Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 74

Monisha Shah was BBC World director in India and also involved with the Ji Mantriji project, including authoring/co-authoring book(s). It would be grateful if people could point me at any Hindi languages sources and also confirm her written name in Hindi. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

She has a page on the Hindi wikipedia where you can confirm her written name in Hindi: Monisha Shah - Naushervan (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: You've spelled the first name differently in the title and lede of hi:मोनीषा शाह. Both spellings are plausible, and since "Monisha" is not a dictionary-word or a common name, it is difficult to say what the 'correct spelling would be. Fwiw, for sake of consistency I'd go with मोनीषा since the closest common Indian name Manisha is spelled मनीषा in Hindi. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ... really useful answer. I'm tied in real-life for a few? days so am time-crunched, but if I can get some space to concentrate on that I'll likely implement the suggestion. Good spot! Thanks again! Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be noting the deletion discussion at hi:विकिपीडिया:पृष्ठ हटाने हेतु चर्चा/लेख/मोनीषा शाह. While the article was deleted from the English Wikipedia there may have been systemic bias in that discussion: not least because WikiProject India were given limited notice on article alerts of that discussion before closure, and significance in Inida may have been downplayed. There are multiple, and I mean multiple, matters that arise from that discussion but I remain in serious and increasingly serious time crunch and am totally reactive to WP discussions and will not initiate a DRV until I have prepared all points. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark Are you saying that you intend to file a "deletion review" for the *second* deletion of Monisha Shah on English Wikipedia? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata: Yes, that is my planned intention. NutNote I am severely real life time crunched, and time spent on discussion here risks impacting people in my real life, so I would expect to raise the DRV at this momentSome later time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC) & Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing this for a broader input to get a long term community consensus but thought the issue was just too trivial, but now it's getting out of control as two users are very much hell bent on establishing Prithviraj Chauhan, 12th century Rajput king as an emperor instead of king (which is used in article from years) To be honest, he was at best a ruler who ruled a certain territory but can't be called a emperor. Unless, someone wants glorification of different level altogether. Besides that fact, all other editors (only two to be honest) inserted king should be used as historic tittle. Please, give your brief inputs folks. Packer&Tracker (talk) 01:12, 15 April (UTC)

An unadvertised RFC is really just a noticeboard discussion. In this instance, a neutral note that a discussion is ongoing on the subject talk page is proper. Otr500 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User

For comparison I have added the existing the existing Kashmir map that the 'Situation in Kashmir' map will presumably replace. Abecedare (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Mind if I put in a {{Gallery}} for better representation — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Not sure what you mean by "entirely based off". It is opentopomap terrain and showing the LAC as it is marked on OSM at this time. But that is

WP:UGC and no value can be placed on it. India's claimed boundary (the black line) has been hand-copied from somewhere, we haven't been told where. Hand-copying does introduce errors, sometimes significant ones, e.g., the outer boundary of the Demchok sector. Locations also seem to be marked by hand, e.g., "Panamic

" is somewhere in boondocks.

More basically, what is it that you are trying to do? What is it that is missing in the original CIA map that you think needs fixing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

CIA map is outdated, from 2004 and uses an old design. The new map is higher in resolution, easier to edit in .svg format and has more details on town. If there are any mistakes they can easily be edited in Inkscape, it should cite the same resources as the old CIA file.

The new map is an unmitigated disaster. How anyone could make such a singular interpretation of

WP:BOLD as to upload it en masse in a dozen highly controversial Kashmir-related pages without so much as exhibiting a hint of an intent on the talk page first, and, moreover, to replace the CIA map, is hard to understand. I have just seen this. Will post something shortly. I was the one who reverted all those map edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler, Abecedare, Kautilya3, and DaxServer: In addition to what Kautilya3 has said,

What are the chances that new map, Situation in Kashmir, hereafter, SiK, can replace the well-worn map prepared by the world's premiere spying agency, whose U2 pilots have risked life and limb in the environs of Central Asia, a map which is cited in quite a few scholarly books on Kashmir, and was the result of a hard-won consensus of WikiProjects India and Pakistan (pinging their senior editors @Saqib: and @Mar4d:)?

The answer is: Not a Karakoram snowball's chance in Jahannam

Why you might ask? Let me count the ways:

1. The CIA map shows the geographical surroundings of Kashmir, much more clearly e.g. the Wakhan Corridor, Tajikistan, Kyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly NWFP) to the leftward, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh below; China (Tibet and Xinjiang) to the east and north.
   1. SiK has nothing.
2. Upon clicking only once, CIA map clearly shows the boundaries between Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, between J&K and Ladakh;
   1. SiK has nothing except the names and a case of tiny ants crawling in some green fungus, in the manner in which Jeeves had alluded to the new mustache of Bertie Wooster.
3. The CIA map shows the larger political context of Kashmir in South Asia in an inset (bottom right);
   1. SiK has nothing.
4. The CIA map shows the historical context of Kashmir by showing the map as claimed by the
   National Museum, New Delhi and of interest to WP art historians such as @Johnbod: (pinging Fowler&fowler«Talk»
   14:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC))
   1. SiK has nothing. .
5. The CIA map shows many physical features: it clearly shows the Pangong lakes over which India and China have been feuding lately, hand-to-hand in the manner of
   Hindu kush
   .
   1. SiK has nothing
6. The CIA map shows the important political features by name: Line of Control (1972) and the Line of Actual Control
   1. SiK has nothing
7. I could continue ... but what is the point of wasting my time and yours. The CIA map veritably evokes a world of connections. This is case of: No Contest Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review F&f. Some of the issues, such as text size, missing labels etc, may be easy to fix. But, the 'user generated' nature of the map will always be a concern. Given the highly disputed nature of the territories, it is useful IMO to have a map directly attributable to a prominent source (such as CIA), which the reader can then evaluate and decide to trust (or not). That said, I appreciate the effort by Rr016 et al in creating the new map, which appears to have been undertaken in good faith. Abecedare (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  As a sanity check, I looked at the Israel article. There, the main maps showing the details of the disputed territories (, , , ) are all ultimately attributable to UN or OCHA for, I assume, similar reasons. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that is a very good point @Abecedare:. For all its cloak-and-dagger history, the CIA map is trusted as a source (especially on Wikipedia's contested pages such as Kashmir). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't mean in any way to undermine the efforts of @Rr016: or Viewsridge. I'm sure they have been made in good faith. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge, would it be possible/to convert the existing CIA map into SVG format? That would allow us to edit, say, the color, size and language of the labels etc. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No unfortunately raster graphics cannot be converted into SVG.

Viewsridge (talk

) 14:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, when they have so added such details, we can talk about it again on this talk page. At this stage it is work in progress, far far away from where it needs to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That was a reply to @

Viewsridge: Fowler&fowler«Talk»

14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Aside: while we are on this topic, @
  Viewsridge
  : (nice name, btw, when in the realm of the Himalayas), is there any chance you could show the river Indus clearly in the map?
• While we are on the topic of the Indus, any way you could convert the map File:Course and major tributaries of the Indus.jpg into this SVG vector file? I know you can't directly convert it, but somehow do it in a way that is faithful to the original colors and boundaries in the map?
• Another thing I haven't quite understood over the years: the old maps will often have pastel colors; the new maps have colors that seem to border on the lurid even where they attempt to be pastel as in File:Indus flooding 2010 en.svg. Is that the choice of the creator or a problem in the format. I'm not an expert in graphics, but I couldn't help noticing the difference (because we often get requests to replace old maps with new ones). Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@

@

Viewsridge the font that says controlled by China is unreadable even if I click the image. The UT boundry betweek JNK and Ladakh is hardly visible. Need to use a more prominent contrasting colour or change thickness something that makes it more clear. Venkat TL (talk

) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 19:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I approve the changes. Much better. Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear @

Viewsridge: So, let me get this straight: you have saved the OpenToposMap, at a certain resolution, which can be seen, for example, for the Nanga Parbat Group, at here and overwritten it. Is that correct? For I can see the half erased lettering of Nanga Parbat Group underneath. But when I click on the link above, the peaks within the group separate, and Nanga Parbat itself shows. No such thing happens in your map. The moth-eaten letters of "Nanga Parbat Group" simply get bigger, and they have been covered with a big bold "Nanga Parbat" with a big bold triangle. If I move up in your map, I see Gilgit in Urdu, and above it Batora Sar in Latin lettering. But if I click on the OpenTopos link, to magnify, it gives way to Urdu lettering "Batura Glasheer" and only later after several clicks does the famous peak Batura Sar appear. You seem to be overwriting the OpenTopos for Kashmir at that resolution. The enhancement you have done seems to be creating new issues. In your enhanced map, you have overwritten Muzaffarabad, which was in Urdu, and whose "m" (meem) is now half eaten. There are mispellings "Nanga Parbal," "Kakakorams," "Prince State of Kashmir" You've put a large black triangle on the letters of the mountain "Distaghil Sar" and relabeled it with the mispelling "Distahgil Sar." Well, those are the easy ones to fix. Your mountain ranges both the Karakorams and the Ladakh Himalayas are ramrod straight. You seem to be relabeling a map whose labels are in Urdu in Pakistan and English in India. Many Indian towns have two labels as a result. I don't know what to say. I think you should cut your teeth on simple village maps in the Kashmir region. I mean this sincerely. You will learn something and it would be a valuable addition to Wikpedia. How about beginning with something like Category:Villages in Kargil district? Fowler&fowler«Talk»

