Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 77

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Request for Comment: should lists of members of castes be deprecated and extant such lists deleted

We have a multitude of lists of members of castes, such as List of Rajputs and List of Brahmins. We also have existing consensus relating to castes in WP:CASTEID and the consensus that we do not categorise people by caste. There is a tension between the lists and the current caste-related consensus, not to mention long-standing concerns regarding WP:BLP and WP:V. Deprecating caste lists, and deleting the extant ones, would resolve the tension. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• To repeat what I said in the section above, I'd like to see all of these caste lists deleted. They're mostly contrary to WP:CASTEID and the consensus on not categorising people by caste. They are timesinks. They are replete with BLP violations and poor sourcing, which in the case of Indian newspaper sources often is, I think, circular. They add little to our knowledge and attract the worst of caste warriors and SPAs. Some are already lengthy, almost unmanageable, and there is no end to it, as I said a few hours ago at Talk:List of Brahmins. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above and the discussion here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:RFCNOT, this is a matter for WP:AFD; I suggest a WP:BUNDLEd nomination. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  I did say a wonk would pipe up <g> They need to be deprecated first, otherwise AfD will become overloaded & the lists (or others) will be created again. Bundled AfDs are themselves problematic. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support deprecation and deletion proposed above. 76 years after India's Constituent Assembly adopted the provision: "Untouchability in any form is abolished and the imposition of any disability on that account shall be an offence." and 75 years after the framers of India's Constitution proposed derecognition of caste distinctions under Articles 15(2) and 16(2), it is high time. The lists serve no purpose than make the claim that the ancestral lines of their members have remained pure by marrying within their kind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  PS 75 years of affirmative action programs in India have lessened some caste-based economic discrimination, but not social and gender discrimination. For endogamy, or marrying within one's caste, has survived in India. A 2014 survey of Hindus found 95% marrying within caste in arranged marriages. Thus, it is not only caste, but also practices—such as dowry, female infanticide (or in the modern age feticide on the heels of an ultrasound), and the taboo on widow remarriage—that wall women out from owning the assets of caste, that have had a long stay in India. These lists do nothing but advertise pure blood lines created from endogamy. WP should have no truck with them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler, your comment that the existence of these caste lists on Wikepedia is encouraging social evils doesn't make any sense. You should remember that we are an encyclopaedia rather than social reformers. We are supposed to have article on any notable thing which exists or existed. Tomorrow, you may say that articles like Criticism of Islam and Islamic terrorism are encouraging Islamophobia, so they should be deleted. Such arguments are very weak. Dympies (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  They are lists of purity of bloodlines, akin to pedigree registers. The Indian caste system is the oldest existing form of apartheid in the world. Please don't equate it with religion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support deletion of all such lists from entire Wikipedia per discussion above and for obvious reasons. Such lists should not be present in Wikipedia. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support deprecation and deletion. Caste is supposed to be a thing of the past, isn't it? The existence of these lists just encourages our caste warriors. (If you think they are a thing of the past, you're mistaken.) Bishonen | tålk 09:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC).

Wonk note: As far as I understand from WP:RFCOPEN, an RfC must have its own section plus an RfC tag with at lest one category at the top. This is so that Legobot will find it and include it in the right lists. I have added these features. Hope I did it right, please assist if I didn't. Bishonen | tålk 11:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC).

• Strongly support - Caste is an obsolete concept and although caste is not based on race, the discrimination it creates is similar to that of racism. Sadly that discrimination still exists, even in the UK. We should have nothing on Wikipedia supporting it as these lists do. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree with the arguments made by NitinMlk below. Doug Weller talk 06:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The parallels with racism are overt, and it is no part of Wikipedia's mandate to classify individuals in a manner likely to facilitate discrimination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support for deprecation, deletion, and sanctions in case of attempts to reintroduce. Violates WP:CASTEID, WP:PROFRINGE, and probably more, not to mention common decency. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – Sitush, does this RfC also include ethnic groups and tribes of South Asia? I mean, does the RfC also include lists and article sections like the List of Pashtuns and Baloch people#Baloch people from Pakistan? Note that multiple groups of Pakistan and North-Western India are interchangeably described by different scholars as ethnic groups, castes, or tribes, which might be used as a loophole later on by the supporters of such lists. In any case, all these lists of castes, ethnic groups, tribes, etc. have hardly any encyclopedic value. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  It certainly should, in my mind. Possibly Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, too. You are right that sources for Pakistan are far less consistent in which noun they use to describe these social groups but perhaps the bigger issue is that the closer of the CASTEID discussion - Armbrust - referred only to "caste". I'm also unsure whether that was a full-blown RfC or just a project-wide consensus (I suspect the latter). While I do know that no editor with experience has ever challenged me applying it to India or Pakistan articles, the wiklawyers could have a point if they chose to pursue it.

  It should also apply to in-article lists, not just standalone ones. The problems with such lists are the same, CASTEID still applies ... and if we don't opt for that then people might just start creating massive in-article lists at Rajput etc instead, thus just moving the perceived problem. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be emphatically against including anything not associated with what Wikipedia's caste page describes as its "paradigmatic ethnographic example," i.e. "the division of India's Hindu society into rigid social groups." Indeed in my experience, pro-caste-POV editors, try to water down the insidious effects of the caste system in India by describing other forms of discrimination to be also caste-like, or by including some forms of discrimination among Hindus who have converted to Islam or Christianity to be the vestiges of their former Hindu caste. Nothing in other cultures or religions, or in converts to Islam or Christianity compares to caste.

You can have a separate RfC once this one closes and then invite WikiProjects Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc. to be on board. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This RfC has been advertised centrally, so those projects & everyone else are already invited. List of Muslim Rajputs and similar will not be prevented if the scope is tightly restricted to Hinduism but such lists are equally problematic, for the reasons I have outlined. If you give people space, the proposal is likely to be lawyered out of existence if it is accepted. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, just to add that I get that you don't like the caste system. You'll be in a majority, certainly among educated people who have never been a part of it, but so far you have basically said "I don't like it" as your rationale for supporting the proposal. It won't wash because "I don't like it" isn't a policy etc and Wikipedia isn't censored. You need to consider the practicalities in the Wikipedia universe, not the emotions and theories. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not a question of liking or not liking. It is what the reliable sources say. It is reliable content. I was reacting mostly to List of Pashtuns or Baloch_people#Baloch_people_from_Pakistan being included under the rubric of caste. They have no connection. Caste is an ages-old fact of life in Hindu India going back to the mid-first millennium BCE, to the centuries after the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. The Baloch and the Pashtuns have always lain outside. They speak languages that do not have retroflex sounds—except perhaps for the pre-Aryan Brahui people-which Sanskrit adopted upon its arrival in India. We note the caste system's ancient history, and its connection to institutionalized misogyny, in the lead and ancient history sections of India.

@RegentsPark: and I noted its ancient history when we wrote the lead of Caste more than ten years ago. Caste is not just an ethnic category, if ethnic means language; it is a complex category. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact, now that I recall, you, @Sitush: and I noted the liberating effect of the British land-revenue experts on tiller castes such as Kurmi, for the British recognized that they did not seclude their women as the upper-castes did, this despite the over-zealous British ethnologists of that period. I apologize if I have wildly misunderstood the goals of this RfC, but venturing beyond Hindu India is risky, in my view. By this I mean, the RfC should not apply to any list that is not a legacy of Hindu India's caste system. So, I take back some of what I said above and the RfC would apply to List of Muslim Rajputs or Roman_Catholic_Brahmin#Notable_persons as it does to various lists of Hindu castes, but I don't believe it should apply to the lists of Baloch or other lists of ethnicities, such as List_of_Macedonians_(ethnic_group). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Updating Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@NitinMlk and Sitush: Please note a 2012 RfC in Talk:Caste:Talk:Caste/Archive_4#RfC:_Does_the_article_minimize_the_centrality_of_India_to_the_notion_of_caste? which was closed by @Drmies: here. Their first concluding point was:

Scholarly consensus appears to be that the caste system is still of the greatest importance to Hindu India; vice versa, discussions of the caste system in secondary and tertiary scholarly sources note the centrality of Hindu India to the very concept of "caste".

Please also take a look at: Talk:Caste/Archive_4#Fowler&fowler's_scholarly_tertiary_sources_with_their_references_included. Including lists of tribes of South Asia in this RfC will be going down the rabbit hole. I could ask: where does South Asia begin, or end? If the Baloch of Balochistan, Pakistan are prohibited from having lists then why will not the Baloch of adjoining Sistan and Baluchestan province in Iran, who are ethnically similar, but don't reside in South Asia? Best to stick to caste and India, i.e. today's Republic of India. None of the other countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, or even Nepal (which used to be a Hindu kingdom) has a caste system like India's. Even the Hindus there don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point and swamping this RfC with tangential comments. I suggest we end this mini-thread-inside-a-thread before things are completely derailed. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, but please tell me on my user talk page why I am missing the point and why I should not consider Nitinmlk's suggestion to be part of a longstanding defensive dilution of the caste system in India, whose lead I had to correct here and here in 2017.

You are welcome to collapse the whole thread starting with Nitinmlk's off-topic comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support – Even if we apply WP:CASTEID partially, only those people can be listed who publicly self-identify, which makes these lists nothing more than trivia. If we try to fix this by removing the living people altogether, they will literally become lists of dead Xs (where X stands for the caste name), which will make these lists even more unencyclopedic, as scholars don't discuss dead members of a caste exclusively. And if we apply WP:CASTEID properly, then there will be hardly any entry left in these lists, as caste hardly had a direct impact on the lives of the listed people. In all these scenarios, caste lists have pretty much no encyclopedic value. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support I don't see a point in endless long lists of people unless they're useful for disambiguation. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• moderately Oppose I hate to play the Devil's advocate but the caste lists are *very* essential given that none of the caste pages are perfectly written. Self-identification is not needed for dead people. For example, if I need to know a list of Rajput or Bengali brahmin freedom fighters, caste lists provide a quick reference. If BLP violation is an issue, please protect the caste lists. Imagine how useful a caste list will be for someone who is trying to write an article on Rajputs in the 19th century(as an example). If I want to find a Baidya poet (for example) and I can quickly find him on the Baidya page due to the caste list. We even have a list of people based on religion or race. Castes differ as much as two religions. I am pinging other editors I have worked with for their opinions @Akalanka820, Dympies, Admantine123, MRRaja001, Jonathansammy, Satnam2408, Ekdalian, CharlesWain, and Satnam2408:. It looks I am in a minority but I really feel that caste lists is a very useful "feature" - not only for readers but also for editors. Thanks. LukeEmily (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Csnvassing or what? - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush:, honestly no. I literally included almost every editor I have interacted with and could think of. In fact, with some of them I had strong disputes on other topics. I was going to include F&F and Fylindfotberserk too but noticed they had already replied.LukeEmily (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As you know, Bhangis in India were the lowest of the low-caste untouchables whose society-appointed duty from time immemorial was carrying a basket filled with human feces collected from old-fashioned pre-flush toilets and avoiding the direct gaze as befitted their lowly status when the upper castes passed them on the streets. As you also know untouchability was abolished in India in 1947. So if a Bhangi who was four years old in 1947 self-identifies today as a Kanyakubja Brahmin, the highest of the very highest, the lord of the caste domain, will you accept it? If not, why not? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, sorry for the late reply. In this case would we have two sources, one identifying the person as a Bhangi and the other where he says he is a Brahmin? In that case we could put a note or disputed tag. No, I will not accept if a known(via other sources) Bhangi identifies himself/herself as a Kanyakubja Brahmin. Even if untouchability was abolished, the caste still remains the same i.e. Bhangi in this case. He would no longer be considered untouchable but the caste has not changed.LukeEmily (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm responding to your ping. I have taken this article off my watchlist for now.

