linking to Gurgaon? MB 13:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Might need page protection?
37.6.3.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) deleted a large amount of content from various pages including your userbox templates. Should some of this be semi-protected? Adakiko (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- @) 10:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Prospective tree chart that needs to be wikified
How can this tree chart be wikified so that it can be used in articles such as
Draft constitution (Constituent Assembly of India) | 26 October 1947, Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir princely state to the Union of India | Prime Ministers (Dewans) of Jammu and Kashmir princely state (1947-1965) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 306 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Constitution of India | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 370 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Constitution of India (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Second Amendment Order 1952 (C.O. 48) | Sadr-e-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 35A | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 Presidential orders were issued between 11 February 1956 and 19 February 1994 | Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir adopted 17 November 1956 | Governor of Jammu and Kashmir | Chief Ministers of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (1965-2019) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 August 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article 35A stands abolished | The Constitution (Application to J&K) Order, 2019 (C.O. 272) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
C.O. 272 supersedes C.O. 48 | Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir rendered infructuous | Rajya Sabha passes J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 August 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As of August 2021, there have been 105 amendments of the Constitution of India since it was first enacted in 1950. | Declaration under Article 370(3) of the Constitution (C.O. 273) | Lok Sabha passes J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Presidential assent for J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 on 9 August 2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Union Territory of Ladakh | Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir | Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh | Chief Minister of union territory of Jammu and Kashmir | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reorganisation Orders: Five orders deal with the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and three with the union territory of Ladakh | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- talk) 06:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies if I implied that, but I meant advertise on WT:INDIA about a discussion in progress on the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization talk page. The problem is that what you have there is a bunch of disconnected timelines, as people have already pointed out on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
What do we do about these articles?
- Observances in Kashmir, Jammu
- 19 January— Jammu and Kashmir Exodus Day
- 5 February— Kashmir Solidarity Day
- New York marks Kashmir-American Day
- 13 July— Kashmir Martyrs' Day
- A black day for some Kashmir related organizations
- 22 October— Jammu and Kashmir Black Day (Invasion Day)
- 24 October— Azad Kashmir Day
- 26 October— Jammu and Kashmir Accession Day
- Other black days also observed by specific groups
- 19 January—
(Disclosure- I have created two-
Tagging you Fowler&fowler following your comments. While each of these may have POV, I've tried to balance it out by creating the above tree list; the articles between themselves intend to balance each other out and address POV. However, in this attempt I think POV within each article hasn't been adequately addressed, irrespective of the size of the articles at this stage. POV will be addressed. However just now I want to ask-
- Can we create a page List of observances related to Kashmir?
It starts off with the line- The Government of Pakistan and the Government of India observe various days related to the Kashmir conflict. There are a number of unofficial observances as well.
- and then just list the days. There are more days such as 14 September, Martyrdom Day when
Awards
I think someone more familiar with India-related topics should see if the awards won by Umar Alisha are significant enough to remove the proposed deletion tag. SL93 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta. Venkat TL (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this list and see if we have mythological kings mixed up with historically verifiable ones? For example, Yudhishthira is listed as a Kuru king while the article Yudhishthira is vague about his actual existence. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, you can bet we do! Nor are the legendary listings very complete, it seemed to me. But it's not all that easy to draw a clear line between the two groups. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Nehru – Hagia Sophia – First publishing ?
In an article Jawaharlal Nehru refers to mosqueing of Hagia Sophia. The article seems to be written some months after 1935, has been republished as editorial selection for 2 part reprint by Mridula Mukherjee in w:National Herald India :
- Nehru’s Word: A tale of two mosques (17 Oct 2021) &
- Nehru’s Word: The Story of Hagia Sophia (24 Oct 2021)
Requesting help in finding out, when it was first published ,Books or news–media name and the name of publication?
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Any Malayalam language Wikipedians around?
Greetings,
Since past few months as online social media activity among Malayalam atheist Ex-Muslims increased, some of their online activism is spilling over in some of en Wikipedia articles. No doubt their initial enthusiasm is in good faith but successfully writing and navigating among English Wikipedia's numerous rules is a different ball game.
If sooner atheist Ex-Muslims are not trained and mentored for working on en Wikipedia lot many of their effort can get wasted, since some of them are not using references expected to en Wikipedia standard, for example
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
2020 Uttarakhand forest fires needs updated
The
- Thanks for the heads-up, I'll work on expanding it. Naushervan (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated
Need immediate attention
Please some admin or senior editors close the AfD at
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhu-vidya
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhu-vidya. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbhadhan (astrology)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbhadhan (astrology). Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hindu festival dates
Looking through the various wikipages pertaining to Hindu festivals, I find that there is no standard way of presenting the Hindu calendar dates in the holiday infobox. This leads to a set of problems / inconsistencies:
- The months of all festivals that fall in krishna paksha are incomplete (Krishna Janmashtami, Karva Chauth, Naraka Chaturdashi, Maha Shivaratri). These dates must mention two months (to account for amanta and purnimanta tradition) which the wikipages never do.