00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

IYou should ask someone on WP about how to do a multi-dimensional scaling. It would be great if you could create a multiscale map of Goshan village in the Drass (?) river valley starting at this resolution from which the reader could click out gradually to see it within a larger region; invaluable it would be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, OpenStreetMap and OpenTopoMap are huge databases, which render images for us whatever scale we demand. That is not the case with images that we produce here. They are just graphic images. When we magnify, the pixels space out but that is about it. (The survey maps on the other hand are scans of paper maps at very high resolution. They can be zoomed in, but our images are pygmies in front of those.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I was dimly aware of that, having zoomed in and out many times. I guess what I was suggesting was to present Goshan at say four or five or six resolutions only, not all, with the one I have presented above being the highest. It would given a viewer the chance to click to see it in context: village, tehsil, district, union territory, former state, and upper South Asia, a flag or pin showing it in each. Viewsridge could seek the help of graphics whizzes such as Avantipura or Planemad. What he is doing is a waste of time. I could easily load the map at the next higher resolution and label the maps properly without creating double labels, with my skills, such as they are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

You've now created double labels, yours and the original. I still don't see the Indus clearly demarcated because the resolution at which you have downloaded the map, doesn't show the whole river, which traditional maps do by employing horizonal exaggeration along the axis of the river flow (similar to vertical exaggeration of peaks). Please note that Wikipedia injunction to be

consensus before making changes

I've told you: you should cut your teeth on villages of Kashimir, showing them in four our five resolutions: village, tehsil, district, state, country. Before that, please read about Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

18:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Viewsridge: Is there any reason why we have "union territory" in brackets under both J&K and Ladakh's names on the newer map? Pakistan or China for that matter don't recognise either the territorial status or claim for statehood for both. It compromises the political neutrality of the map and ought to be reinstated in favour of just 'Jammu and Kashmir' and 'Ladakh' like it is for the other regions. Cheers, Mar4d (talk
  ) 05:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 09:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Northern Areas. We have to have some way of disambiguating Jammu and Kashmir (state) which used to contain Ladakh with the new Jammu and Kashmir, which consists of only the Jammu division + Kashmir division, and is administered by India's federal government. Note, Britannica has the same language. You can see it in the citation in Ladakh lead. Sure we could remove the label '(union territory)', but it would become confusing when people try to distinguish between the map of the old state which shows a bigger J&K, and the new map which shows a smaller J&K. After all, even the names Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir or Aksai Chin are not recognized by the disputing countries. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

10:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In any case, would you be inclined to agree that the readers would be intelligent enough to distinguish between the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, and the present union territory (especially since this is a map of the "Kashmir region")? I feel the article leads do a good enough job of explaining the political status of each territory, and the maps should be kept simple and consistent. For example, it makes little sense to qualify Ladakh as a UT because there is no other Ladakh. I can understand the argument for J&K, but again it comes back to consistency in the map. Since all the other constituent parts of Kashmir are mentioned by name, it's only logical that this be applied uniformly. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge has removed UT in the newest version of File:Situation in Kashmir Enhanced.png. My amendments are included. Thanks for the updates. I think this is a good replacement for the old map. Venkat TL (talk

) 11:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Problem is not the old princely state. It is the Indian state (i.e. province) of Jammu and Kashmir (which had three divisions: Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh). The first two divisions are now part of the Indian administered Union Territory of "Jammu and Kashmir" and the third is a part of the Union Territory of Ladakh. If we call the Union Territory only Jammu and Kashmir, readers will not be able to distinguish between the more notable Indian state of J&K (which was called only Jammu and Kashmir) and the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir which you would also liked to be called "Jammu and Kashmir." In fact, most references in the literature to anything notable after 1947 (India-Pakistan wars 1947, 65, Kargil; the Kashmir insurgency; the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus; killing and maiming of predominantly Muslim Kashmiri civilians by India; the Human Rights violations of predominantly Muslim Kashmiri civilians by India) are pretty much all to the J&K state, not the union territory. To change the name or not is for the Wikipedia page to decide. There has been a push from India-POV promoters, or should I say promoters of the political dispensation currently in place in India to rename Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) simply "Jammu and Kashmir." But that is a part of a somewhat irredentist effort to have for this federally administered "part of India" with no autonomy the whole nine yards of the mantle of Jammu and Kashmir. So far that has not happened. If you change the map, you will need to change the page name as well. I don't see that happening right in the near future. Jammu and Kashmir remains a dab page; to change it a consensus of Wikiprojects India and Pakistan (and perhaps China, but they generally don't care, if it is not Aksai Chin) will be required. It is the same with changing the map from the CIA map to any other map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for the lengthy justification. In that case, we can qualify J&K as a UT. Ladakh and the rest can be retained as is. Ironically, the name "Jammu and Kashmir" is as accurate and literal as you can get to describe the now-UT. But you're right, we have to take the post-1947 and pre-2019 scenario into account, in which case J&K would include the part that is actually outside of "Jammu" and "Kashmir". Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

The CIA map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 18:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just an observation, the city of

WP:COMMONNAME. Mar4d (talk

) 02:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 10:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also prefer the CIA map because of it's detailing. I understand the need for scalable map but that should not come at the cost of loosing details present in current map. The issues I see are,

• No overall awareness of South Asia region.
• Very big country names.
• Trimmed Wakhan Corridor.
• No info on Trans-Karakoram Tract that it was ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963 and never recognized by India.
• Does not explain various boundaires such as LOC, LAC, International boundary, regional boundary, roads, railways etc.
• The card on top-right corner label the map as "Situation in Kashmir".
• Duplicate names at some places (i.e. Sopore) and no info on various lake in the region.
• Doesn't highlight the Siachin Glacier.

‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to raise the profile of the perennial content changes to

• move protection
• multiple Rfc's, and moratoriums on further Rfc's
• edit notices (e.g., for Allahabad, for Faizabad district)
• constant vigilance by a band of dedicated and tireless editors watching and repairing the articles (thanks, all—you know who you are)
• other (what am I forgetting?)

Currently, this is being addressed ad hoc, with page protection, Rfc's, edit notices, and so on spread in various locations, and other individual actions on separate pages. To an extent, this is how it should be; different articles may have different requirements. Nevertheless, there's a common thread among them, and I'm wondering if we need more centralized attention to this problem, perhaps via a task force, or perhaps a subpage here in order to track this issue in one place, and to have a forum to discuss ways to mitigate the problem more generally, and share information about it that may also affect other articles with similar problems.

What inspired this just now, was the rather long and rambling

Any support, or objection, to doing something like this, or what do you think is needed in order to best manage this issue? Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME|common name]]. Leave section comments that the current name follows consensus and the more common name. -- Otr500 (talk

) 10:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi people, visiting this page after a long time. I have a question regarding village names. There are two villages by the same name in Himachal Pradesh. The page for one already exists - Dhanotu. I plan to create the other one. However not sure of the recent naming conventions. Should I move this page to Dhanotu, Kangra District and create the other one (also with district name) or is there a different convention? Thanks for your help — Ramit^(talk) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@

taluk depending on what they are called in that state :) — DaxServer (t · m · c

) 18:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If they are in the same tehsil/mandal/taluk, then fall back on the census code. e.g. Bishunpurwa (census code 216654) and Bishunpurwa (census code 216586). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks guys! — Ramit^(talk) 01:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why include the word "district" though? Just the name should suffice, as in

WP:NCINDIA. – Uanfala (talk)

14:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I prefer using "district" as it shouldn't be confused with a neighborhood of the city -- most districts are named for the largest city. In this particualar case, neither Kangra city nor Kangra district are the primary topic! —SpacemanSpiff 15:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• So is this about Dhanotu, Mandi district? -- Otr500 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

How many of the articles categorized are properly sourced to be a member of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha? Seems to me like Vandy 1989 (talk · contribs) (at the moment) is adding them when the article subject belongs to Yadav community [6]. Please keep an eye out — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have checked and added this categorized as per the relevant sources. before you put the rollback check again over the full article sources of the pages. Vandy 1989 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vandy 1989 Do you think you will be able to provide a link for us? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Raghu Veera Reddy ‎ and Sunanda Das like so many added the categorized so please check the same relevant links are available on full article pages.

without any relevant sources can't edited by me. Vandy 1989 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@

reliable sources which verify that they are members of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha? Reliable sources, not Wikipedia links. Also FYI: caste addition to articles require self-identification (see this discussion) — DaxServer (t · m · c

) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay noted! next time I'll take care for this...... thanks.......... Vandy 1989 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted Reddy, Das, and Poluboina. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a caste categorization of people and goes against long standing consensus here and at
  WP:CFD, so should be deleted. —SpacemanSpiff
  15:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Do you some links that I could refer to when opening the CFD? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Members of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha has been nominated for discussion

Category:Members of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please check this out! Likely to close soon. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

How's the sourcing in this article? Does it have enough coverage to warrant the article? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, to be honest. I could see having a section in the main Lalu Prasad Yadav article talking about his political strategies, but it really doesn't seem to merit its own article, especially when the quality is this poor. Most of the info in the article seems to be just general information and links to politicians but not really helping explain the topic at hand. -Evansknight (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It should perhaps be deleted, but there are so many

WP:NOTNEWS-y sources that a proper evaluation of coverage will require a lot of time. I've moved it to draft for now. Hemantha (talk