I don't understand that. A person with a Kanyakubja Brahmin (KB) last name who self-identifies as KB you accept along with a source—which in the instance of celebrities are a dime a dozen in India— but a person with the last name Balmiki who self identifies as KB you don't. I'm assuming there are many KBs who have dropped their caste names.

What if the Indian Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage next week and two KB-same-sex couples adopt a child of unknown parents? What if that child has only a first name? What caste will it be? I think you and everyone else who is defending these lists are wading into very troubled waters, not much different from old-fashioned notions of racial purity. The purity of blood lines should not be touched with a ten-foot pole on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I completely agree with the above comment from LukeEmily. Caste lists are very important for caste subject as it gives an idea about the notable people belonging to the group. I am against this entire narrative by some Wikipedians that caste system is dead or irrelevant in India today. As rightly noted by this Newyork times article, most Indians still cast their votes on the basis of caste. Had caste system been dead, why would a large chunk of Indians still use surnames which indicate their caste identity? These caste lists are as relevant as List of Pashtuns, List of Copts, List of Alawites, List of Kurds, List of Native Americans of the United States, List of Punjabis and List of Bengalis. Whether good or bad, caste system is a reality in India. We are an encyclopaedia, not social reformers. As long as the specific entries are supported by WP:RS, there is no harm in keeping these caste lists. I am of the opinion that this Indian caste specific policy of not mentioning caste if a person doesn't self-identifies needs to be re-discussed as well.Dympies (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the rationale? I didn't say the caste system was dead. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no criteria for inclusion after 1947 when caste distinctions were abolished in India. Similarly, princely privileges were derecognized in India in 1971. So if I say I am the Nawab of Junagadh or Maharajah of Mysore today and produce impeccable pedigree, will you call me "Nawab of Junagadh," respectively, "Maharajah of Mysore" on Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am sure the RSS and the wider Sangh parivar would rejoice to see the caste lists and other markers that divide Hindu society disappear.This would in its small way work towards their Hindutva agenda of creating a narrowly defined monolithic casteless Hindu society.Historically caste has been central to person's identity in india just like religion has been in other parts of the world.It determined what you ate, who you married, your right to education etc. We are here talking about removing caste lists but many supposedly secular parties in India are demanding inclusion of caste in the next census questionaire. Oppression by other castes was central to B.R. Ambedkar's struggle for the rights of his caste and other depressed classes.If you take caste out then it would be difficult for readers understand the reasons for Ambedkar's struggle.I know I am digressing but getting back to the subject of the Rfc, I would keep the caste lists but strictly enforce the self-identication rule for living persons. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Another one who is missing the point/didn't read what I said? - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Only

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
• Other Backward Classes, and
• Forward Caste

which are three groups of amalgamated former-caste distinctions, are recognized in India today. Fine distinctions such as Rajput or Brahmin have been illegal since 1950. You are welcome to making lists of the first three mentioned above if WP's servers have that kind of storage, but what is your criteria for inclusion for Brahmins or Rajputs today? How is it any different from the claimants or pretenders, to the thrones of former princely states in India whose blood lines are just as "pure" as todays Brahmins or Rajputs? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with LukeEmily; at times, these lists may provide required information, and would be relevant to the information seeker! But such lists based on caste, tribe or community must be maintained strictly as per our policies. I have been protecting many such lists for years, since these are prone to vandalism & POV pushing! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Jonathansammy. Mention of caste and the lists have encyclopedic value and they don't create any more issues for us since we have fairly made ourselves aware of WP:BLPCAT. While the proposal echoes positive sentiments to a fair degree, it nevertheless sounds like a perfect dream for Hindutva ideologues who wish there should be no caste on paper so that they can recruit more people in their Islamophobic crusade. CharlesWain (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

They create a ton of issues. I have spent hundreds of hours fixing the things and I've never seen many other people more than dabble at it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have just deleted a bunch of names at List of Ezhavas, including at least one possible BLP violation. That article has some protection in place but the rubbish is in there nonetheless. (I've also just spent several hours fixing wrongly categorised Koli people - something else that pretty much no-one else looks out for). - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sir, its very unfortunate that veteran editors like you have to spare hours from your busy schedule to fix issues in these castelists. But we need to get to the root cause. WP:CASTEID which was formed as a result of a discussion needs to be revised. As per this rule, caste of a person can't be mentioned on our platform if he doesn't self-identify to be belonging to it. This rule has unnecessarily increased burden on us as we need to patrol these articles esp. for compliance of this particular rule which as per me, has been given undue importance. There are hundreds of newcomers who join this platform daily. Its very difficult to make them understand this complicated rule as its not a part of mainstream WP:Policies and guidelines but applies to Indian individuals only. You remove an entry today only to find that it has been re-added by an ignorant user after a while. This whole process is very tiresome. Dympies (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Or List of Nairs? Again, it has a form of protection in place but I've just started to remove literally dozens of entries, many of which violate BLP. No offence intended but where have you all been during my rather lengthy absence? - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sitush, most of them are interested in different regions of India and they are not knowledgeable about other regions. Hence, the mistakes in caste articles and list of castes of other regions are avoided by them. But, this becomes a serious issue as someone who is not aware of the limitations of Wikipedia will end up getting wrong facts about caste of some XYZ notable person. BTW have you listened about recent Rajput-Gurjar controversy in India ? Many social groups end up having conflicting claim on notable people, after their death. I think you have proposed the right thing, but i am scared that we are moving towards making biographies caste neutral. If this happens, ample number of sources will be produced in future claiming Ashok Gahlot and even Narendra Modi to be Rajput or Brahmin.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

List of Bunts, too. I've not even begun checking the cites, which invariably throws up more problems. It's like shooting fish in a barrel but, particularly with BLP issues, it is out of control. And cite checks are necessary due to the sheer incompetence of many contributors (+ their socks) but getting harder because so many Indian newspapers are going behind paywalls. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Look at my edits from 19:58 to 22:52 (UTC) today. Now tell me we don't have a problem, and I've only scratched the surface. So much for people paying attention. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just begun sifting through List of Rajputs - plenty sourced there but, as per usual, they are fake refs (ie they do not adequately support the claim being made). Again, there are BLPs involved. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Dympies, you may be slightly confused. CASTEID does not underpin the need for self-identification of caste. It is WP:BLP which does that, and if you think we can get that changed then I wish you luck because you will need it. What CASTEID is saying is that caste should not be mentioned unless it has some impact on a person's life in a direct and relevant way. Yes, caste exists and is a regular fact of life for probably most Indians but it only has relevance to their articles here if there is a close connection between their caste and some facet we are referring to. For example, someone who heads a caste association, which we mention in their bio, has a very close, relevant connection to their caste which forms a part of their notability etc. On the other hand, the caste of an actor, even if self-identified, is almost never of any significance to their actions or the general reader (the 80% of the world which isn't India, roughly). For most articles here, caste has no bearing - it is "trivia" here even though, for example, it might mean they get preferred treatment in a school, temple or McDonalds (or be discriminated against in those situations). Of course, if it is trivial in the Wikipedia context, we shouldn't be recording it in a list, let alone their biography. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Sitush and share the concern associated with such articles. Yes, the purpose of adding people to such list appears to be caste glorification sometimes. Some of the extensive caste lists exists here for some of the community (eg. List of Brahmins), whose members are very active on Wikipedia. They often violate self identification related rule to add members in caste lists. But, i think caste is still important part of identity of an Indian citizen, be it a person from any field. It is also an important part of one's biography. The lists are quick way to find Notable members of a particular caste group.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with LukeEmily. Caste has special importance. The caste list not only provides information but also encourages the progress of a caste. It expresses the contribution of that caste in the development of the relevant fields. Caste also plays a significant role in the biography of some individuals. Many castes have undergone caste movements or Sanskritization. We have mentioned this in the respective articles. However, this is only not an achievement of the caste. In my humble opinion, the caste list is also a significant aspect of caste achievements. If caste glorification is an issue (Actually, Sitush is correct too; it happens), then we need to keep a proper watch on it. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  As you probably know, the Constitution of India didn't just abolish caste distinctions among the vestiges of old India; they eventually also abolished prince and commoner distinctions. On 28 December 1971, the Indian parliament abolished all princely privilege in India with these memorable words: "The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order." and the next day, the Gazette of India, made it official.

  So, will you allow "present ruler" in the fifth column of List of princely states of British India (by region). It is chock-full of living pretenders just as your lists of brahmins are chock-full of living pretenders. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler, the Indian Constitution doesn't abolish caste system as a whole. It abolishes caste based discrimination. At the same time, it gives a scope to low castes to rise in the form of positive discrimination efforts like reservation. I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but in Indian Army, most of the recruitments are based on caste. Its wrong to assume caste doesn't have relevance today. Dympies (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  I already mentioned the three groups that are recognized in my reply to Jonathansammy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Article 15(1) of the Indian constitution says, "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them."

  If the injunction to not discriminate against a class, in any form, confers recognition of the groups that comprise the class, then does India recognize racial groups? If so, which ones? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have no idea what you are implying here. We have no evidence to state that the existence of castelists on this platform goes against the Indian Constitution. And even if it goes, why should we care? We aren't bound to follow the Indian Constitution. Tomorrow you will say that as the Indian PM has been acquitted by the Indian Supreme Court for his role in 2002 riots, we should remove all the contradictory stuff from Narendra Modi as it is a contempt of court! Dympies (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  They go as much against what is constitutionally recognized in India as fake claimants to long-abolished thrones do. (There are plenty of newspaper reports of their bogus crowning ceremonies.) There is no living Brahmin in India who was born after 1950, just as there is no living Maharajah of Mysore in India, not even a titular Maharajah. Both are relics of a long-departed age. Both are fakers if they claim they are. They are just people who have last names that once belonged to some Brahmins.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler, can you prove your point? I don't think so. If a Valmiki can have his caste mentioned on caste certificate for job reservation and a Jat can have it for army recruitment, then whats so special about Brahmins that they would get extinct? Infact, Kerala government released a list of forward castes in 2021 on High Court order. This thought that caste doesn't exist today seems to be your mere imagination. Dympies (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)year

  Can we have list of unmixed negroes, lists of mulattos (offspring of "pure whites" and "unmixed African negroes"), list of quadroons (offspring of mulattos and pure whites)? There used to be quadroon balls in the American South way back when in which white men danced with quadroon women. So should Wikipedia have lists of quadroon balls in Mississippi arranged by county and year? Will Booker T. Washington be mulatto because he had reddish hair? Will File:Charley Patton (1929 photo portrait).jpg be octoroon because he might have had seven pure white great-grandparents and only one unmixed Negro great-grandparent? These lists of Indian castes are those of bloodlines, and therefore nothing but the perpetuation of old-fashioned racism on Wikipedia.

  So what if the government of India documents it? Should Wikipedia document it? Tomorrow, if the government of India begins to publish lists of Muslim-owned businesses, making them vulnerable to attacks by Hindu-right-wing zealots, should WP aid in a future Indian Kristallnacht?