- Even in the case of festivals that fall in Shukla paksha, many of the dates are imprecise or plain wrong (Naga Panchami does not say which paksha the festival occurs in; Rama Navami says "ninth day of Chaitra" which is correct only in the amanta tradition, in the purnimanta tradition this will become 14th day; the term "day" should more correctly be qualified as "lunar day" etc.).
- There is no consistency across festivals (See table below for a sample).
Festival | Date field in infobox |
---|---|
Gudi Padwa | Chaitra Shuddha Pratipada |
Rama Navami | Ninth day of Chaitra (Chaitra Shukla Paksha Navami) |
Akshaya Tritiya | late April-early May |
Guru Purnima | Ashadha Purnima (Shukla paksha, Bright lunar fortnight Full Moon) (June–July) |
Naga Panchami | Fifth day (Panchami) of the month of Shravana month of the Lunar calendar |
Raksha Bandhan | Purnima (full moon) of Shrawan |
Krishna Janmashtami | <No date specified> |
Ganesh Chaturthi | Bhadrapada (August–September) |
Vijaya Dashami | Ashvin (September or October) |
Karva Chauth | <No date specified> |
Naraka Chaturdashi | Kartik Krishna Chaturdashi |
Lakshmi Puja | Kartik Amavasya |
Bali Padyami | <No date specified> |
Bhai Dooj | Kartika Shukla Dwitiya |
Vasant Panchami | <No date specified> |
Maha Shivaratri | <No date specified> |
Holi | Per Hindu calendar |
I felt this could do with some standardization. Hence, I have written a template {{Hindu festival date}} which presents the Hindu calendar date using Sanskrit terms (encoded in IAST). Wikilinks defined on the individual terms lead to more explanations of those terms. I have also defined these dates in the wikidata item for each festival (the template picks it up from there). I have used this template in the above festivals' wikipages. Now they are all consistent in specifying the date field in the infobox.
Question: Is my approach correct? I feel it is correct, but what is the opinion of other editors? Do take a look at the pages of the festivals mentioned above and state your opinion here.
Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- This sounds good to me, but I prefer your {{talk) 11:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
2020 Assam gas and oil leak - improving
I'm looking for help with improving the quality of the 2020 Assam gas and oil leak article, especially with copy editing, adding images, and updating. There's substantial content there and I think we can bring it to Good Article status with a little effort. Please do chip in if you can. Thanks. - Naushervan (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this book?
Hi. I wanted to verify an edit from 2012 related to Jawaharlal Nehru. Does anyone have access to this book:
- Ian Copland (1997). The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947. Cambridge University Press.
Specifically page number 258 and the lines:
In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India.
References
- ^ Copland, Ian (1997), The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-57179-0 pg. 258.
- ^ Lumby, E.W.R. (1954), The Transfer of Power in India, 1945–1947, London: George Allen and Unwin p. 228 -- via Internet Archive
- Verified - see p. 237. However, the quote has been cherrypicked from multiple factoids about Nehru and I do not believe it to be a fair representation of the subject's complex views on princely states, as portrayed by Copland et al.TrangaBellam (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. talk) 06:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Lakhimpur Kheri violence RfC needs input
Please see Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence#RfC about this incident being termed a 'mass shooting'
This is primarily a two-editor "pissing match" that has now turned into an RfC, with presently very low input, so it's turning into the same two-editor pissing match again. This needs to be settled, by uninvolved editors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- @) 09:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockcodder (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- @
- This is precisely why Rockcodder (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, as you have said that Candlish is right. Can you stop pissing over the talk page. I have already asked you to #Please stop Venkat TL (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is precisely why
Suggestions
Does anyone have a topic or idea for a Wikipedia Signpost article?
Some background: I have six published The Signpost articles, the last being "
- Farmer protest victory is an international news. You can cover the wikipedia articles on it. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Mohan Shrivastava up for deletion
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Mohan Shrivastava (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
Indian polititican. Question of notability. Inherent language problems. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Jat clans of Rajasthan
Almost every single article in Category:Jat clans of Rajasthan is completely unsourced, and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out whether any of these clans are notable or even exist. Would anyone here be interested in taking a look at some of these to see if they can be fixed or should be nominated for deletion? Lennart97 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe merge them into a single list? The sourcing problem is still there but as a list, I think notability is better defined. As they are, I think many would be deleted in an AFD discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for your reply. That could definitely be an option. Looking at the wider ) 18:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't the only one. THere are many such walled gardens, just look under Category:Brahmin communities of India for another. —SpacemanSpiff 06:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- The abundance of this type of articles is definitely a wider problem. As for the Jats, I've added ) 14:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
When and how was the Kachwaha dynasty established?