) 03:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources Vandy 1989 (talk

) 03:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

New link: Draft:Muslim-Yadav formula — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

In this article added so many independent / relevant sources as required and now I'm working on the article its not completed now

so many section have to add and write in the page

but the page moved to draft for no any relevant sources............ Vandy 1989 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR. Hemantha (talk

) 03:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

DaxServer if you want to the know the political history of Bihar since 1990 only two formula based going on Luv-Kush equation , now ruling party and opposition on behalf of Muslim- Yadav formula. Vandy 1989 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

But if you compare the two articles, the Luv-Kush equation article is well written, well structured, and is very informative. The Muslim-Yadav article as it now exists is poorly written, confusing, and not at all informative, therefore it makes more sense to exist as a draft until it has been brought to article standards. A plethora of sources does not a good article make. Evansknight (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware, there is considerable coverage of caste alliances as a general concept in the politics of Bihar in particular and North/Central India in general; but specific combinations are rarely going to be worthy of standalone articles, as alliances frequently shift. This article in particular isn't well written, by which I mean imprecise use of language has resulted in considerable original research. For instance; what does "Yadav-dominated"? Are those regions where Yadav's are in a numerical majority? I don't think so; it's exceptionally rare for any caste-group to constitute more than 50% of the population. So what then? The sources look like a list of articles that pop up when "Muslim-Yadav formula" is googled. Such a search isn't the right way to research such a fraught topic; if you're trying to determine whether this is a reasonable topic, you need to research caste alliances in general, else you end up violating
  WP:DUE. This isn't ready for mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk
  ) 16:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is regarding this edit. Seems POV and SYNTH skimming through it. Would like to ping @Tayi Arajakate, Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, TrangaBellam, and Venkat TL:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, been offline; Fylindfotberserk that's some wildly inaccurate material, thanks for flagging it; this user's contributions need watching. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk (responding to ping) I checked the diff and I have no clue which is the right version. I hope others will decide it better than me. Venkat TL (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: No problem . Yes, this user seems like a POV pusher. In this recent edit, they changed the quote from "there were no essential differences between Sikhs and Hindus" to "Sikhs should stay to their roots and revolt against the British and crush the Purbiyas (Easterners)", when the former seem to have been taken word for word from page 277 of book source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• According to the above "Sikhs should stay to their roots and revolt against the British and crush the Purbiyas", seems to go beyond problematic POV pushing venturing into racial discriminatory (race prejudice) vandalism. A stern warning and possible future block may be needed. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, Tayi Arajakate, and Otr500: They are back at it [7]. Also created Assassination of Zail Singh, which is likely full of OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Another article with POV-SYNTH changes [8]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Got banned for being a sock of User:Definatly Not Anonymous. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject India,

I initially went to the Indian Television discussion board but it doesn't seem to be active. My problem is that I've come across an editor adding his name to television cast lists. Then, when I looked at one, in this case, Crime Patrol (TV series), there are dozens, maybe over a hundred names added to the cast list, most of whom do not have articles on Wikipedia.

I realize that there is probably much more attention paid to film than TV and standards about film articles are likely more agreed-upon than those for television series, but is there any guidance on managing these excessive list of cast members, many of whom might just have been extras or been in one episode? Would it be okay to pare the names down to just those who have articles on Wikipedia unless they played a main role in the series and just don't have an article created yet? Right now, it seems like anyone, in this case, a new editor, could just add their names to a cast list and get lost among the dozens of other unlinked names listed on the page, without providing any verification at all.

Thanks for any advice and help you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Almost all of these artices are adorned with IMDb in the "External links", providing real added information or not, but usually listing cast members and others involved. Maintenance of

guide

there does not need to be a comprehensive listing.

If an editor adds erroneous content a warning and possible sanctions should be in order because this is

vandalism only account

.

If this editor is one of the cast members then there is certainly

prose instead of such a large listing of unimportant "Investigating officers" and "Other roles" that provide a net-negative presentation. -- Otr500 (talk

) 05:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone is Vandalizing SVG of Emblem of India. Need Immediate Interference of Administrators. Thanks Swapnil1101 (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that there has been some recent activity at File:Emblem of India.svg but don't know if it qualifies as vandalism. If admin attention is needed, it would (ideally) be at Commons but, hopefully, here we can discuss the content issue to decide which version of the emblem is preferable and whether the recent changes should be retained/reverted. Swapnil1101 and Vikassinghhhh, can you clarify your specific concerns? And Chidananda Kampa, can you please watch this discussion and respond? Abecedare (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous version which was uploaded had less clarity and had noise. Re-created and have kept it as it is by the image from the pdf of (https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A2005-50.pdf). When first time uploaded the image had some corrections and optimizations which was later uploaded. But after uploading the svg was rendered improperly, so the svg had to be uploaded repeatedly.

talk

) 14:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

[9]https://data.gov.in/img/datagov-logo.e4dfb331.svg

[10]https://pmfme.mofpi.gov.in/pmfme/assets/img/mofpi/mainlogohd.png

why are you uploading old 2005 logo which is too thin and imporperly skewed, when new logos like data.gov.in (2018) and New MOFPA logo desigined in 2020 clearly bold design and use special type of devanagiri font where maatra don't join with lines. Swapnil1101 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

https://static.investindia.gov.in/2021-10/V9%20JIIT%20report%20%281%29.pdf Japan India Investment Relations

https://static.investindia.gov.in/2021-09/InvestIndia_TextileMachinery1.pdf Ministry of Textiles.

I am going extract this from thīs Official Government PDF via Inksacpe and Uplaod it. Swapnil1101 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

we have referred amendment law of state emblem of India 2005

THE SCHEDULE [See section 2(b)] STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN

see pg.5 we recreated as it is.

Devanagari script basically used default Unicode font. As we referred from the same page.

Actually you are giving Government website logo improperly not rendered they are also may be refferd from Wikipedia.

But anything the overall the final emblem belongs to THE STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT, 2005

Finally tell me one thing which is the right? the website emblem logo refer or amendment emblem logo refer...

talk

) 17:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

First the Devanagari font is rendered perfectly as it should and it is font feature/characterstics not to connect lines and it is SVG Image not a word document that it will render imperfectly.

See Even State Government logo use same Devanagari Font Calligraphy.

Government of Gujarat

Government of Punjab

I think its better to use the logo which Government Officials use in there PDFs and Website. With the help of Inkscape software, i extracted it without any need to trace bitmap as it was itself a vector version. Swapnil1101 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

then also amendment will be failed because of every Government website followed by the Wikipedia I think. Thank you. Satyamev Jayate

talk

) 18:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

https://uidai.gov.in/images/logo/uidai_english_logo.svg

Varied Logo from website to website we can't measure. Parliament of India issued draft.

THE STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF IMPROPER USE) ACT, 2005 is raster scanned sketch not a digital vector file. I don't See any difference except सत्यमेव जयते font design. You Can't Extract it perfectly from in SVG Form by PDF. Bitmap Tracing will loose quality. Better to Use what is currently uploaded. The Same image is used since 2011. Leave it. Vikassinghhhh (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It is to notify that I came across what looks like an old caste POV pusher in the Kamboj article, considering the history of the article.
The IP copy pasted content from the talk page section Talk:Kamboj#Which_article_has_the_following_information? written by the blocked User:Satbir Singh. The whole para:

The modern Kamboj are still found living chiefly by agriculture, business and military service which were the chief professions followed by their Kamboja ancestors some 2500 years ago as powerfully attested by Arthashastra[27] and Brhat Samhita.[28] Numerous foreign and Indian writers have described the modern Kambojs/Kambohs as one of the finest class of agriculturists of India.[29] British colonial writers such as H. A. Rose and Denzil Charles J. Ibbetson note the Kamboj and Ahir agriculturists as the first rank husbandmen and they rate them above the Jatts.[30] They occupy exactly the same position in general farming as the Ramgarhias occupy in general industry. The Kambojs have made great contributions in agriculture and military fields. The majority of Krishi Pandit awards in Rajasthan/India have been won by the Kamboj agriculturists[31] . Col Lal Singh Kamboj, a landlord from Uttar Pradesh, was the first Indian farmer to win the prestigious Padam Shri Award for progressive farming in 1968 from President of India. According to Dr M. S. Randhawa (Ex-Vice Chancellor, Punjab University), the Kamboj farmers have no equals in industry and tenacity.[32]

has been copied in this revision by the IP [11]. After I reverted them, this new user restores the same with 'sources' which I believe to be a case of fake-sourcing and

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

-

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• India Today coverage: "After Vivek Agnihotri lashes out at Wikipedia, they edit The Kashmir Files description"

• Vivek Agnihotri's tweet against Wikipedia

Just notifying as this could go out of control with brigading and threats. Thank you! - Vis M (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just thinking that what that article needed was more outside agitators that don't know how Wikipedia works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#Former constituencies, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Can project-regulars opine on whether there is merit in this merge proposal, floated by me? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark, Abecedare, DaxServer, Kautilya3, SpacemanSpiff, and Uanfala: Your opinion will be welcome in these scarcely-attended discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thatta of course is world famous. Have you posted at WP:Pakistan? It is properly their province (to decide). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the page is tagged under Wikiproject Pakistan, my merge-request has been long featured in their article-alert-banner.