  I wouldn't touch these Indian caste lists with a ten-foot pole. I'm stupefied that their existence on Wikipedia is being defended. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• :::::We don't have List of unmixed Negroes, List of mulattos, List of octoroons, List of quadroons, either. They are all relics of the dead and frightful past. WP can't have any truck with them like I said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hey Fowler&fowler Yours and Sitush's concerns are very fair and reasonable. You know that the present social condition is responsible for this. I am concerned that some Indian media and some intellectuals still refer to caste quite liberally. In the Bengal region, you will find a strange similarity among various surnames. For example, Chittaranjan Das may also be thought of as Kayastha. These issues also need to be resolved. I think great editors like you and Sitush would find a path keeping all these things in mind. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC).

  The only solution is that we, experienced editors should regularly patrol these articles and we should keep removing the poorly or un-sourced material. All the India related articles are contentious in nature and suffer from too much of edit warring. But we can't give up and say, lets delete all India related articles! Dympies (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Patrolling isn't the only solution. And in 16 or so years, despite a shedload of discussion, there is precisely one "experienced editor" who does the patrolling. There are/have been a couple who keep an eye on a specific group in which they are interested but even on those I find problems. I routinely get pinged to help out with these lists. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  CR Das may have been part of a kayastha social milieu of a turn-of-the-20th-century Bengal, but we can't say the same even about his protégé Subhas Bose who was in the next generation, let alone about those claiming to be kayasthas today. The kathastha, for example, in the North-Western Provinces in the early 19th-century were identified with scribal professions, with knowledge of Urdu. How are they identified today? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Having gone through the whole discussion I think Sitush is right.Eduardo2024 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Also Assamese Brahmin is worth of a mention, maybe problematic claims and sources are there.Eduardo2024 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please check the List of Meitei people article also. Eduardo2024 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Eduardo2024, most entries are unsourced there. You may remove them. This is the basic of editing on this platform. Please stick to the topic. This discussion is not for discussing individual lists. Dympies (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as long as self-verification of modern-day people is met; as long as verification of historic people is met; as long as there are no technical issues in the length of the articles; i see no reason why all the lists should be deleted. In fact, lists are better to manage than categories. (I support exclusion of biography articles from caste categories on grounds of difficulty of maintenance.)
  And i absolutely see no f-ing reason what have these lists to do with Constitution of India?! Am sure no one is gonna file a case on Wikimedia; and even if they do, i think Wikimedia will simply come out of it on some silly technical grounds saying their servers are not located in India or something such. And i also dont see any valid reason on why should morality of society or legal validity of castes in society come in picture here. Constitution prohibits negative discrimination based on caste, but also has provisions of positive discrimination; and in neither case prohibits identification/recognition of caste. Also we are not censored. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely that the Constitution issue is irrelevant. I said it here a couple of days ago and Fowler&fowler really needs to stop banging on about it. It is a distraction: we cover many things on Wikipedia which are illegal here & there, which offend people here & there, which seem "odd" to those not affected by it, which are historic/anachronistic, or whatever. And that is why articles about the castes themselves will always be present which, logically, wouldn't be the case if we extended Fowler&fowler's sentiments. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Really no "f-ing" reason? What special genus of reasons might that be? So will you accept list of octoroons passing as whites (see above for the definitions) and will Lena Horne be in your list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

How about stopping to give examples as arguments? The discussion can go on and on if we sit giving examples of "how if". I would suggest F&F to argue based on Sitush's basis or put forth some new basis other than OSE or OS-doesn't-E.
Answering Sitush's original argument; issue of maintenance is not valid reason for any deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance is a big BLP issue & I've already shown that we don't have a grip on it. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We can start with semi-protecting / fully-protecting all the lists and then trimming them based on verification. I don't mind them staying protected for an unreasonably long time too to steer off vandals. Maybe a year or two from now editors will get hang of what exactly is the inclusion criteria for a list. (WP:INDICSCRIPT is seeing good success over time now to remove all indic scripts from leads. Same will happen here over time.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't looked at the ones I have mentioned. Most already have forms of protection on them. No admin is going to be keen to fully-protect for a year etc because it defeats the purpose of the encyclopaedia. Equally, few will learn from such a move: after a year, there will just be a new swarm of clueless and warriors. (I've cleaned a lot of INDICSCRIPT this last week or so.) - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We know from the statement of the conclusion of the Human Genome Project that race is not a biological category, only part of a socially constructed classification.

We also say in the featured article India, "Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west. The caste system, which created a hierarchy of priests, warriors, and free peasants, but which excluded indigenous peoples by labelling their occupations impure, arose during this period."

So, we are talking between 3,000 and 2,500 years of unswerving racism, making the Indian caste system the world's oldest extant system of apartheid. Why should we support its vanities? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Be it extant or extinct; WP covers them both. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: To prevent an endless expansion/proliferation of caste lists on Wikipedia, avoiding maintenance issues and the attraction of caste warriors, I suggest implementing a cutoff point. After the prevalence of Western-style education in India (around the 19th or 20th century), access to skills shifted from being solely inherited through generations to being attainable through community institutions like colleges and universities. Therefore, I propose that the list should include only historical entities and exclude modern ones since universities took over the role in nurturing skilled populations. This approach acknowledges the historical importance of caste in India's economic system while adapting to the changes brought about by modern education systems. Have a read of this Imaginie (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I entirely disagree.

First, I don't think that paper is the first, even in developmental economics. See the lead of Raksha Bandhan and the reference to developmental economist Bina Agarwal in the quotes box.

Second, in much of Hindi-speaking north India, it is not only endogamy but also territorial exogamy. A female out-marries, far away, and her parents by custom don't visit her in her married home, leaving her vulnerable to mistreatment by the in-laws. A dowry ensures that she has no part of the share of the assets of her natal home. Her assets in her married home, in any case, are not her dowry, but what her in-laws, husband, or male sons (if any in later life) deign to give her. If she is widowed, especially if she has no brother and no sons, she becomes a nobody, wiped off the face of the earth, and sometimes consigned to boarding houses for widows in Varanasi or other Hindu holy places. Even with a husband who is alive, her position is not always secure. Wife abandonment among Hindus in rural India, especially of wives who don't have sons, is much higher than are divorces among Muslims.

Third, western-style education for India's elite began in the late 18th century. See Company rule in India. The first colleges were founded in the early 19th century and the three major universities—Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras—in 1857 at the very end of Company rule. The skills they imparted were bureaucratic skills, and the recipients were the male elite. Women and lower castes were left out.

Fourth, the traditional skilled castes such as goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, potters, carpenters, market gardeners, ... or service castes such as dairymen, washermen, barbers, ... did not inherit their professions, they were apprenticed, most often to an elder male in the family. Your cutoff point works only for a small upper elite. These traditional castes have still not gone to college, probably not even to vocational school.

Fifth, 70% of Indians have not finished secondary education. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the state of employment and education in India. (My congratulations to you. Registered user for under a day and you find this discussion.) - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am now taking this page off my watchlist for a week, so disappointing has the "oppose" discourse been to Sitush's excellent RfC proposal. As I stated above, I am stupefied by the vehemence of the opposition. They have been summoned and have turned out in droves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

PS I have an excellent memory. I will remember their names, not to exact revenge, but to be aware what views they might be promoting on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I went through some other lists of people from other corners of the world like List of Native Americans of the United States, List of Kurds, List of Pashtuns. I found similar issues like we are discussing here. The lista are very long, hardly any entries are sourced; BLP entries are also unsourced, let alone self-identification. Despite all this, there is a relative peace in those lists because they don't have overconcerned people around them like we have for castelists. Comparing those articles to ours, I find our castelists in a much better position.

Secondly, I see many people justifying removal of castelists citing maintenance issues. The maintenance of articles completely lies on us. If we want to improve quality of these lists, we need to devote time and keep watch on them to check compliance of WP guidelines. If the condition doesn't get under control, we should ask admins to provide extended protection to the articles. Its an effective way to stop vandals. If we don't have enough time for all this, we should rather leave them to other editors as there are things which are far more important in our lives. Dympies (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of them already have protection. Never underestimate the obstinacy of a caste warrior. And the fact is that many of these lists have only really ever been watched by me, and I'm pretty sure that will apply again in a few weeks after a little flurry of group effort - it's a pattern. As for non-Indian lists you looked at, well, WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the List of Brahmins and saw several discrepancies that you allude to. Policing a broad all India list like this would be a huge task because there might be dozens of groups claiming to be brahmins. Having said that, I have no objection to lists based on subcastes because the number of notables would be much smaller, and therefore easier to police. My additional two cents to the debate.Thanks for coming back to India related topics.You do bring sanity to the articles. Regards. Jonathansammy (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you Jonathansammy that this particular List of Brahmins should be deleted. If we see the definition of caste, Brahmin is a varna rather than a single caste. In general, an Iyengar won't marry Iyer, a Kashmiri Pandit won't marry a Jammu Saraswat Brahmin and a Gaur Brahmin won't marry a Dadich Brahmin. These communities which we refer as Brahmin sub-castes are actually independent castes which share varna with other Brahmin communities. Considering this, List of Brahmins is not needed when we already have lists like List of Kashmiri Pandits, List of Chitpavans, List of Maithil Brahmins etc. Dympies (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

So, again you are listing individuals who have purity of blood lines. You are making WP a resource for checking if the blood line of a celebrity Hindu in India is pure. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is a common platitude that WP is not a phone book. This is much worse. "WP is not a stud book" should be added to WP policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: There is nothing like purity of blood in this whole world. The entire human race is an admixture of different sub-races. Caste identity doesn't guarantee genetic purity by any mean. Caste depends on social status. If a child along with his family identifies himself as Brahmin and society accepts them as Brahmins, we, at Wikepedia, will call him Brahmin. We are not here to conduct his DNA test to find out whether the child in the family is a biological son of his parents or not. This rule applies to every BLP and in every context. If Virat Kohli says that his parents' names are Prem Kohli and Saroj Kohli, we would write their names without hesitation. If he says, he is an alumnus of Vishal Bharti Public School, we would accept it as such. Dympies (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Two castes may be diametrically opposite but racially very close. From Gadgil:"For instance, in western Maharashtra the Rigvedic Deshastha Brahmans are genetically closer to the local Shudra Kunbi castes than to the Chitpavan Konkanastha Brahmans (Karve and Malhotra 1968)". LukeEmily (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

All this racial purity/genetics stuff is irrelevant to the proposal, although I am intrigued that reliable genetic studies of such groups existed in 1968 - that article & its sourcing needs a close look, regardless of this discussion! - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Why you are using these old writers to propagate these things? Do you really think Chitpavans are different to Deshashta? Do you think Ms Karve used any scientific data to make that conclusion. Ideally, these things should be decided by the autosomal genetics data with modern scientific scrutiny, which is definitely available. Unfortunately, Wikipedia as a platform is giving too much weightage to older sources here more than the modern genetic results and that is reflected in various caste articles too with all types of theories. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Sitush. Also, I always had my doubts about the encyclopaedic value of these lists and the purpose they serve other than being a playground for racist vandals. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, and very strongly. The primary policy issue here is WP:CENSOR. I fully understand the emphatic objections and the references to §15(2) and 16(2), but those are reasons to keep this information, not delete it. Fowler&fowler's argument are directly on point and directly opposed to their conclusion. The fact that the evil of caste-driving division still exists is a critical reason that we need these lists and categories. As an encyclopaedia, we cannot simply ignore or deprecate offensive or unpleasant realities. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  PS Yes, the evil very much exists. After all, 95% of Hindu Indians still marry within their caste in arranged marriages. Arranged marriages, the bane of India's latter-day caste system, are not going anywhere in a hurry. But that is not the point @Last1in:. Rather it is that there is already a consensus WP:CASTEID, which states, There is a clear consensus against including the caste of persons in biographies, if the caste doesn't have any impact on the person's life. And even in this case, there needs to be self-identification, which is reported by reliable sources per the biography of living people policy.