When and how was the Kachwaha dynasty established? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Bipin Rawat § Rawat's caste
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bipin Rawat § Rawat's caste. Venkat TL (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Now escalated to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#General Bipin Rawat's caste--Venkat TL (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Marathi Speaker needed
I am aiming to understand the footnote referred in p. 68 (pdf page 97) of this book. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- If you are wondering at how I ended up with this niche source: Gordon, S. (1993). Shivaji (1630–80) and the Maratha polity. In The Marathas 1600–1818 (The New Cambridge History of India). Footnote 44; p. 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is this the text: "या पत्रांत आलेला रजपूत शब्द मराठा या अथौ आहॆ असे ठाण्याचॆ संशॊधक रा वी ल भावे य़ांचॆ मत आहे"? I don't know Marathi, but drawing on some Sanskrit knowledge ... possibly: "In the opinion of Thane researcher RVL Bhave, word Rajput has come in the place of (or instead of?) Maratha, at the end of this letter." talk) 04:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is close to what I understood using my knowledge of Sanskrit (and Devnagari script). But how does this make sense? The body goes,
मग आपण पादशाहाचे रजेवरुतु स्वार होउनु बलदारी नजदीक आलो पुटे हि मजली दरमजली तामगौड-तर्फेस जात आहो [footnote] इत्यादि.
TrangaBellam (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)- User:Jonathansammy and User:Akshaypatill - Can either of you help out? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:TrangaBellam Hemanthah's interpretation is correct. It means, according to RVL Bhave, in the letter, the word Rajput is used to refer to Marathas. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have looked at the footnote only. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:TrangaBellam I skimmed through the letter. The footnote is odd and makes no sense. There must be some kind of mistake. May be they have wrongly placed the footnote. Rajput is used only one time in the letter.(skimmed). If the footnote is misplaced and meant to be over that 'Rajput', the RVL Bhave is suggesting that Shahaji meant Maratha when he wrote Rajput. That's what I think. Does this make sense? Akshaypatill (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the footnote is in the 3rd line of that page, above "अज करूनु" of the line ending with "लिहिले हॊते" (which means written, so seems relevant as well). Devanagari 1 blends with diacritics and the footnote isn't prominent. Page 71 in the pdf, for example, has a lot of footnotes starting with numbers other than 1 and hence stand out more (and footnote 1 is placed on अज there as well allowing some comparison to this page) talk) 09:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- (Bhonsle. Nice observation, Hemanthah: I will check out the CRL scan, if things are any better. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Rajput is at the beginning of 8th line, previous page. "रजपुत लॊक अजी अलग" so on. I was wrong above, sorry. The foot note is above आहॊ as you said. talk) 09:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:TrangaBellam I could help if you tell specifically what are you looking for. The stuff Gordon has cited is explicitly written on page 65 (PDF Page-94) in the first paragraph, though Gordon has cited page 67. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- It is also on page 67. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- If it's any help, I've put the four relevant pages through Google OCR and put it up here. talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- If it's any help, I've put the four relevant pages through Google OCR and put it up here.
- Rajput is at the beginning of 8th line, previous page. "रजपुत लॊक अजी अलग" so on. I was wrong above, sorry. The foot note is above आहॊ as you said.
- TrangaBellam, Sorry, I could not download the Marathi article by R L Bhave. Shivaji before his coronation was able to get genealogy that showed that his family was related to the Rajput Sisodia clan but whether the whole Maratha army was considered synonymous with Rajput army is a bit of a stretch.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the footnote is in the 3rd line of that page, above "अज करूनु" of the line ending with "लिहिले हॊते" (which means written, so seems relevant as well). Devanagari 1 blends with diacritics and the footnote isn't prominent. Page 71 in the pdf, for example, has a lot of footnotes starting with numbers other than 1 and hence stand out more (and footnote 1 is placed on अज there as well allowing some comparison to this page)
- User:Jonathansammy and User:Akshaypatill - Can either of you help out? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is close to what I understood using my knowledge of Sanskrit (and Devnagari script). But how does this make sense? The body goes,
- Is this the text: "या पत्रांत आलेला रजपूत शब्द मराठा या अथौ आहॆ असे ठाण्याचॆ संशॊधक रा वी ल भावे य़ांचॆ मत आहे"? I don't know Marathi, but drawing on some Sanskrit knowledge ... possibly: "In the opinion of Thane researcher RVL Bhave, word Rajput has come in the place of (or instead of?) Maratha, at the end of this letter."
Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,
Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.
Requesting your visit to following drafts pertaining to South Asia and help expand the same if any of these interests you.
- Draft:Aurat (word)
- Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai
- Draft:Aroosa Alam
- Draft:Muslim and Islamic Feminism in India
- User:Bookku/Muslim women in India
- Draft:Ex-Muslims of Kerala* Not created by me but supported for expansion.
- Still to be initiated.
- Draft:My Choice (2015) a March 2015 short film, featuring Deepika Padukone
- Draft:Sexual politics in south Asia
- Draft:Urdu feminist literature
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Featured article review for Darjeeling
I have nominated