That being said, Wikiproject Pakistan is semi-dead - see their noticeboard, which is filled with multiple unattended posts from me, Uanfala, and others. C. 2019, most of their active editors seem to have been either discovered as sock-puppets or blatant POV-pushers and that was the end of it. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think @Mar4d and Saqib: are, but even so, it is not the province of WP:India, given the general demographic of bias against anything Pakistan related. Find some more general forum which is active. Pakistani-POV editors don't go around editing little known Indian pages. Indian-POV editors have been editing Pakistan pages for ages, sometimes blatantly, showing "This user believes in reunification." or somesuch on their user pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"This user believes in reunification" - Who?

Nonetheless, Qasmi, Ali Usman; Robb, Megan Eaton, eds. (2017). Muslims against the Muslim League: Critiques of the Idea of Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ISBN 978-1-107-16663-9. is a handy read. TrangaBellam (talk

) 17:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Real life is keeping me busy, so I can't spend as much here as I would like, but I surely miss WP. --Saqib (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Saqib, and good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Greetings,

As part of overall encyclopedic expansion of topics Draft:Irrational beliefs and Superstition and religion I have been seeking your valuable inputs @ Talk:Superstition in India#Superstitions in Hindu societies.

Any help in the expansion of above mentioned articles too is most welcome.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been a recent increase newly created SPA accounts ( many being potentially sock or meat etc) on

Hello, I hope you all are doing great. Can we get some helping hand for adding review from sources which are listed on the talk page of the article. Editor who are having proficiency in Bengali Languages are humbly welcomed. Thanks, stay safe C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 23:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A public interest litigation has been filed against Wikipedia. PIL in SC seeking removal of defamatory references on Ayurveda from Wikipedia Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Social class lists Yadav as warrior class, and has done for a long time. Article Yadav describes them as traditionally pastoralists and neither a single caste nor a varna. It says they claim Kshatriya descent, but so I guess may a lot of groups, and Kshatriya is already in the navbox. I don't "have a dog in this fight" or "a horse in this race", however you like to phrase it: I was pinged to a discussion and noticed the navbox on the article, which struck me as odd. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

sanskritization. Zindor (talk

) 10:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• The new map includes the new roads and highways that have been built since the old map was created in 2004.

• The new map is higher in resolution and is easier to edit in SVG format.
• The new map includes all the material included in the old file on top of new material displaying additional settlements, prominent peaks, additional lakes and rivers.
  Viewsridge (talk
  ) 19:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Old map The old map is sourced, the new one is not. There are a couple of aesthetic reasons for my preference as well but the lack of sourcing is, imo, a killer. Since the new map is unsourced, we would need to verify each entity marked on the map (not practical) and catch errors (e.g., "prince state") one at a time (neither practical nor reliable). BTW, since sourcing was explicitly brought up in the previous discussion, is the RfC neutrally stated?--RegentsPark (comment) 20:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the new map's colors make it much harder to read, and there seem to be quite a few errors and spelling mistakes, on top of the lack of sourcing. -Evansknight (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You say the source is the old map, but if it is altered, then those specific alterations need to be sourced, don't they? Evansknight (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They are sourced, the data is

Viewsridge (talk

) 21:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge: I'm of the opinion that we should prefer a sourced map over an unsourced one, and especially so when the content is likely to be contentious. The new map, which uses an OSM base map, is unsourced even if, in the degenerate case, it is an exact copy of the original map But, that's just me so let's see what other people say. --RegentsPark (comment

) 21:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 12:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Princely it says. Again Princely it says. Let me spell is out: P R I N C E L Y. It is an adjective which means "Of, belonging to, or relating to a prince or princes; held, exercised, or governed by a prince" Wikipedia has a page: Princely state. That is not the only mistake you have made that is grossly insulting to the history of the subcontinent. You continue to spell one of the world's great mountain ranges "Kakakorams." You continue to render the label ramrod straight, which the mountain range broadly is not. This is not a lesson where you continue to unfairly importune other editors, making one rudimentary error after another. And they are politely telling you to end this quest, but you take no heed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 13:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge: Good faith is hard to assume when people prematurely end one discussion which is not going their way and start an RfC, where editors have to repeat everything they have already stated, and where the RfC's nominator is using the venue to generally copy-edit their rudimentary and error-ridden high resolution map. You cannot keep changing the terms of the RfC nomination, which has a description in words or in graphic representation, by continually changing either the words or the representation. Please change your map to what you had at the beginning or I soon will. I am serious. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

14:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 15:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I shall soon be formally nominating the RfC that a large number of people had given their feedback on in August, September, and November 2019 in these discussions: A proposal for Kashmir-related pages, RfC phrasing (first cut), RfC wording version 2, and A uniform format for the infobox of Kashmir-related pages. I never nominated the conclusions achieved then for a formal RfC because a need was not felt then; it was enough to refer to these indications of community consensus. But with the new potential for disruption in the wake of The Kashmir Files, I soon will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Old map per my previous comment and what RegentsPark said above. To give a concrete example of the type of issues the new map raises: compare the two maps at the south-east corner of Ladakh near Demchok. In the new map the Chinese-claim line follows the Indus river while in the CIA-sourced map the line is to the west of the river. Is the new map 'correct' (source?) or is this a user-generated error? In either case, why should the reader trust the new map? Abecedare (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This indeed seems to be a user generated error, I have now fixed it. If there are any other mistakes or missing material you have noticed please point them out.

Viewsridge (talk

) 22:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Follow along the Nubra river to the Siachen glacier, which in the CIA map is marked as 'contested area' and very cleverly shaded in a mix of green and yellow. In the new map that Nubra river is shown much shorter, but if you follow along its valley, the whole of the valley falls squarely in the Indian administered part. Note that while such individual issues can and should be fixed, the fundamental problem that simply labeling a user-generated map is 'a map of the disputed region created by the US Central Intelligence Agency' doesn't make it so. Sorry for being blunt and pointing out such trivial seeming differences, but these are the type of issues that battles are literally being fought over between three countries. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Added, thanks.

Viewsridge (talk

) 23:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Another issue: the new map shows a part of the Line of Control extending parallel to the Siachen Glacier. That is incorrect. The demarcated LoC famously stops at point NJ9842, north of which the Indo-Pak border is (even more) contested. The CIA map depicts this correctly. What the new map may be depicting is the Actual Ground Position Line, mistakenly labeling it as the LoC. But since the CIA map shows no such line, what is the source of this part of the border? Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the NJ9842 and the Actual Ground Position Line. The source is either the CIA map or

Viewsridge (talk

) 10:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes the map better even while the mix-and-match makes source tracing more difficult for the reader; an unavoidable dilemma. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've always been puzzled by the map in the Kashmir infobox. That sort of map is great to have in the Geography section, but for the top of the article a detailed topographic map is a poor choice. What's needed is something to primarily show the broad spatial context and – optionally – the main subregions (though without going into details). The sort of map you have at
  Afganistan, Queensland or Tuva (to pick three random examples). – Uanfala (talk)
  01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  You make a good point. Looking at the Kashmir article, there is no map indicating its relative position in south Asia, Asia or the world except for the inset in the CIA map. Would be a useful addition (rather than replacement) to the current maps; I am neutral as to whether the addition should be at the top or page or not. Abecedare (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Abe: The inset is much better labeled than anything Uanafala has suggested. Look at the entirely mysterious Tuva. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Uanfala:Actually, I have always wondered why Wikipedia maps don't also show the other side of the globe, and perhaps the underside and overside as well for the full context, perhaps even with the moon thrown in so that WP's brilliant readers don't confuse Kashmir with a green glob on the globe of the green people of Mars.

  In other words, most readers already know where Kashmir is, broadly. Kashmir is also one of the world's oldest disputes whose every inch is fought over by the disputants, who are making sure with the tired eyes of

  Sir Cyril of Old, to one party of the dispute. The CIA map has both the details readers come to learn about and a broad scale map of South Asia in the context of Central Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk»

  15:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 17:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The locator map on the left is probably a bit too zoomed out. I don't think we need more than South and Central Asia as background. As for insets, these are ancillary; we shouldn't be relying on them as the main method of showing location in the infobox (to use them, readers will typically need to load the image separately and then zoom in, provided they notice in the inset in the first place). Ideally, the infobox should start with a broad locator map, then have a clear and uncluttered map of the first-level divisions (Ladakh, Aksai Chin, etc), and only further down in a relevant section a detailed map (like the CIA one) that will show mountains, rivers, roads, tunnels, towns and all. – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A COI-editor (abiding by all regulations) has proposed a set of changes at the talk-page. Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is recent as i've been away for quite a while but the census search appears to have been depreciated in favour of a new population finder (hidden at bottom of the page). It's a speedy gadget but does anybody have a clue how to cite the thing? Unfortunately it also seems that any links within citations to the census data on the old sub-domain are currently dead-links. Hoping i'm interpreting this wrong Zindor (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The depreciation of the census search link is somewhat recent (a few weeks). I was hoping that it was a temporary issue, but since they have this new (and "improved") gadget, it looks like we're out of luck. I guess we have to go back to citing PDFs and spreadsheets containing data for every settlement in a district. Aargh! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, those joyous district census handbooks. I'll work on putting together a page of shortcuts for us and when it's done (could be a while) will host it on the project. Zindor (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Old or New Which of these maps should be used to display the situation in Kashmir?

As user Fowler&fowler has pointed out the RfC above has become obsolete since small changes have been made to the map after the RfC was opened. Please continue the discussion here. Thank you.