  Most entries in these Lists of --- don't pass muster at CASTEID. The lists are indiscriminate, so indiscriminate that managing them takes too much time and no one is up to task. As such, they serve no encyclopedic purpose. If you are looking to reverse CASTEID, that is your prerogative; then you should propose that here in a separate RfC, but the support or oppose votes in this RfC need to be made in light of what already exists, Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I get that the purpose of this suggestion is well-natured and I agree with it in principle. But, I hope it doesn't become an exercise where we are actually "riding the crest of the wave of change" ourselves. Wikipedia is, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. The sad reality is that the Indian society is still entrenched in casteism. Moreover, I find a list such as List of Dalits actually useful to see the accomplishments of people from the most suppressed community in India.

Padurina (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

* Support - These caste lists are a shit-show and seem to be really difficult to maintain. There should be a stricter criteria for what caste lists should exist. To illustrate - a list of Dalit cricketers has more encylopedic value than a list of Brahmin cricketers. 99% of the caste lists hold zero encyclopedic value and could probably just exist as categories. Wrythemann (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - As per Bishonen's comment, It should be deleted as it attracts bunch of caste warriors. But I don't know how this decision can cope with WP:NOTCENSORED. Wormholexx (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

On a side note - Is there a brave admin willing to take a call on this? This discussion has already run its course.Wrythemann (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Replying to my earlier comment to keep the thread alive and preventing the bot from auto-archiving. Wrythemann (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• User:Wrythemann has been blocked for WP:Socking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: If we have such lists for individual ethnic groups (not pertaining to India), I don't see any merit in removing Indian caste related lists. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move at Talk:Punjab, India#Requested move 2 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Punjab, India#Requested move 2 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Awaiting merge - Peera Garhi Chowk article

Greetings, Asking for help to do the Merge of this article (since August 2023). I am unsure of how the process works, and hoping someone here knows how to complete the merge. Please see the article for details. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Historical_Vaikundar#Requested_move_22_October_2023

Your views are requested for forming a consensus. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Retroactive application of reliability

I want to inquire about Inderjit Singh Jaijee. From what I've gathered about this author, he is a human rights activist in the Punjab region. He used to be a marketing executive until Operation Blue Star occured in 1984, whereupon he dedicated his life to activism. He was also a MLA in the Punjab Legislative Assembly for a year (1985-1986). He is also associated with the Baba Nanak Educational Society (a religious organization judging by its nomenclature) and the Movement Against State Repression (which does not appear to be a particularly prominent organization given that I wasn't able to find anything about it)

Jaijee does not have an educational background in any relevant humanities discpline like history, anthropology, political science but he does have two books that were published by SAGE-[1] written in 2019 and this book [2] written in 2011. I'm not denying the reliability of these SAGE published books but would his earlier books which were not peer reviewed also be considered reliable in light of his later accomplishments-[3].

In my opinion, they would not, owing to Jaijee's lack of experience and training in academia and the lack of peer review; it was also written over a decade prior to his first SAGE published book. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Overlook on an article

I stumbled upon History of Azad Kashmir where Wikipedia:WikiProject India was not even interested be on looking at POV push on article. UNSC resolution is misrepresented and I don't know how to edit that part without causing dispute. Can't that article be brought under mid importance of WP:India?? `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 21:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categorization

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Caste-related category questions, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Parmatma Ek Sevak

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Parmatma Ek Sevak? It looks like it started out as a stub, but someone tried to expand it in good faith a few years back, but didn't add any sources in support. Someone else did subsequently add some references, but these were added to the "References" section heading and not inline. Anyway, most of the article now reads like someone's WP:OR and the article will probably need to be reverted back to a stub if that can't be remedied. In addition, to the lack of sourcing, there are also various syntax errors that need to be cleaned up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Porwad#Requested move 28 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Porwad#Requested move 28 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Shambuka#Scholarly_take_on_"interpolation"

Request your comment on the article about a shudra ascetic said to be killed by Rama in the Uttara Kanda. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India

 You are invited to join the deletion discussion for the article 2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India at AFD. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 15:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't need both Hampi and Vijayanagara, covering the same thing

This was raised a bit in the section now at the top of the Hampi talk page. The old town of Hampi was renamed Vijayanagara at the start of the Vijayanagara Empire, then deserted when that fell. Hampi now seems to be the normal term. Hampi (town) covers the modern settlement (pop. under 3,000).

Hampi and Vijayanagara both cover the history and the monuments, & should be merged. Thoughts? Please comment only here. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Bihag

languishing unedited since 2013. Could somebody please adopt it or AfD it? I cannot begin to evaluate the content. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Kundalpur, Madhya Pradesh

The Kundalpur, Madhya Pradesh requires a cleanup. It uses uses Template:Infobox religious building despite being a town article. So it needs Template:Infobox settlement, but some of the content in the infobox and the article itself needs to get forked. Suggestions please. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Predecessor of Eastern Bengal and Assam

Your views are needed at Talk:Eastern Bengal and Assam#Circular logic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Bajirao I

In recent weeks many images supposedly of Maratha Peshwa Bajirao I have appeared on his page. These images are obtained from Wikimedia but they have dubious origins, and no reliable source to back them up. How do i handle this situation without resorting to an edit war. The images I am concerned about are as follows:

1. File:Bajirao I painting.jpg Bajirao I portrait from "19th century"

2.File:Balaji Vishwanath and his son Bajirao Hunting.png Bajirao as a young boy hunting with his father Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath.

3.File:Painting of Bajirao And Mastani.jpg Painting of Bajirao And Mastani c. 1740 The first image is taken from the cover of a book by Uday Kulkarni but I have no idea who has the copyright if any for the image. The second image seems almost from a Mughal or Adilshahi sultanate.It is from a private gallery in New York with no additional information on the source. The third image hasn't been restored but it doesn't look like that of Bajirao and his mistress / wife Mastani I would like to see comments from the group on these images, and the policies that govern the use of them on Wikipedia. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Reg copyright, you can ask at WP:MCQ but since these are Commons images it might be better to check on the equivalent discussion board at Commons. As for the other questions, maybe people can participate at the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 01:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, Thanks for the suggestions.Regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sock/Meat farm making edits to various kingdom maps (being used here) on Commons

There's some significant changes being made to maps that are used on here but hosted on Commons by a sock/meat farm that seems to originate from some group on Quora. I blocked one of the accounts here (related to Maurya Empire) and that's how I found out that this was owing to some off-wiki coordination. So far I see a lot of such changes from these accounts impacting Maurya Empire and related articles, Chola articles and so on. If the actions are here then they are caught but since the actions are on Commons it's not easy to catch this. I'm also not active much, and really don't have the time to look through Commons also to figure out which maps are right and so on (most of these are throwaway accounts, and a large number of them). If people can check the articles they follow here and then see the revision history for images (mostly maps) on Commons and fix them/call to action at Commons:COM:AN for disruptive accounts, that'd be good. —SpacemanSpiff 13:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC on some aggressive editing/AfD

I have recently noticed some aggressive editing/AfD on some articles of relevance to this project. In one, Ritesh Hada, the page was deleted and replaced by a redirect without, from what I can see, any discussion. In another, for State Bank Archives and Museum, an AfD was created for what appears to me to be a well-sourced article. Maybe these were valid, but in both cases they (and some similar edits) look somewhat hasty to me. I think it would be good to have some feedback from members of this project. Thanks in advance. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 When starting wiki discussion on the actions of a specific user, it is common practise to notify them using a PING or a talk page notice. Additionally, I would also suggest leaving a note at WT:NPR regarding this discussion since it appears you are disputing actions that I have made in my new-page patroller capacity using the curation toolbar.

I personally think the first BLAR and the second AFD tag was within policy and justified (and I don't see your point about aggressiveness), but I'm willing to take any feedback onboard and course-correct if there was indeed any lapses in judgement from my end :) Sohom (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The approach I have seen (and used) is to gently and politely tag any issues and ping any relevant editors if needed. Often the first step is a talk page notification "this needs improvement" or "folks, should this be changed" on a project page. If nobody does anything for 2-4 weeks then more vigorous action may be appropriate. I believe the aim should always be to help, encourage and improve. The only time a radical delete and redirect is appropriate is for abuse. Jumping to an AfD without discussion (which I think you did for a few other pages as well) is harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with either action. I personally would not have redirected the first article but would've sent it for a deletion discussion instead but that's just a preference. While with the second article, instinct tells me that there should be sources but good ones aren't in the article and a deletion discussion is appropriate. —SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Sathish#Requested_move_23_November_2023 about whether or not to move Sathish to Sathish Muthukrishnan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Koli language

Could you help to disambiguate links to Koli language? There are several articles (shown at Disambig fix list for Koli language) where I am unsure whether the link should go to any one of:

• Kachi Koli language
• Parkari Koli language
• Wadiyara Koli language (Tharadari Koli)

Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for Kashmir-related articles' reference list

Regarding the references that supports the disputed and administered part in Kashmir-related articles, I believe it would be better if we have notes referring to the citation list ([4]) in a primary article (Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) for example) instead of having a copy in each article (e.g- [5], [6]). It is better to keep it centralized instead of cramming up the leads of all those sub-articles in my opinion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3, Aman.kumar.goel, RegentsPark, Utcursch, Sutyarashi, and Rasnaboy:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, given the recent reverts in several related articles. Adding a comment not to make unnecessary additions but to refer to the centralized article will do in the individual articles. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The terminology is part of the WikiProjects India-Pakistan-China consensus of August–September 2019. The citations are already there in most of the significant Kashmir-related articles. See User:Fowler&fowler/List of Kashmir-related pages in NPOV format. I will soon complete the NPOV'ing of the list.

These articles in any case have not seen significant reverts (compared to the pre-August-2019 history). The sub-articles include (a) the first-order regions such as Gilgit-Baltistan or Jammu and Kashmir (union territory); (b) the divisions in each, such as Kashmir Division, Gilgit Division or Muzaffarabad Division; the districts in each division such as Doda District, Skardu District; and district capitals such as Srinagar and Gilgit.

I am decidedly against centralized lists as they create textual distance between the reader and the dispute. Readers hardly ever bother with footnotes that pass the buck to other pages. Present company excluded, but I believe this generally suits India-POV editors who often look to dispute or disregard the disputed nature of the region. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Muslim Rangrez and Rangrez

I won't pretend to be that well-versed in the complicated structure of the caste system, but wouldn't it make sense if Rangrez and Muslim Rangrez were one article with separate sections for the religious divisions? I am also unclear as to how the Ranghar relate to the Rangrez, but they also have their own article? The sources listed don't really clear much up. Evansknight (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dhar (surname)#Requested move 30 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dhar (surname)#Requested move 30 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bensci54 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chandrayaan programme#Requested move 22 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yaarukku Theriyum#Requested move 30 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yaarukku Theriyum#Requested move 30 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Bhajan Lal Sharma new Rajasthan CM repeatedly vandalized

The article on him has been repeatedly vandalized. I tried to fix it, but with little or no success. Can a registered user with appropriate tools put it on protected status and fix the article. Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Garnier fruits jodi number 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Garnier fruits jodi number 1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Garnier fruits jodi number 1 until a consensus is reached. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 10:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Tons River page

On the tributaries section of the wiki page, it says "The Pabbar River is a tributary of the Tons River connecting to it from the west. It is also the westernmost river that drains east to the Ganges."

The Tons can't be the westernmost river draining into the Ganges, as there are many rivers from Rajasthan state that drains into the Ganges. Tons can be the northernmost river draining into the Ganges, though. Pawanranta (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Divya Dwivedi has an RfC

Divya Dwivedi, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Change in page "Road signs in India"

Hello, I see that this page has been changed and there are many errors on it, these are just people own random work and are not following the actual proper signs by the Indian Govt. Please correct this error when possible, it would be best to revert it to how it was. thank you Coolroomba (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this source about Siege of Etawah (1770) Unreliable?

https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.1681/page/17/mode/2up Sudsahab (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Page move discussion

A page move discussion going on Talk:Ayodhya Junction railway station, after the announcement of the new name by the government today (27 December 2023). I'd like to notify that one ID ([7]) seems to have been created just to support the move. Pinging admins @RegentsPark and Vanamonde93: for this reason. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maitraka#Requested move 18 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maitraka#Requested move 18 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Very fan-ish language

I've come upon a couple of articles, Banke Chamar and Chetram Jatav, with very WP:PEACOCK language, "was the great freedom fighter", "He had independent thinking and was a kind-hearted man. Honesty, compassion, and determination were some of his qualities." Perhaps someone who knows Indian history would like to do some constructive editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rajah Muthiah Medical College#Requested move 3 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rajah Muthiah Medical College#Requested move 3 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rathod of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rathod of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chauhan of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chauhan of Banjara#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kesineni Srinivas#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kesineni Srinivas#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Photo archive

The Center for Art and Archaeology of the American Institute of Indian Studies at UCLA has a lot of public domain photos of Indian art and artifacts, if anyone wants to go through the 2,828 items there and upload good items, you should totally go for it: https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:/21198/z14f7cwg. I would do some of it myself, but I am not an expert on Indian history, so I wouldn't want to do it wrong. —holly {chat} 20:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful @Holly Cheng! I'll work on this. I filed for a bot approval c:Commons:Bots/Requests/DaxBot (2). Question: Do you know whether the text under "Notes": "Description", "Contents note" accompanying the images (https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog/ark:/21198/z10g97m3) are also in PD or is it just the images? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer: I'm not sure, but you can ask UCLA at askLSC@library.ucla.edu. —holly {chat} 19:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Early Cholas#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Early Cholas#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hoysala Empire#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hoysala Empire#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Phir Subah Hogi#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Phir Subah Hogi#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Syro-Malabar Catholic Church#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syro-Malabar Catholic Church#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Physics Wallah

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Physics_Wallah#Proposed_merge_of_Alakh_Pandey_into_Physics_Wallah, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sohom (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for review

I've written an article on Vijay Nirani. Wanted to try writing my own Wikipedia Article and came across him in the news so thought he'd be interesting to write on. Could someone help me with reviewing it, I made the first round of edits but it's been pending approval for two weeks now. Workingisnotworking13 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for comments

I am requesting your valuable opinions in the RFC discussion Talk:Baidya#RFC for the usability and reliability of Pratap Chandra Chaudhury. Thanks, — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 04:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mohali district#Requested move 19 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mohali district#Requested move 19 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review and approve the draft article

Please approve Draft:Gurugram Heliport Hub and move it to the main namespace. Feel free to further enhance it. It is India's largest heliport hub and it is located in India's national capital region. Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Polygamy in India

The articles Legality of polygamy and Polygyny in India incorrectly portray that polygamy is entirely outlawed in India. It is permissible for Muslims and from the looks of it someone mischieviously has done away with it (the articles make a flawed assesment from a 2015 Supreme Court judgment [which only talked about the legality of a firing based on polygamy]).

I urge anyone knowledgeable in the topic area to fix these articles.

Thanks Gotitbro (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Any additional sources for Navleen Kumar?

Hello! After doing some copyediting over at Navleen Kumar, I've had quite a lot of trouble trying to verify some of the claims found in the article. Would anyone here be able to point me in the direction of some more English sources about her, her murder, and her husband's murder? Unfortunately, English is the only language I'm fluent in. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 19:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Invite to the Unsourced

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, especially for India-related articles! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these articles and make a meaningful impact towards improving Wikipedia as a whole. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

Also by the way, according to WP:Petscan, 11631 articles belongs to Category:India and has {{Unreferenced}}, and that's why we need a lot of help from you. – CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extra eyes on Ram Mandir

Can I get some extra set of eyes on Ram Mandir, especially tomorrow? It is ECP protected now, but many POV additions are expected from dormant accounts. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Greater Punjab Movement, India

Please review the Greater Punjab Movement, India.

This article is deliberate attempt to create a moment which doesn't exist. Sources cited do not support the core theme of the article.

Either speedy delete this article, or significantly revise it in line with the sources. Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Bias Brahmin

Nothing like this exists, this article should be deleted, your suggestion? Timovinga (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Periyasekkadu

The article Periyasekkadu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet notability requirements for locations: "In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dadar Central–Ratnagiri Passenger#Requested move 17 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dadar Central–Ratnagiri Passenger#Requested move 17 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Paresh Mokashi

Paresh Mokashi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aadarsam#Requested move 5 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aadarsam#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Kundalpur, Madhya Pradesh

It is not clear whether the Kundalpur, Madhya Pradesh article is that of a settlement or religious building. It has the characteristics of both. Suggestions on what to do. Fork it? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine - it is a small place dominated by its function as a pilgrimage site. The (presumably) largest temple has its own article. What would you fork it to? Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal

Hi, I proposed last month that Ranjitsinhji should be split into two articles (cricketer and ruler) because of its length. Post-deadline, there has been no response but it's occurred to me that I should have raised it here, so I'm leaving it be for a while longer. The proposal is at Talk:Ranjitsinhji#Article length. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Batagur baska (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think a split on those lines would be right, both aspects of his life are intertwined. I think trimming down the article may be a better option. There's a little too much detail in the form of story telling as opposed to encyclopaedic writing in there. —SpacemanSpiff 11:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Population updates for Infoboxes of Indian states

The population numbers of Indian states and union terr. in the Infoboxes are still from the 2011 census. Shouldn't there be newer official updates added? The estimates could be added in the Infoboxes as an addition. I found population projections from the Indian government for that. Any opinions? Afus199620 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Split - India at the CWC

India at the Cricket World Cup What can be done about this? (See the problems on top) What if it is split edition-wise, for eg. India at the Olympics It has India at the 2024 Summer Olympics, India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, India at the 2016 Summer Olympics etc. Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vamsi (name)#Requested move 7 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vamsi (name)#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars#Requested move 8 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars#Requested move 8 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bensci54 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bharatiya Sakshya Act, 2023#Requested move 7 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bharatiya Sakshya Act, 2023#Requested move 7 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TV5 (Telugu)#Requested move 16 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TV5 (Telugu)#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Manipuri Raas Leela#Requested move 6 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manipuri Raas Leela#Requested move 6 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Savaari (2020 film)#Requested move 18 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Savaari (2020 film)#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Prithu

Prithu has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Greenfield International Stadium#Requested move 25 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Greenfield International Stadium#Requested move 25 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rashtrakuta dynasty#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rashtrakuta dynasty#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Darbhanga–Anand Vihar Terminal Amrit Bharat Express#Requested move 27 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Darbhanga–Anand Vihar Terminal Amrit Bharat Express#Requested move 27 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox style for city related articles

Hi everyone. I invite you all to participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#City related articles infoboxes to come to a common interpretation about the infobox image format for the city related articles. It would be of a great help. 456legendtalk 01:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on the use of "charismatic" in the lead of Bhagat Singh

RfC on the use of "charismatic" in the lead of Bhagat Singh. Should the descriptor "charismatic" be used in the first lead paragraph, and if so, where? See here in Talk:Bhagat Singh Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gujarat Sabha#Requested move 21 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gujarat Sabha#Requested move 21 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Want sourcing for opening of schools for the deaf in India?

I was researching an American school for the deaf when I stumbled onto an announcement of a school for the deaf that was to open in Vadodara (then Baroda):

• "School Items". American Annals of the Deaf. 54 (2): 191–194. March 1909. JSTOR 44463520.

I found it insightful that an American journal had information on school openings in India. I know some South Asian editors are trying to get sourcing on school openings in their countries, so looking on JSTOR could be a way to get sourced info. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Rohilla AFD

Hello, if anyone could take a look at this AFD-[8] and provide their input, that would be much appreciated. It has been on hold for 3 weeks now. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Anyone interested in getting the GA crown back for our beloved Taj? Please drop a ping. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Organizing of Wiki Loves Campaign

I want to start a "Wiki Loves" campaign on India .I need to form an organising team & for that I need at least 2 / maximum 4 other users. If any one is interested please let me know on my talk page don't reply here. Maheep Singh24 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Script related discussion

There is a deletion discussion (regarding the Template:Officially used writing systems in India) going on here. People here may be interested in it. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

There is a large-scale, if not complete, rewrite of the article. Appreciate some eyes on it — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Professional Tax

Should this article be at Professional tax (it should be lowercased) or Profession tax? I'm unfamiliar enough with the topic but a good enough reader to spot a problem. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:VJ Andy#Requested move 28 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:VJ Andy#Requested move 28 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aadujeevitham (film)#Requested move 29 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aadujeevitham (film)#Requested move 29 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Talk:Ahomisation

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ahomisation#Neologism as title. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Court fire

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Court fire, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sohom (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

+ in the names of electoral alliances

On our pages, occasionally an electoral alliance of a major party in India is indicated with the + at the end, say, "Indian National Congress+". Is it a standard practice (I did not see it anywhere beyond Wikipedia)? If yes, what does it mean? Викидим (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is usually referred for the party and its coalition partners, since the formal coalition names such as National Democratic Alliance (NDA) are difficult to identify and remember for common readers than simply BJP+. Also, BJP+ can be seen as a more informal term for even those who are not in NDA, but have coalition with the BJP. Thanks,

See:

• BJP+ retains Tripura, wins 33 seats; Tipra Motha shines | Latest News India - Hindustan Times
• Exit Poll Results Live Updates: BJP+ may win Tripura and Nagaland, but hung assembly likely in Meghalaya (cnbctv18.com)
• Election Result Tripura 2023 analysis: How BJP+, Left-Congress, TIPRA performed in the polls (indianexpress.com)

Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN that requires input

There's currently a discussion on RSN about a several books on Indian history, it could use an editor with some subject are knowledge. See WP:RSN#Are these sources reliable?. Any help would beuch appreciated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

On Gadarias, Kurubas, Dhangars, etc.