• The new map includes the new roads and highways that have been built since the old map was created in 2004.
• The new map is higher in resolution and is easier to edit in SVG format.
• The new map includes all the material included in the old file on top of new material displaying additional settlements, prominent peaks, additional lakes and rivers.

• Can an uninvolved admin please look into the goings on here? There seem to be three discussions on the talk page: the original which was never completed, a first RfC which seems to be still open, and now a second RfC. It seems the nominator, is bending the rules in some fashion. What fashion I leave for you to decice: pinging some uninvolved: @El C and Bishonen: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• New one. It is more clear than the other. I would have liked it more if there was no highlighting of mountains. It's not required and is distracting. Peter Ormond 💬 17:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@

Viewsridge (talk

) 18:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A couple of things: Jhelum is spelled Jhefum on this new map; The original text for Sopore, Pattan, Anantnag, Awantipora and Bijbehara is still visible under the new text; could you put an outline or a shadow around the pink text indicating the former princely state? it's just very hard to read pink on white. Evansknight (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Old map for reasons explained previously and expanded upon in the earlier RFC that was prematurely closed. To recap: Given the highly disputed nature of the territories, it is useful to have a map directly attributable to a prominent source (such as CIA), which the reader can then evaluate and decide to trust (or not). The newer user-generated maps (1) mix data from the CIA map and OpenStreetMap in a way that a reader cannot trace the origins of of any particular map feature, and (2) consequently introduced (and still contain) errors and unexplained deviations. In addition, while being easily editable is usually a positive feature, as this discussion has shown, the resultant instability and lack of audit-trail make the newer maps an unsuitable replacement. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• 

  I have uploaded a hi-res CIA map (4597x4920). It is the map on which the low-res map which is the subject of this RfC is based. Like the above map, this one had the old names, Northern Areas and Jammu and Kashmir (for the state), which I have removed. The names now are only Gilgit, Baltistan, Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, and Aksai Chin, singly. I believe this might be the most NPOV way to represent a disputed territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• PS This map appears on page 180 of the book Mapping Central Asia: Indian Perceptions and Strategies, Ashgate/Routledge, 2011

• Viewsridge, Abecedare, Kautilya3, DaxServer, Venkat TL, Mar4d, Evansknight, Uanfala, and Peter Ormond: and any other editor I might have missed from the discussions above. I have also uploaded a hi-res (2,418 × 2,992) version of the broadscale map of Kashmir showing only the major subregions. This too is an updated version of the CIA map of 2002. It appears in the frontispiece of Shahla Hussain's book Kashmir in the Aftermath of the Partition, Cambridge, 2021. Uanfala: Please note the new broadscale and high resolution versions in the manner you had suggested in the other RfC. If you don't like the white labels, I can change the color. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

  13:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• New or CIA depending upon the topic. Thank you Fowler and Viewsridge for uploading these useful maps. In my opinion, the RfC is not appropriately drafted. It attempts to Use one map in all the Kashmir related articles when it should have been addressed in a case by case basis. For example an Article on Kashmir Dispute should have the CIA map in infobox. The article on Kashmir state should have CIA map in infobox. The article on Ladakh UT (Administrative area) can have the more recent map by Viewsridge. If there is a conflict between using the CIA vs new map, I would prefer to use the CIA map, because it is a standard and verified map. Venkat TL (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: I will soon be nominating an RfC (for standardizing text in the lead sentence and images in the infobox of Kashmir related pages) for which we had had substantial discussions in the fall of 2019. See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#Uniform_format_for_infobox_of_Kashmir-related_first-order_division_articles I didn't start an RfC then as it was generally enough to cite the proposal as it had the input and support of quite a few people. But now that the Kashmir issue has been raked up by the film director (whose name I'm blanking on), I feel it is imperative to do it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Old one as it is the only
  reliably sourced map - see previous RfC for a longer explanation and please note that, once again, the RfC proposer makes no mention of the sourcing concern. (Note: I'll probably !vote the same way in the next RfC, and the one after that, and ....!)--RegentsPark (comment
  ) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please note @

  Viewsridge, Evansknight, Kautilya3, and DaxServer: I have now labeled the hi-res map above, showing the administered regions. The beauty of the map (which builds on centuries of cartography) is that you can actually see the dramatic Rupal face of Nanga Parbat (which I have labeled; it half a longitude degree to the left of Skardu) Here is the map: File:Kashmir region. LOC 2003626427 - showing sub-regions administered by different countries.jpg Fowler&fowler«Talk»

  06:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've lightly highlighted the Indus in the above map, but I've also made a version of the low-res map, really highlighting the river for use on

  Indus river: File:The Indus river in the Kashmir region.jpg In this map you can see the Ladakh range of the Himalayas beautifully rendered off the right bank of the river in Ladakh. Also pinging @Austronesier: who I believe likes the Indus and the linguistic cultures it has spawned. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

  06:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good Fowler&fowler. I think we should mark a few more of the peaks, K2 for sure, perhaps Gasherbaum. The region is known for its many high peaks.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @RegentsPark: K2 is there. Unfortunately, they've put a big black triangle on the topographic shading which might have actually shown the mountain. I'm going to write to LOC to ask if they have the original raster images of the topography. Obviously, the Aksai Chin coloring etc must have been added later. It is hardly likely that the topographers made such detailed maps for some Joe Schmo to spoil them with contemporary disputes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

   Done @RegentsPark: If you now look at the hi-res map, it has all five eight-thousanders in Kashmir. Two (K2 and Nanga Parbat) were already there. I've added Gasherbrum I and II and Broad Peak. I once flew in a rickety Aeroflot over the Karakorams. Scarily steep. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• User:Fowler&fowler's high-res map looks good to me. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• New one - SVG maps inherently have technical advantages and are far easier to edit. The sourcing on anything WP:Contentious (disputed) between countries is the old map in this case. Cononsense (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Old one For the reasons stated in above discussion[13]. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion on merging

Thanks - FactsResearcher (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see this article discussion over at

@Viriditas page moved and replied. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC concerning the lede for the article The Kashmir Files. Comments are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please keep an eye out on the article, edits such as this "No Chance of BJP winnig two seats." (sic) - for an election to be held in August - sigh!! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, wish my crystal ball was that good, it's only useful for AfD Zindor (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a proposal to move

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe yes, spelling variation of the same name. The latter is more popular spelling. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Just set up the redirect WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just a post to assess the interest there might be here of having a Discord channel for the project. Pinging ArnabSaha as previously expressed interest. I'm not sure if anybody is active in our IRC but this would fulfill a similar role but with more modern technology and better integration with Wikipedia. The idea is to further participation in the project, foster collaboration and enrich our experience here. If you're interested then please comment below as this will be presented to the mods on en-wiki's Discord. I'd also just like to say that keeping the kind of discussions and posts we have on-wiki here at the Noticeboard is of the utmost importance and that should be clear from the outset. I look forward to your replies, Zindor (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India is very commonly used, since India-related topica are covered in depth on the English Wikipedia, and has a very large number of entries. Thus, I think we should subdivide it by state, like we do with the United States and Canada; Kerala and Punjab already have their own delsorts. Many articles that turn up at AfD can be associated with a specific state, especially locations and sometimes biographies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, delsorts should be created at least for all major states -- Ab207 (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Delsort is a feature for editors, a large chunk of our editors are from the US and therefore dividing by geography there makes sense, that isn't the case in India. The best sorting for India would be crossing with topics -- Indian film topics, Indian geography topics and so on, divvying up by states will only result in a majority of topics never getting any attention at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Spaceman. Delsorting is useful only in so far as it brings the AFDs to the attention of editors interested in and knowledgeable about the area. So state-wise delsorting of Indian articles would be useful only if the particular wikiproject was pretty active and say, at least a few dozen editors, kept an eye on the delsort list. Is there any such Indian state-project? (genuine, not rhetorical, question)?

As a sanity check, I looked up the the current AFDs sorted under the Punjab, and Kerala projects: the former has no entry, while the latter has 1 AFD listed which has attracted no input from any India/Kerala project-member (afaict) despite being relisted twice. That would IMO argue for eliminating those sub-classes rather than creating more. Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the state WikiProjects for India have very few active members. I'd guess that geography also wouldn't have many takers. On the other hand, sport (at least cricket), film and politics might be more useful. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

In the past there're suggestions to archive/redirect state projects/banners as they are inactive

• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 73#Archive WikiProject Ganjam
• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 72#WikiProject South Asia

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• There was also a creation of Wikiproject Jodhpur or Jaipur once (when WP Rajasthan itself doesn't have any participation). I was against this as it just adds clutter to article talk pages but the venture went on. Nothing other than tagging of existing articles ever happened. Same with another one like that -- Wikiproject Tamils or something like that. Indian Film is probably the only one that's active with participation. Cricket gets more eyes from WP Cricket, though there's a large crossover of members. Unfortunately, MfD will also not take care of junk like this as they will say "Give it more time" and "Mark as historical" and all that, our idea of not being a bureaucracy is restricted only to creating junk, not cleaning it up! —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Agree a topical split would be much better. Also, many people would need to be on several geographical lists. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some weird stuff going on with addition of flags of states into articles. No state in India has an official flag and this is rather weird that we're pushing this. One example I found is the use of File:..Maharashtra Flag(INDIA).png in many articles though I'm guessing it's just one of many such flags. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(1) FYI There are official state flags e.g. State flag of Jammu and Kashmir, Flag of Karnataka etc.