I am trying to understand if these are, in a sense, the "same" people, and if they are, if their pages should be merged. There are even more terms for this general group of Indian shepherding peoples, but these are the only three dedicated Wikipedia pages that I could find (for example, "Baghel" appears on the Gadaria page as an apparent synonym). The sources I have consulted on this generally tend to lump all these people together (e.g. [9]), with the different names being regarded as merely different names for the same group. However, obviously, the mere fact that this apparently unitary group is found in so many places and referred to by so many disparate names suggests it is not a unitary group, but nevertheless there are many similarities between such communities, which raises the question of how Wikipedia should handle the subject. Presently the presence of three different pages seems to imply Wikipedia thinks of them as three different groups—although it is not really clear to me why, for example, "Baghel" or any of the other dozen terms for these people(s) does not also have its own page. But, conversely, List of Kurubas and Dhangars seems to lump all of these peoples together (and not just the two in the title; see article body). I am curious what others think. Personally I am leaning towards merging all three, but I am not super committed to this.

This table from the aforementioned source might be useful; it lists the names of these people(s) by state.

Anyways, what do people think? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Bamraulia Dynasty

Could someone familiar with Wikipedia's standards for Indian castes please review this article? It was created evading a salt on Bamraulia and was recently expanded from G4-eligible status to a substantive article by an editor with very few other edits. Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests - this seems to be a reasonable topic for an article, but it's evading a salt on Rajput resistance and I would not be surprised if the creator, who has no blocks but very few other edits, is part of the same sockfarm. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Separatist POV in Northeast India article

Recently, the sockfarm Tasumluke has been adding substantial content on some proposed country/separatist movement - WESEA in Northeast India and related articles. While I have reverted obvious POV, that is change of longstanding content based on census data as well as clubbing diverse ethnic groups within their preferred 'groupings', My point is whether this large chunk of info anout the proposed country/region (WESEA) be included in an article on administrative division, considering information on Khalistan movement or Tamil nationalism aren't mentioned in respective regional articles, not even in the Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Even Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) has a passing mention of the widely covered separatist activities in the state/UT. I believe, the newly added content related to WESEA should be merged to Insurgency in Northeast India, something similar was done by the sockfarm here. We already have a section 'Northeast India#20th century separatist unrest', which is more than enough. Pinging @Gotitbro, Chaipau, DaxServer, Chronikhiles, Manasbose, PadFoot2008, RegentsPark, Utcursch, Usernamekiran, and Vanamonde93:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Fylindfotberserk. The added content should better be added to Insurgency in Northeast India or maybe even deleted as the article already covers the added information in great detail. This is, as already mentioned by Fylindfotberserk, also keeping in mind the fact that separatist movements in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu recieve no or minimal mention in the articles about their respective states/territories. In my opinion, even the section Northeast India#20th century separatist unrest is too much and should be converted into a single line. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

yes. This will also establish a consistency/protocol for similar articles. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sikh military" discussion

See here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of loanwords in Sri Lankan Tamil#Requested move 14 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of loanwords in Sri Lankan Tamil#Requested move 14 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of WION

There is a request for comment on the reliability of WION on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Reliability of WION. — Newslinger talk 06:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Kargil Air War, Operation Safed Sagar, and Operation Talwar

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Kargil Air War, Operation Safed Sagar, and Operation Talwar—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Participate in Coordinate Me 2024 and win gifts

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Nederlands

COORDI­NATE ME

MAY 2024

WIKIDATA COMPE­TITION FOR GEO­LOCAT­ABLE CON­TENT

Please participate in Coordinate Me 2024 during May 2024 and win gifts. Support in improving the quality of geographical coordinates for the villages of Andhra Pradesh. This helps improve maps in Wikipedia, and OpenStreetMap. As a first priority, add coordinates for revenue village entries using AP State GIS portal. This is very easy. From the required villages (Example query for Guntur district), search for the coordinates in AP State GIS portal using Geocode locator menu. You can use village name and mandal/district name if required. Click coordinate symbol in Measurement menu and move the mouse to the place name and copy the displayed coordinates. Paste these coordinates and edit to change the order and separate them with a comma. Add reference with "stated in" and value as "APSGISP" (Example addition) In the past Telugu wikipedian as part of photography contest, added coordinates using online sources such as Google. But these can not be transferred to Wikidata, as wikidata is CC-0 licensed. Currently fo Andhra pradesh, there are coordinate entries for about 5000 revenue villages out of 16000 revenue villages. Many of them also are defective due to import from various wikipedias without validation check. This activity is very helpful for improving maps on Wikipedia and also for providing OSM Telugu maps using wikidata mapping to OSM. For more information check my OSM diary entry "Improving geodata accuracy on OSM and Wikidata" . Enroll here with your wikipedia account and start contributing. Contact me for any clarifications. Users interested in improving entries of other states can also join and contribute to the effort. ----Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Indian Rebillion 1857

(Personal attack removed)

Change | result = British victory to |result = End of British Company rule in India, Begin of Direct British Crown Rule, Multi Faceted Impact Source Result of Rebellion: Chat GPT and Google says the same: [10]https://freeimage.host/i/screenshot-2024-04-27-20-31-44-063-comandroidchrome.JUMtK0l One more source: [11]https://books.google.com/books?id=Jg5BAAAAcAAJ

In the third paragraph the main and biggest cause of mutiny is not written which is animal flesh cartridges which cause the revolt " The Indian rebellion was fed by resentments born of diverse perceptions, including invasive British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, summary treatment......... . Add in third paragraph the biggest cause of rebellion was animal cartridges particularly of pig and cow fat which soldiers were forced to open from mouth. Source: [12]https://www.britannica.com/summary/Indian-Mutiny

Thanks 2409:4051:4E38:6B6B:A24F:948:F637:D35D (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) ^{(WP:PA removed — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC))}

Women heads of Indian political parties

Requesting contribution help in updating section @ Women heads of Indian political parties.

Bookku (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tamil Genocide#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamil Genocide#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible hoax?

Kalloor appears to be a WP:HOAX. Created August 31, 2005, not subatantially altered since. Only other inbound link is Shri Datta Venkata Sai Temple, itself made in 2009 and turning up no non-Wikipedia mirrors. It's possibly I'm missing something and these were just not translated properly from one of the many languages used in India. However, the lack of... anything on Kalloor, along with spurious claims of the apostle Thomas being killed there -- itself not supported by Thomas the Apostle. While Kalloor does appear to be a given name in India, the claims about the family name's origins are not backed up by any sources. As these also existed at the same time as the spurious claims of the city, it's very likely all of that is hoax too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Created by an IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.120.153.207 who also created Thrikkannamangal, a village which probably exists but it has a large unreferenced section on 'places of worship' that merits a review and possible blanking / moving to talk page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of Indian history

Would anyone here be interested in reformatting this article so it's not in broken-up wikitables anymore? It's difficult to edit in this form, and I don't think it's really following the guidance at MOS:TABLES. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas

There is a AfD Discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Based Kashmiri (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

There is a AfD Discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Based Kashmiri (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Berar Sultanate#Requested move 5 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Berar Sultanate#Requested move 5 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bajaar#Requested move 6 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bajaar#Requested move 6 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Cross Project Work

Hello India Editors! Editors over at the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles are discussing working with other WikiProjects to tackle their backlog. This might take the form of a backlog drive or building up a shared resource to find reliable sources. We'd like you to be involved in the discussion because India was identified as being a topic with a large number of articles lacking references - please join the discussion here. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Concern about inflammatory content

If you visit the page on the Oudh State and look at the section labeled Shuja-ud-Daula, you will see an extensive section of text referring specifically to the activities of the eunuch Jawahir Ali Khan. This same text appears verbatim on the Slavery in India page under the section Twelver Shia Turkic ruled Oudh state. My concern is manifold: one, obviously content should never appear on two separate pages, so this must be remedied. I do not know which page it makes more sense on, for the way in which it is currently integrated is both sloppy and badly written. It appears to be well-sourced, but the language used by the author seems to be purposely inflammatory and anti-muslim. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but if someone could take a look, and let me know what we should do, if anything, I would greatly appreciate it. Evansknight (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the content was added by a now-banned sockpuppet account, what is the policy in dealing with content added by a banned user? Evansknight (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BANREVERT and WP:SOCKSTRIKE. You are free to revert any edits made by a banned socking editor regardless of their merit. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Indian Premier League#Requested move 10 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Indian Premier League#Requested move 10 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 03:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject WPL notice

Hi! A separate Wikiproject for Women's Premier League (cricket) has been proposed. For it to be established a minimum number editors are needed to show their support to the Wikiproject. Interested editors please add your name here to show your support. Thanks!

See the Wikiproject draft here. You can also invite others by placing {{subst:User:Vestrian24Bio/Wikiproject Women's Premier League (cricket)/Invitation}} in their talk page. Regards! Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 05:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Developing Countries WikiContest

Starting this July, we will see a new contest on the scene - the Developing Countries WikiContest (WP:DCWC)! Think of it as a WikiCup but only for articles and media on developing countries.

Competitors may submit GAs, GTs, FAs, FTs, FLs, FPs, and DYK and ITN entries from/on developing countries to gain points and proceed to further rounds. Points are also awarded to those who review GAs, FAs and FLs.

India is listed as a developing country for the purposes of this contest, so I encourage everyone here to sign up and compete with editors from around the world to create high-quality content!

Append your name to the DCWC signup page today!

Best wishes, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 04:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pallar#Requested move 16 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pallar#Requested move 16 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for help in Editing a new article by an inexperienced member

I humbly request the kind assistance of the team in editing the article on Shri T. Aliba Imti. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AT._Aliba_Imti&oldid=prev&diff=1198574337

Thank you Wallpattern (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've filled up the bare urls,and now it has been moved to the mainspace by Usedtobecool .Ratnahastin (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Industrial sickness

This article needs help (I had to remove a lot of cruft), and I am not familiar enough with the topic to fix it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Caste category

Do we keep caste categories like Category:Jat_politicians_from_Rajasthan? It was created yesterday. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia does not categorise people by caste. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm divided on caste categories in general. On one hand, it's sorta comparable to all the categories on African-American people, and no one would dream of deleting, say, Category:African-American actors. OTOH, caste categories would be full of pointless fights and a total nightmare to maintain, plus caste isn't inflexible in the way race is. In any case caste + occupation + location is way too narrow (and, as I said, a huge timesink), and so I think it should be deleted as well. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 11:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have ethnolinguistic, regional and religion-al cats. An extra cat on occupation based lineage is unnecessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Similar to race or religion internationally, caste remains a key identifier for most Indians. Among those advocating for assimilation of caste identities, there are 2 schools of though, one those who use caste to unify and form collectives to raise a joint voice and another who wish to mask or hide it to such a point where it disappears from people's mind space. If indeed a decision is made to delete these, unscrupulous sources would crop up showing the same information but people would have no cited or referenced source to accurately verify this information. Also the point that Fylindfotberserk made highlights that there should be some clear demarcation on subdivisions - a Jat list can be classified with proper sections to handle these occupation identifiers. Having Jat Sportsmen, Businesspersons, etc. each having their own page would be an overkill. But this as well isn't a one size fits all formula. African-American Actors for example that Wilhelm spoke about is such a big group within African-Americans that it warranted a separate list. I'm in favor of retaining these lists but not going overboard with so many subdivisions within each caste.

Are magazine, newspaper articles exempt from WP:NOINDICSCRIPT?