(2) It depends where they are getting added and if these flags are reliably sourced. I dont think they should be used at places other than the flag article, state article and the history of the state articles. The Maharashtra example looks strange, is unsourced too. If these flags lack sources they should be removed. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The erstwhile J&K state was the only one to have a flag. Karnataka doesn't have an official flag, as much as we'd like to say so. It's only a demand, and it's used de facto, not de jure. —SpacemanSpiff 16:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

here easier to notice, durand cup cant stay in infobox (explained in edit history), someone has to stop sinan or i keep reporting until gets ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportski recenzist (talk • contribs) 12:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so this is a tricky one, and this may not be the space for it, so if so, let me know, but I was perusing the various articles about the Asaf Jahi Nizams of Hyderabad yesterday, and something that stuck out to me as odd is the use of the title "Bayafandi" on many of the pages for individuals in the dynasty, and I wanted to know if anyone here had the expertise to judge the historicity of it? I am only aware of the use of the title Beyefendi/Bayafandi in the context of the later Ottoman Empire, and obviously when the two sons of

It's not my subject, but we could do with some eyes on recent edits by Johnbendenz a new editor who seems to be editing articles about Gurjar clans...rather freely. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Many of these clan pages are filled with history of unrelated historical empires whose name matches little bit with the clan name without backing of any reliable sources. Like Kasana clan with Kushana empire, some Hoon clan (not found in any reliable source) with Huna empires and Bhadana clan with little known Bhadanaka kingdom which was crushed by Prithviraj Chauhan in 12th century, looks like there has been some making of fake history going on. I tried improving some but there is much scope of improvement still. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated, but has there ever been a consensus on which spelling of Gurjar/Gujjar should be used for continuity in the main article? Because whoever wrote it uses them both interchangeably often in the same sentence and it's very confusing. I would suggest using Gurjar throughout since that's already the title of the page and the variant spellings are introduced in the heading, but if it should be Gujjar then the page name should be changed to reflect that, right?-Evansknight (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Your question led me to search a bit and in the most sources the word used is Gujar or Gujjar rather than Gurjar (the title of the page). Curiously I ran search [14] and Gujar rank the highest while Gujjar is on second place while the title of the page i.e. Gurjar is at last in popularity throught the time period. In my opinion the page should be moved to Gujar. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we make Parsvanatha ayagapata to Parsvanatha Ayagapata? Means can we Capitalise the first letter of the second word? |

@

Botu Yadav Why? tablets, capitals, inscriptions etc are all titled with small letters. See Category:Mathura art Venkat TL (talk

) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:, I am just asking about that, i am being sure about this, so that i can do my best in future. –|

Input requested at

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI I have reverted the move, as a prerequisite to a page move discussion. Venkat TL (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Certain editors claim to a "consensus" about not discussing the varna details of caste and relevant details (attempts to gain mobility etc.) in lead. Does such a consensus exist?

Despite multiple scholars discussing how the Baidyas —a jati in Bengal— gained social mobility by opposing to being classed as Sudras and staking claims to Brahmin status across the (Nawabi and) colonial era through a variety of ways, I am not allowed to such introduce such details to lead. Such a consensus will be ridiculous given the extensive scholarly attention on attempts by different castes to gain social mobility through Sanskritization etc. The current lead at Yadava and many other similar articles will run afoul of such restrictions too. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• As anyone who's aware of the Indian caste system would agree, varna has always been a subject of debate, and has often been fluid as well, apart from being imposed by Brahmins in order to exercise their superiority. IMHO, it would be best to discuss varna in the article body (covering all views as per
  WP:NPOV), and not in the lead, irrespective of whether any such consensus exists or not! Would invite LukeEmily and Kautilya3 to share their comments here in order to have the discussion on this page only. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk
  ) 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is a IDONOTLIKEIT argument.

  MOS:LEAD goes, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. TrangaBellam (talk

  ) 09:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• I believe there is a consensus. Please see comments by Sitush here. Pinging all editors involved in recent discussion on Baidya about this-@Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, and Nobita456:.

1. from Talk:P._K._Rosy see this
   1. For example, one of the most controversial verifiable statements is the varna of a caste but we very deliberately- by long-standing consensus - avoid putting it in the lead because it just creates a storm. We discuss it in the body, showing all opinions with equal weight.-13:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Talk:Rajput/Archive_24#Recent_edit_war
   1. It is probable that neither of you are aware of this but there has long been a consensus that we do not mention varna in the lead sections of articles. For that reason, the change is not acceptable.-Sitush 14:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Talk:Ror see this
   1. Even if we had a reliable source for it, consensus has long been that varna is not mentioned in lead sections (and, by extension, in infoboxes & short descriptions). - Sitush 10:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
4. Talk:Yadav/Archive_11#My_recent_revert Sitush's revert see this revert by Sitush
   1. There is a long-standing consensus that we try to avoid mentioning varna in lead sections because the issue is very frequently complex. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2016
5. Talk:Nair/Archive_18#My_recent_removal
   1. Forward caste issue is dealt with in the article body and the issue is complex. There is a consensus not to include varna & this sort of stuff in lead sections Sitush 17:26, 7 January 2012
6. Talk:Maratha_(caste)/Archive_3#Maratha_are_shudras
   1. Please note that even if these come to light, we would not be showing the varna status in the lead section or infobox as there is a consensus that such things cause only problems. The statement would appear within the body of the article. - Sitush 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus. Adding Varna in the lead (even if 100% correct), will attract vandals, lead to edit wars etc. Words like Shudra are not censored but we can mention them in the body rather than mention in the lead. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of similar comments by a single editor do not a consensus make.

You point to his comments at Yadav but he has not opposed the current lead in place which details their lowly status and upward mobilization. Unlike the reverted edits about Marathas etc., I do not claim the Baidyas to be shudras (or anything else) but rather note the Brahminic literature to have classed them in such a way. Which prompted their quest for upward mobility.

If our approach to stop vandalism is to censor information, I have nothing to say. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, Sitush has enough standing in the community that he can, in fact, make consensus all by himself.

In any case, there was a very strained DRN on Yadav and a follow-up discussion here. What you think Yadav's lead says is not what it really says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

[Yadav] were outside the formal caste system [..] Yadav leaders and intellectuals have often focused on their claimed descent from Yadu, and from Krishna, which they argue confers kshatriya status upon them and effort has been invested in recasting the group narrative to emphasise kshatriya-like valour

Quite different from what I propose to write for our lead at Baidya, indeed. You understand that the Yadavs vehemently reject that they were ever outside the caste system?

That being said, in your opinion, we ought not cover how the Baidyas ascended the social hierarchy despite several scholars documenting such attempts or even mention the bare fact of it? Or shall we cover it but without noting anything about the shudra (or lowly) status, assigned by the Brahmins, whey they were contesting? Which will beg the obvious question about why a jati, who was so preeminent from a material perspective even in premodernity, was engaging in such acrimonious acrobatics across two and a half centuries.

I am yet to come across a single policy based objection about why a topic, which has attracted multiple scholars, shall not be covered in the lead. You are speaking about potential of heart-burns, LukeEmily is speaking about potential of increased vandalism, and Ekdalian is speaking about the need to respect your (plural) arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

All the previous discussions have said that it is too complicated, often contested and hard to condense it to a few sentences. And, I would add that it doesn't matter a dime.

The three citations at the end of the current lead mention Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas as three castes that make up the Bhadralok. Why isn't that enough?

Why were they contesting the Shudra status? Well, you are the one claiming that there is extensive literature on it. If they haven't bothered to explain why they were contesting, it couldn't have been very good literature, could it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it is better to invoke IAR. That existing literature do not cover a relevant question does not allow us to tag sources as "poor" etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sitush had pointed to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 47#Varna status in the lead of articles as the original discussion. Hemantha (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion was a protracted mess but RegentsPark as well as F&F had rejected any blanket-proposal to refrain from discussing varna, socio-political maneuvers to gain mobility etc. in lead. I do not see how someone can derive a consensus from such discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Isn't it about time Wikipedia stopped including all this 'caste' nonsense imposed on the Indian population by Raj 'ethnographers'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, we don't

  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We merely document the world out there, whatever nonsense imposed on whoever by whoever — DaxServer (t · m · c

  ) 12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but we are under no obligation to repeat all this Raj-fossil name-calling as if it represented anything remotely resembling actual history. If people want pretend that castes are real things, they can - Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide a platform for it though. Document its unfortunate history, as fiction created by a foreign ruling class looking to impose their own ideology on another culture to make maintaining power easier, and leave it there.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume that this is a rhetorical response to a not-so-recent fad in certain sections of scholarship about blaming all evils of the caste system on the White Men? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not blaming it all on the 'white men'. I'm blaming them for starting it (or more accurately, for concocting a rigid hierarchical system out of something much more fluid and contextual, for their own Imperialist purposes), and on 'less-white men' for preserving the Raj-imposed hierarchy for their own purposes, after kicking the 'white men' out. You might call it a 'fad'. I call it an accurate reporting of history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The British may have been over-enthusiastic in trying to map out its details, but the Caste system is an old old Indian flaw. Very old. It had done great harm to India, long before the British, long before the Muslims. Chinese visitors in the early first millennium left some harrowing descriptions of its excesses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've been pinged. I can't speak to the particular issue at hand but will speak broadly.

I haven't edited caste-related articles in a while, but Sitush and I did write

Jat people a long time ago, and RegentsPark and I wrote the lead of Caste

. Here are my two cents.

Indo-Aryan groups did enter the subcontinent some 3500 years ago. There is no evidence that there was a system of stratification in place before their arrival. The Indo-Aryan sacred texts talk of the four varnas, but the four varnas did not come riding in through the Khyber. The Shudras did not get off their horses and cleared the woods, and after the Brahmins had done their business the next morning, carry the business away on their heads. Unlikely scenario. What happened next as small bands of immigrants with powerful technologies of mobility and warfare began to establish hegemony in a highly diverse and populated land is the million-dollar question. How much bloodshed took place? How much destruction was there? Was the varna system a form of patrilineality for preserving property among immigrants whose males outnumbered their females? Were adjustments made from the very beginning as the immigrant men married local women? What about the vast Indian hinterland, the OBCs of later nomenclature, as they integrated.

Varna the world's oldest form of apartheid, has been around in India for a very long time. But it has also built in it a notion of ritual purity and impurity that has done India great harm. In its name, many groups such as

adivasis have faced violence and discrimination, as have women. I never bother with WP policy, but there must be some policy that states Wikipedia cannot help in perpetuating social discrimination, bigotry, and violence. This is especially important because unlike Periyar

who chose to reject caste altogether, most people in India have chosen to only move up its shaky ladder, and in turn sometimes, paradoxically, to participate in that violence.

So, summing up, it is OK to say

scheduled tribe, Dalit and Adivasi, to say elite caste and non-elite caste, to mention jati, but to say anything that hints at purity and impurity unless it is a discussion about ritual impurity, is not helpful. Although I did not take part in any of these discussions cited above, I am broadly in agreement with the previous consensus. May I express my admiration for my old friend Sitush, who hasn't been around lately for so forcefully expressing these views? Fowler&fowler«Talk»

15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

My views don't mean I reject all Raj-era ethnography or Raj-era censuses. My view on them is that they are old, and therefore a type of primary source. Secondary sources are needed to interpret them. Better a scholar who has training in reading primary sources than us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to clarify this. It is common sense, but what I mean is. You cannot use the 1891 census and write, "X was born in 1880, the third child of a mother who was a clean shudra grade 2 from whom the Brahmins could accept water and a father a clean shudra grade 1 from whom the Brahmins could accept "pukka" food (i.e. cooked in ghee)" That would be stupid, not just in the lead, but anywhere.

But you very much can say, "Yadav leaders and intellectuals have often focused on their claimed descent from Yadu, and from Krishna, which they argue confers kshatriya status upon them, and effort has been invested in recasting the group narrative to emphasise kshatriya-like valour, however, the overall tenor of their movement has not been overtly egalitarian in the context of the larger Indian caste system." cited to Susan Bayly, Joyce Burkhalter and Christophe Jaffrelot. It all depends on the spin, whether you are describing the varna status as a fact or ironically. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

What about,

In premodern Bengal, Brahminic literature held all non-Brahmins to be Shudras and accordingly, categorized Baidyas as the highest among Sudras alongside Kayastha. During the Nawabi and colonial era, Baidyas increasingly opposed to accepting such a classification and staked claims to Brahmin status. In the resulting negotiations, they successfully ascended to the upper echelons of social hierarchy.

, cited to monographs from Chicago University Press and similar high-quality sources from within the last two decades? [Some wordsmithing and details on "negotiations" are required.] TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable with that. For in the earlier version above, the secondary sources are used to describe the yadav's own description of their caste, yours describes others' description of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Weren't you supportive of the line —Yadav groups were linked to cattle raising and as such, were outside the formal caste system—, which K3 has now tagged for "failed verification"? Fwiw, the Yadavs vehemently reject that they were ever outside the caste system; you (obviously) know of that! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

K3 made a very relevant query. I have since fixed it. We know say: Historically, the Ahir and Yadav groups had an ambiguous ritual status in caste stratification. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:, I am trying to remember why I had written "as such were outside the formal caste system." That part is not essentially incorrect, but it is not the kind of observation you can cite to one source, or a few sentences of one source. I had been reading Susan Bayly's book at the time, ca 2009 or 2010, when I likely wrote that. In will say something more generally below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam and Fowler&fowler: this is a hypothetical case but relevant—the Rajbanshi people claimed Kshatriya varna in the 19th/early 20th century and the (very picky Brahmins of Bengal) seem to have agreed. They were not treated as Kshatriyas though. Now some in this community wants to be tribal—because of the benefits of ST-hood. What goes in the lead here? I am guessing that keeping varna out is much prudent, if we do need a consensus around this. Chaipau (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch many of the sources there with a ten foot pole. They are poor quality. The topic hasn't been written about with clarity and perspective in the reliable literature, unlike, say the Yadavs, I would not mention it in the lead. Actually, it is not clear what the value of this topic in that article is even in a subsection; it is far too UNDUE. I would take out 90%, cited, for example, to the proceedings of the Indian History Congress, to Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, PhD theses, the genetics mumbo-jumbo, ... but I simply don't have to time to monitor these pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I agree, it is in a terrible state. Please stop by one day and do a deep clean. One of the editors who was heavily invested in it was indefinitely blocked recently. So there is an opportunity to work on this.

But the issue I was trying to highlight is the general principle that (1) communities go up and down the varna system and (2) and this includes communities that belong to the "tribal" category and not just to the "caste" categories. To place these communities in the varna hierarchy is participating in a form of Sanskritization. Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• General comments while I have your ear.

Susan Bayly's book, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Cambridge, 2008, is a good book to read for these discussions. I'm simplifying here, of course, but she says caste in India saw major transformations in a number periods of the early modern and modern era:

a) in the post-Mughal period in which certain rising dynasts such as Shivaji sought the services of the class of scribal Brahmin specialists to certify and perpetuate their kingliness. Among those sought, were also Hindu traders and bankers who too had adopted purity in the form of certain values among which were increased vegetarianism, stricter marriage codes, the seclusion of women, and so forth. As these groups proliferated so did specialist pollution removers (typically at the bottom of the varna ladder) whose services were more frequently needed to guarantee their purity, and who came to be thus more rigidly codified.

b) in the early years of Company rule, in which the elite (twice-born) rural groups felt threatened and diminished by British land reforms, and sought to separate themselves from various groups of field hands or tillers such as the Kurmi or Jats, who had stood to benefit from the land-reforms, but who had hitherto been on the fringes of clear caste identity, came to be more rigidly codified and diminished by the rural elites. British land revenue officers themselves loved the Kurmis and the Jats for their work ethic.

c) As deforestation took place, and urbanization and cash-cropping, other groups such as pastoralists, market-gardeners, or forest-dwellers, came now to be placed and defined by forms of ritual purity, some by the British by equally by the Indian groups who needed to keep them at bay from gnawing at their privileges. This was happening long before the late 19th-century censuses or Risely's ethnological classifications.

d) Now to the British ethnologists, by which I mean civil servants, who used the then-current scientific notions of ethnology to further classify India's various existing and emerging groups. They were racist to be sure, but in the manner of those who were attempting to classify a society as they might butterflies in a collection, from a position of security; they were not racist in the manner of their modern-21st century Indian inheritors, who have taken that Aryan-centric ideology and twisted it into an ideology for violence. They did not gather on a railway platform and beat up a person from northeast India or from Africa because they looked different, though some among the British might have beaten up, without a thought, any Indian, light-skinned or dark, long-nosed or flat, of the high forehead or low, doe-eyed or slit, for defying their authority. They did not kill Dalits and Muslims alike for eating beef let alone (if a recent news report is true) an elderly, handicapped, Jain gentleman (of all people) for looking suspiciously Muslim. In other words, many of the modern-day manifestations of caste might have appeared in India's society in the absence of a British presence but with urbanization, industrialization, and the pressures of sharing reduced resources. The ideals of caste have been there in Indian society, waiting to be exploited in new ways.

e) I won't go into how in the 20th-century the same ideals, came to be used by the castes themselves in the form of caste organizations, ones that might on the one hand have requested the British to create a regiment for them because they fit into the valorous and martial ones and also 50 years later petition the Indian government to grant them reservation in government jobs because they fit into some notion of backwardness. Those sorts of things happen with state intervention, that is, can be the unintentional consequences of intervention.

So, summing up, let me quote from Susan Bayly's own conclusion:

The norms and conventions of caste have had a pervasive presence in the historical literature, and also in contemporary discourse. To ignore this, or to portray caste as a mere orientalist fabrication, would be the equivalent of trying to write about social change in modern Italy or the United States without serious discussion of faction and political corruption on the one hand, or race on the other. The comparable reference point for Britain would be class, and certainly no-one could credibly contend that class has been an unimportant factor in modern British life, or that the topic is an improper one for academic analysis. ... This study has not argued that caste is the only or even the most important element of Indian life, let alone that caste as a `system' has been the immutable core of Indian civilisation since ancient times. It does maintain that for all its diversity and its points of comparison with schemes of social differentiation to be found in other parts of the world, caste stands alone as a mode of thought and action. This distinctiveness is undeniable, even though caste certainly has much in common with other complex `invented traditions', most notably those of nationhood and ethno-religious community.