Are magazine, newspaper articles exempt from the WP:NOINDICSCRIPT policy? Note this change and the short t/p discussion here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS states "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of India's neighbouring countries.", so long the newspaper or magazine is related to India, use of Indic scripts on those articles would be forbidden. Hindustan (newspaper) is an Indian newspaper and mostly circulated in India, so I don't think the use of Indic scripts would be appropriate here. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iṣṭa-devatā (Hinduism)#Requested move 25 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iṣṭa-devatā (Hinduism)#Requested move 25 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Indian Civil Aviation Airshow#Requested move 26 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian Civil Aviation Airshow#Requested move 26 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Gwalvanshi Ahir

Gwalvanshi Ahir has been subject to much edit warring and disruptive editing over the last few months. I've semi-protected the page and restored what might be a reasonable recent version. However the page is in much need of a good copyedit and check of the references for reliability and relevance. Hope someone here can find the time to clean up the page. Thanks  —Smalljim  18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I count 84 reverts made between 24 May 2024 and 29 May 2024 by आभीरवाटक alone [13] , they've been doing the same on Hindi wikipedia and simple wikipedia. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: yes, the edit warring has doubtless stopped any progress on improving the article. Do you think that improving it is something that you or others here could undertake?  —Smalljim  21:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Smalljim: I've cleaned up the article by removing content that was backed by archaic Raj era sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Your version will form a good basis to revert back to should the vandalism continue after the protection ends.  —Smalljim  11:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Phoolan Devi

Hi I'm just checking in again about Phoolan Devi, just in case anyone has access to a free to use image of her. It's unlikely but I thought I'd ask. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONAME vs apparent 'correct' Arabic name

It is regarding these kinds of page moves by a now globally locked account. Are we suppose to use the 'transliteration of Arabic script' as the banned user suggests or should follow the WP:COMMONNAME used in the subcontinent's languages, many of which uses 'e' intend of 'i'. Also note the changes here. Scripts not required in the lead/infoboxes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Chumb or Chhamb?

Battle of Chumb and Chumb were moved from Chhamb by a sock last June. The references all appear to use Chamb or Chhamb. Could someone take a look and see if this needs fixing.RegentsPark (comment) 13:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ghibran#Requested move 2 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ghibran#Requested move 2 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

I am not sure but usage of word 'Repealed' seems doubtful. Can some one from this project look into this soon to be implemented law article and provide inputs at Talk:Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita#'Repealed' wording okay for IPC? or do the needful. Bookku (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ponwar cattle#Requested move 6 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ponwar cattle#Requested move 6 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Source

Have a look at this. The source used [14] is apparently an opinion piece coming from a Dalit rights activist, hence POV is an issue. The writer claims census 2011 figures for 'Shudras'. As far as I know, census do categorise SCs and STs but haven't seen anything called 'Shudra' in any of their sources, a group that includes various caste/communities from diverse backgrounds. I'd say the figures claimed here here is a case of original research of census data. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The author, Kancha Ilaiah, carries some weight in his field, but he is a controversial figure whose claims we cannot reproduce in Wikipedia's voice. I'm less concerned about the conclusions Ilaiah is coming to - as a scholar, it is his role to interpret raw statistics - but that source isn't enough for us to carry the claim uncritically. Furthermore, Ilaiah is making fairly complex arguments that are poorly suited to being summarized in the lead of a Wikipedia article. It doesn't help that the lead of that article is appalling; it is written to imply the non-existence of oppressed caste groups, rather than the reality of "Shudra" being something of a messy and mis-used catch-all term for groups whose identities are contested but whose existence as an underclass is not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Noticeboard RfC on reliability of The Times of India

There is a request for comment about the reliability of The Times of India (TOI) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: The Times of India. — Newslinger talk 10:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sadh Vaishnavism#Requested move 14 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sadh Vaishnavism#Requested move 14 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:BRICS#Requested move 23 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BRICS#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Kurukshetra War

What is the relevance of the infobox military conflict in this article? Which is meant for historical conflicts, similary we do not have one at Trojan War.

It also appears to attract bunch of OR fluff (appears to be up with it now as well). Should it be removed? Gotitbro (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Requested move 28 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Please approve "Ladakh institutes list"

Please approve Draft:List of academic and research institutes in Ladakh. Thanks.18:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.242.109 (talk)

Time wasters

Please see User_talk:220.255.242.109#TimeWasters. Seeking help from the "productive" and "helpful" editors with "collaborative and constructive attitude". Thanks. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dhruva Natchathiram: Chapter One – Yuddha Kaandam#Requested move 23 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dhruva Natchathiram: Chapter One – Yuddha Kaandam#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Featured list removal nomination

I have nominated List of Indian Nobel laureates for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Broc (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Newsletter

We haven't publisher a newsletter in years and I'd like pick it up and publish it. Maybe not a monthly issue, but quarterly or something of the sort. Anyone interested? Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Uttar Pradesh stampede#Requested move 4 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Uttar Pradesh stampede#Requested move 4 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Adil Shahi dynasty#Requested move 30 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Adil Shahi dynasty#Requested move 30 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Dance depicted in the file

Is it Bharatanatyam or Kuchipudi? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shakti pitha#Requested move 5 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shakti pitha#Requested move 5 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. _Jovian ^Eclipse 06:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Indian PM Counting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please add your votes with your comments and arguments. If you agree to remove the numbering, then vote Remove. If you don't agree to remove the counting or you have other opinions, then vote Keep 14 for PM Modi as 14th PM, or Keep 15 for PM Modi as 15th PM, or provide a custom vote. This discussion will be treated as a consensus for future reference. GrabUp - Talk 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Voting on PM Count

• Remove: As I can see from the above discussion, there is a huge mess in numbering. To avoid any misunderstandings where someone might think Wikipedia is wrong, it’s important to address this issue. Since students in India and around the world trust Wikipedia’s information, they might think Wikipedia is incorrect if their teachers or books differ from what is shown here. This could lead to repeated comments on the Talk page, such as the user who started the discussion on PM Modi’s Talk page, insisting he is the 15th PM instead of the 14th. Since clear numbering is not possible, we should consider removing it. GrabUp - Talk 19:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Grabup/@Valereee Could you kindly provide information regarding the remaining number of votes necessary to reach a conclusive resolution in the ongoing voting process? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, @Naageshwarg, there is no prescription. We discuss until someone decides there's consensus or that no consensus is going to emerge. This can take days or weeks. Valereee (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove: I agree to remove the numbering, As keeping the numbering as 14th or changing it to 15th could lead to the same discussion again in the talk page, So totally removing it would be a better option. Naageshwarg (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove, as it seems to be something we created, possibly in a US-centric thought process. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep15 I vote keep for two reasons 1.Consistency: By removing the numbering it fails to establish a consistency with not only foreign pm counting lists but many other articles regarding Indian leaders. 2.Nuance:Whether referring to primary or secondary sources such as (https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/list-of-all-prime-ministers-of-india-1473165149-1) the largest Educational site in India and reliable,removing the numbering entirely would fail to explain the nuance behind this situation. Solution: while I believe discussion is needed a solution I would propose is to Change the existing numbering to what is found on the official sources,but add a FAQ and/or Footnote elaborating the criterion. Byzaboo234 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Byzaboo234, how did you end up here? Valereee (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The OP who requested the edit is my friend and after my due diligence of research figured keeping the number count was the best Byzaboo234 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  tho I did not want this to be a actual part of my argument since it's quite silly,the "anti-wikipedia" rhetoric (if u could call it that is extremely high in the Indian Educational system. Failing to include such basic info as the PM Count and only making this exception for the Indian list would only support the argument that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of Info. While maybe disagreeing or agreeing with secondary sources from teachers or text books can be remedied by explaining the nuance behind this situation. Byzaboo234 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, @Byzaboo234, Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information. There's an explanation at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is basically a collection of curated sources (the references), along with text (the article itself) summarizing what those sources say. No one should be using Wikipedia as a source. For students writing research papers or essays, Wikipedia is a convenient starting point for finding references. The references are what students should be using to write papers. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  In all honesty I wasn't aware of this,but my argument was(should have worded it better) making Wikipedia a trustable source,as @Grabup pointed out,omitting this information(that too only the Indian article) would only feed ito the distrust. Adding a FAQ or Footnote and citing the source would better explain the nuance and reach some kind of compromise rather than omitting this completely which would kind of a shame. Byzaboo234 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Byzaboo234: We are not clear on which source we should trust. Some mention Modi as the 15th PM and some as the 14th. Moreover, the sources are also confused. GrabUp - Talk 18:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes,and that's why providing explanation of the criteria like @Pincrete outlined in the discussion page would be the better option for both Accuracy and consistency. Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Replying to @Byzaboo234

  As mentioned by @Vanamonde93 'In a parliamentary system, where a Prime Minister may be sworn in one day and hold office only to fail to prove their majority soon afterward, does the numbering even matter? List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, for instance, does not have any numbering.'

  It won't be considered a 'Shame'. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Byzaboo234 While consistency with foreign prime minister counting lists and other articles is important, it's equally crucial to ensure accuracy in our representations. The discrepancy surrounding Narendra Modi's numbering highlights an inconsistency that cannot be overlooked. Maintaining an inaccurate numbering system simply for the sake of consistency risks perpetuating misinformation. By removing the numbering, we prioritize truthfulness and integrity in our presentation of historical facts. This approach fosters a more responsible and reliable information environment, even if it means deviating from established conventions. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree,Accuracy is more important than consistency,however wouldn't providing elaboration on the nuance and confusion on the topic would be more accurate than flat out removing the numbering. Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove - In my reading there seems to be a disagreement between the "official" sources (i.e. www.pmindia.gov.in), which say 15, and the majority of RS, which say 14. It's also a little unclear how pmindia.gov is getting to 15. This is just going to be a hard factoid/statistic to relay to readers in a clear and simple way, and ultimately, it doesn't really add a great deal of context or understanding to the subject. The easiest thing to do may simply be to not mention it. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment on RfC - Kudos to User:Grabup for setting up this RfC, but I think he should have offered 3 choices. It should be Remove, Keep - 15, or Keep 14. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @NickCT: Thanks, I updated the options for more clear consensus, there is only one Keep vote so it will not effect, I am urging @Byzaboo234 to update your vote as per your opinion, If you agree PM Modi as 14th Pm then change your vote from Keep to Keep 14 and if you agree PM Modi as 15th PM then change it to Keep 15. GrabUp - Talk 18:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't realise that,thank you. Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  So "https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/former-prime-ministers/" and other official sources are prety consitent to arrive at the 15th number for Modi,official sources consider Gulzari as a PM,while secondary sources consider him as a "interim" PM Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Even I'm agreeing with you, I want to change the numbering as 15, But as many of them are not ok with the decision and other websites consider him as the 14th prime minister, So I was convinced that removing the numbering straight away would be a better option! Naageshwarg (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Byzaboo234 and Naageshwarg: - I mentioned this below, but the issue isn't that pmindia.gov considers Gulzari a PM. The issue is that pmindia.gov is double counting Atal. It's saying Atal is both the 10th and 13th PM. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  No it doesn't? 1.Nehru,2.Nanda,3.Shastri,4.Indhira,5.Moraji,6.Charan,7.Rajiv,8.Vishwanath,9.Chandra,10.Narashima,11.Atal,12.Gowda,13.Inder,14.Manmohan and current 15.Modi? Or am I making a mistake? Byzaboo234 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Byzaboo234: - "www.pmindia.gov.in/en/former-prime-ministers/" says Inder "was sworn in as the 12th Prime Minister". NickCT (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  But if we consider this website, It clearly states that Modi is the 15th Prime Minister