I think Sitush's dictum is a way to ensure that discussions on caste can proceed without devolving into the barbershop scene between Hinckel and Napaloni in the

@Sitush has strangely not been pinged despite being cited 13 times. Venkat TL (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Deliberately. He has not been well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Recently I tried to write about the origin of a Tibeto-Burman group

I would really welcome more editors to take an interest in Assam and Northeast Indian pages. I request the community to please at least add any page in your wishlist and check in on them once in a while.

Regarding this particular ask, please look at the entire discussion here:

Talk:Bodo-Kachari_people#Origin. OP has evinced interest in fringe theories which they displayed here [15]

. This looked very much like a political project to me. Given the high and sustained level of interest in ethnic issues in Assam over the last couple of years, this fitted the same pattern.

Sidwell makes a proposal which he himself calls speculative. Sidwell writes: I speculatively propose that a significant proportion of early AA speakers were oriented to estuarine environments—as opposed to inland or upland ones as has been commonly assumed., p56, I pointed it out but OP kept insisting that this should be included. Sidwell has given a number of different iterations of this proposal and I don't see why this should be preferred. I have been burned once using Sidwell's latest proposals.

Pinging Fylindfotberserk, Austronesier, and Abecedare. Chaipau (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this place to discuss content dispute? Why are trying to impose negativity on my personal comment? That wasn't any kind of FRINGE theory. That's just random thought that I believe is possible. My claim isn't only based on Sidwell. Currently no austroasiatic scholars agree with older hypothesis. Sidwell hypothesize about locus of dispersal which isn't our discussion. Our discussion is about the migration of Austroasiatic. Here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_European_observations_of_Raj_era_about_population_distribution_reliable_? also you see politics. Are you saying anything that benefits some political party should be kept out of Wikipedia? If anybody oppose some politics, he/she become part of same game. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"I speculatively propose that a significant proportion of early AA speakers were oriented to estuarine environments—as opposed to inland or upland ones as has been commonly assumed.", p56, I pointed it out but OP kept insisting that this should be included.

This isn't true at all. I was only interested to write the origin of Bodo-Kacharis, but when Chaipau added that Proto-Boro-Garo migrated to Brahmaputra valley it was already populated by people speaking Austroasiatic then I argued that the current understanding of Austroasiatic expansion doesn't support this assertion because Khasian languages migrated to Brahmaputra valley around 2.5 years ago according to Sidwell's paper. His work is based on genetics, archaeology, phylogenetics studies. He is a well-known expert on Austroasiatic. He abandoned his proposal about the homeland of Austroasiatic and recently proposed the locus of Austroasiatic dispersal. But the bases of his work remain the same. Chaipau's claim is that only the old hypothesis repeated by TB scholars should be given priority in the origin of Bodo-Kacharis. All hypothesis are speculation. I don't understand what is the problem where an expert calls his hypothesis speculation. Also, Sidwell argues with evidences against all other hypotheses. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not here to malign your status. I don't have any agenda as you try to impose on me. I don't claim to be expert on any subject. I joined Wikipedia to contribute whatever i know, following Wikipedia guidelines. I'm tired of unnecessary discussions about trivial things. Also, try to know the meaning of expansion time and correct all the articles wherever you assumed Expansion time means Arrival time. I'm retiring indefinitely. So, I am requesting multiple editors to contribute in Northeastern articles. Thanks. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion about whether individual rulers of Turk Shahis and Nezak Huns deserve individual pages. Relevant links are:

• Discussion on Ghar Ilchi
• Discussion on Bo Fuzhun
• Discussion on Tegin Shah
• Discussion on Barha Tegin

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Project Opinion on Individual Pages about Ancient rulers

Is the very fact of being a ruler—whose existence can be verified—inherently deserving of a standalone page in itself? For all of the above cases we barely know anything of significance apart from one or two factoids sourced to one or two ancient sources. Can

WP:PAGEDECIDE

is the guideline.

Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.

One of my gripes, which I should do something about, is that Wikidata doesn't understand this. (It doesn't allow multiple topics sharing the same Wikipage.)

But, other than that, there is absolutely no reason to have individual pages for rulers or other individuals, dynasties, kingdoms, events etc. etc. I was just thinking yesterday that we should start a clean-up drive when I noticed that every individual mentioned in Umayyad campaigns in India now has a standalone page, basically based on the content from that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you (except for WD, which I am not conversant with). I emphasized on these very lines at this discussion but was told that it was customary to create page for notable rulers on Wikipedia.

I can join in the drive—why do people write stubs like Agguka I?—but there are hardly any eyes in these areas. A single revert by some obstinate editor is effectively a veto. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In this case, obviously, it is to claim, "we won". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It may not be the case all the time, and possibly not in this case, but a consideration is that making new articles makes Wikipedia bigger. Also looks good on the "articles created" list. Is that necessarily better? I firmly believe that combining stubs and sub-standard start-class articles with a relevant parent article would be a net positive for Wikipedia. Why have one start-class and one or more stub-class articles when a combination could make an improved C-class or better? I think combining closely related articles an overall improvement including for navigational purposes. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, Otr500. To see that in effect can only be achieved by supporting the above merge proposals or like proposals. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Creating tons of stubs is of course undesirable, but when there is a reasonable amount of content available on a given ruler or topic, I believe it is a good thing to have a dedicated page. We are an encyclopedia after all. Also, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is such that a page which was started as a stub or a small article (and sometimes staying this way for several years) can often ultimately develop into a full fledged article, with more or newer material, more images or maps etc... The above mentioned articles Ghar-ilchi, Bo Fuzhun, Tegin Shah, Barha Tegin should of course stay, there is no need or no value in merging them to something else, and if these articles did not exist, new editors would keep creating them anyway, that's the way Wikipedia has been built and expanded for the last twenty years. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

On the above articles to discuss I would have reservations. On Agguka I there really should be no valid objections. The article only remotely covers the subject as near to passing mention as some substandard sources. It is my opinion that the use of Chinese goes overboard, such as Bo Fuzhun#Chinese accounts, Turk Shahis#Dissolution of the Tang protectorate, the "Society and Religion" section, and the large amount under "Notes" concerning the "Original text of Cefu Yuangui 3.5. Fanyan in Vol. 999", as well as all the other overly explanative source listings that are not necessary. This applies to any of the other articles. A slight downfall with Wikipedia is the accolades for creating articles, regardless of the quality, and that creating more articles means Wikipedia is growing. It is not really a major concern sometimes if the articles are bare dictionary entries or sub-standard stubs. Sometimes it is just all about turning red links blue. That is where editors that do care about quality have to be diligent. However, each instance needs to be looked at individually unless there is proof that mass junk is being introduced. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree; what are your thoughts on the updated section about the Dissolution of Tang Protectorate? I have proposed that the Chinese texts be removed from notes etc. but Pat disagrees. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Otr500, I agree that these cases ought be judged individually but here we have articles, written for the sake of writing one.

Concerning Bo Fuzhun, we know nothing except a single mention in the Old Book of Tang recording his coronation. Our article, to fill space (probably), spends a line on describing what the Book of Tang is, and what it records before reproducing the entire paragraph. I do not know why our article claims that these events are again recorded in the Chinese annals Jiu Tangshu because Jiu Tangshu is the Old Book of Tang.

The rest two factoids, on coinage and identicality with Khingala, are speculations by a single historian—Shōshin Kuwayama—of which the first is not accepted (or even paid much heed to) in English language scholarship.

Coinage of ancient C. Asian rulers are based on a lot of hypothesis, which get revised every few years. And, apart from an exceedingly few cases, coinage of entire dynasties are studied rather than any single ruler. One can state Kuwayama's summary-hypothesis in an executive fashion on articles about individual Turk Shahi rulers but cannot explain his conclusions (or critiques by others) unless the entire Turk Shahi coinage is being discussed at a single place.

For every conceivable reason the two articles could be merged, they should TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Most reliable sources on the subject do use the Chinese sources extensively and quote them as well. The reason is that a large part of the history of these polities is based on the Chinese chronicles. At the very least, these should appear in the notes. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand using available sources in whatever language. As I understand the Chinese Wikipedia is blocked in China so I do not mind as much coverage being offered as possible. It is my opinion, and likely backed by broad consensus, that this is the English Wikipedia. I read that 3.5 million households in the US speak Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese?) which is reportedly the third most spoken language. However, if the US population is around 332,915,073 (2021), that is around 1%. I am sure that becomes a lot smaller if we consider how many read and/or edit Wikipedia. For ease to readers (that includes editors), any possible sites that are in English would be a positive. Sources should be linked to but do not need the expansive use of Chinese. Note:

WP:Reliable source

; The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception... includes the "Notes" section.

If there is only a single mention, and of some historical importance, in which case, someone somewhere should probably have written something more (so it might be real or perceived), then the subject absolutely should be merged. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, foreign language sources are also accepted on the English Wikipedia (see

WP:V#Non-English sources).पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk)

11:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, and thanks for the link I didn't provide. My concern is that articles that use large amounts of "other than English, be it in the references, a note section, or

MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. -- Otr500 (talk

) 17:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The original material being in Chinese, the most rigorous approach is to provide the original text together with its English translation. Many academics and students of this region and period do rely on the Chinese originals for precise understanding. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I came across this POV write-up at

"Students from all professions are facing stress due to various reasons resulting in suicidal tendencies."

Shouldn't this be merged to Suicide in India with a section there? 122.170.42.0 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)