  https://indianembassynetherlands.gov.in/news_detail/?newsid=52, @Grabup Stated that 'I think they made a mistake', @NickCT What do you think about it? Naageshwarg (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's clear to me that gov.in considers Modi the 15th. It's not clear to me how they get to that number. NickCT (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't see that,however if we go by common sense it doesn't say 15,there is a confusion so as u said,The Footnote and elaborating the confusion is probably the best to reach a conclusive resolution. Byzaboo234 (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  You don't see on this page where it says "Shri Inder Kumar Gujral was sworn in as the 12th Prime Minister of India"? NickCT (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  yea I do now,sorry lol Byzaboo234 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Byzaboo234: - So that must make pmindia.gov.in's sequence : 1.Nehru,2.Shastri,3.Indhira,4.Moraji,5.Charan,6.Rajiv,7.Vishwanath,8.Chandra,9.Narashima,10.Atal,11.Gowda,12.Inder, 13. Atal, 14.Manmohan and current 15.Modi, right? As I mentioned previously, I don't understand why Atal gets counted twice, and Indhira only once, but I don't know what other sequence they could be using. NickCT (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  so you missed gulziral and I believe it's a mistake on pmindia.gov part but other official sources make the statement clear that Modi is 15th PM. Byzaboo234 (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  What "other official sources"? I saw the embassy website above. But obviously the embassy is probably taking their cue from pmindia, right? If the pmindia is mistaken, the embassy is making the same mistake. And I don't think pmindia consders Nanda in their count. I think we both agree pmindia is mistaken, but disagree on what that mistake is. I think the mistake they're making is that they double count Atal, but not Indhira. They should double count both (making Modi the 16th), or neither (making Modi the 14th). NickCT (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment -(Summoned by bot), comparisons with US or UK aren't necessarily helpful, Brits never refer to their PMs by any 'regnal number', so the presence of such a number would be both WP:OR and fairly valueless, ditto German chancellors and many other political leaders. Americans more commonly refer to Presidents thus, perhaps partly because the US role is more distinct, and (fairly) directly elected and ordinarily fixed-term. The first question therefore is whether Indian PMs are commonly given such a number, the answer to which appears to be yes, so the info is useful. It also appears as though Nanda's two brief 'caretaker PM-ships' are often not credited with a number, nor are 'repeats' or 'returns' (correctly probably since a new term of office is not necessarily a new office-holder). I suggest keeping the numbering, based on the most common system, which appears to call Modi 14th, but adding a footnote giving the source and elaborating the criteria briefly, as outlined by Kautilya3 or perhaps that of Valereee. Abandoning numbering would seem to be a shame, if the info is commonly employed.Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be considered a shame. 42.111.147.236 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agree that "Indian PMs are commonly given such a number". The probably is the number differs in the sources! So which number?? I agree with what several other folks here have said, that it would be extremely awkward for us to call Modi the 14th, if the official position of the Indian government is that he's the 15th. That said, the "footnote" solution may be OK. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove from article leads, but prefer 15 over 14. Ultimately, the statistic is somewhat meaningless; the number of people who have held the office is distinct from the number of terms of Prime Ministership which is very distinct from how long people have held the office which is distinct from how many times someone was elected prime minister. In Modi's case, the fact that he was the 15th person to hold office is a triviality relative to other statistics, such as the 10 years he has held the post, his re-election being the first time a non-Congress PM was re-elected to a full term, his election with a majority for a single party, etc. If someone is writing a prose summary of Modi's premiership, this statistic does not belong. That said, I have no objections to including it with an explanatory footnote in infoboxes or article bodies, and given that the prime minister's office appears to count Nanda's tenure, we should do the same. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Grabup Everyone is not suggesting the same in terms of 'Remove, Keep 14 or Keep 15' But I think everyone agrees with the footnote idea, Does anybody have any objection on including a explanatory footnote? Naageshwarg (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree,atleast an explanation to the confusion is needed. Byzaboo234 (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Grabup Waiting for your reply. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Naageshwarg: It would be good if an experienced editor or admin closed this discussion RfC and make necessary changes. GrabUp - Talk 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Grabup You're an experienced editor and a person who managed to get this issue to this notice board, Create a rfc and published this issue to many editors, Who else you think it should be? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Naageshwarg: Anyone can request closure by an uninvolved editor at Request for Closure. I think this topic needs closure by an uninvolved editor. I am not ready to close this RfC. GrabUp - Talk 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Grabup On what basis are you saying 'I'm not ready to close this RfC'? I think the consensus is clear, or it atleast has a stable discussion. So I request you, Or any other more experienced editors such as @NickCT, @Valereee, @Vanamonde93 to view this RfC and do the needful. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  An editor usually shouldn't close an RfC they open: see WP:INVOLVED for the general principle. Also, what's the hurry? The RfC has only been open four days; a month is usual. This is a book-keeping detail, moreover; there isn't any urgency on the content side either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree! GrabUp - Talk 18:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Alright thanks for the information! I was saying it as the election results 2024 were near, If the consensus are not yet clear, I have no issues with it, We can continue as per your comment. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I think we have consensus to remove now. I don't think we consensus on whether Modi should be the 14th or 15th (I'm personally beginning to think he might be the 16th!). Naageshwarg - Technically, you don't have to wait for us to agree to close the RfC. If you think there is consensus now, you can plead your case at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Requests_for_comment. Some uninvolved editor can decide whether this RfC may qualify for Wikipedia:SNOW close. That said, if a lot of folks prefer to wait (and it seems like some do), I personally would wait. This doesn't seem like so much of a hot button issue that we have to rush. If WP is getting this factoid wrong, it seems like a lot of other folks get it wrong too; hence we don't look too dumb compared to the crowd! NickCT (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @NickCT I'm agreeing with you, So let's take time and make the right decision! Naageshwarg (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  @NickCT Seems like no one have posted any comments for 3 days! Naageshwarg (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Naageshwarg: - I think a request to close posted at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Requests_for_comment would be justified. NickCT (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (Summoned by bot) per my previous comments, but add a footnote detailing the nature of the disagreement. It seems to be acknowledged that referring to someone as the nth PM is common in India-related circles, so it seems a cop-out for us to not say, even if what we are effectively saying is "sources disagree but …". The footnote is more important than the actual number chosen, but that should be the one used by the majority of sources. Not clear which that is. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion for PM Count

Narendra Modi is the 15th Prime minister of India and not 14th, This is a major error in this article, Please do correct it. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Naageshwarg, Please cite reliable source to back your edit. GrabUp - Talk 17:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the Proof/Reference:

This information is from (pmindia.gov.in) AND

https://indianembassynetherlands.gov.in/news_detail/?newsid=52 Naageshwarg (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Naageshwarg: It is the official website of the Embassy of the Netherlands. I think they made a mistake. You can see the all PM list here to check that he is the 14th PM. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on Secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you that you guys made a mistake, Here's the official website of Indian Prime minister and see what they have mentioned, So I request you to kindly change it. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/shri-narendra-modi-assumes-office-as-15th-prime-minister-of-india/

Also, In the link you sent, PM.Gulzarilal Nanda wasn' counted as a prime minister.

Kindly change it or should I ask it directly to the PM?

Many students are affected by your mistake. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Naageshwarg: The Indian PM can't really do anything here, nor is he free to do so. Wikipedia is independent from the government. Thanks for letting us know about this; I am informing an admin.

@RegentsPark: What do you say? If this is true, then we are really making a big mistake! Although Gulzarilal Nanda was PM, it was only for 13 days, serving as acting PM after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru. GrabUp - Talk 18:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Gulzarilal is in the list but is not counted as PM. GrabUp - Talk 18:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

As I can see, the Indian government officially states that Manmohan Singh was the 14th Prime Minister, not Modi.

• link

GrabUp - Talk 18:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@GrabupThank you for your support and understanding, Hope you edit the article as soon as possible!!

For further clarification, Here's the proofs that Gulzarilal Nanda was the 2nd prime minister:

https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/gulzari-lal-nanda-second-short-serving-prime-minister-7924421/

https://www.india.com/photos/news/prime-ministers-of-india-since-independence-294419/jawaharlal-nehru-1947-1964-294426/ Naageshwarg (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Can you please comment on this? GrabUp - Talk 11:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Our article says Nanda was 'interim' PM. I suggest asking for input at WP:WikiProject India, and it might be worth creating an FAQ once there's some consensus on how to count PMs of India. Surely some academic somewhere is discussing it. Valereee (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The main concerning thing to me is that the user said, “Many students are affected by your mistake.” How can we be so wrong? I also think there should be a discussion and consensus regarding this. Without consensus, this significant change can’t be added to Wikipedia. Or maybe I am wrong. GrabUp - Talk 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I am inviting everyone to please share here your opinions. GrabUp - Talk 16:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have a personal opinion here other than that we should be consistent across all our articles. This has been a persistent problem, created by Nanda's time as acting prime Minister. Someone should probably dig through what "official" sources say, and I don't have the time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here are the official sources mentioned above by the user:

  • Shri Narendra Modi assumes office as 15th Prime Minister of India
  • India’s fourteenth Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh
  • List of PMs by order

  ——

  All official government sources say that Modi is the 15th PM and the 14th PM was Manmohan Singh. We should reach a clear consensus (if there isn't one already) as June 4 is very near, and India may see a new PM. GrabUp - Talk 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are any academic sources not calling Nanda a PM? I'd say if all official government sources are counting Nanda as a PM and academics are not disagreeing, we should too. It may be worth settling on wording...'Modi is according to official government sources the 15th PM; some non-official sources consider him the 14th because interim PM Nanda was in office for less than two weeks' or whatever. Then edit other articles as appropriate and place a FAQ or pinned post where needed. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Every source calls him PM, or mainly Interim PM. The main issue is whether we should count him as a PM or not. This is what is causing the whole problem. GrabUp - Talk 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is exactly what we need, If you just mention he is the 14th prime minister, Students would blindly conclude that he is the 14th prime minister but if you mention as 'Modi is according to official government sources the 15th PM; some non-official sources consider him the 14th because interim PM Nanda was in office for less than two weeks' they would research more and conclude according, Also In my opinion the official sources are primary and the non-official sources are secondary, If you just let the readers know about this, It's obviously fine. Also after June 4, There will be the same confusion, So I request you to discuss and edit as soon as possible. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• For the PMIndia website, he is the 15th. The Gulzarilal Nanda page is pretty clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Two cents - There appear to be "reliable" and "official" sources on both sides of this debate. It's sorta nuts that "www.pmindia.gov.in", which you'd think would be the most "official" source, refers to him as both the 14th and the 15th depending on where you look. If they're confused, it's no surprise we here on WP are confused. Doing a simple search engine test, it appears sources calling him the "14th" outnumber the "15th" by about 10 to 1. I think there are four possible solutions to this debate. 1) Just call him the 14th. 2) Don't mention the number. 3) Call him the 14th, but add an in-line explainer that Nanda is excluded from the count. 4) Call him the 14th, but add a footnote explaining that Nanda is excluded. Given that sources seem to lie overwhelmingly on the side of the 14th, I'd probably say option 1 is the way to go. Option 4 (i.e. a footnote) could be OK. NickCT (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just an fyi, Britannica makes the second choice by not mentioning the number in their articles for Indian PMs. — hako9 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  You know, after further reading, I realize the problem here is Atal, not Nanda. "www.pmindia.gov.in" seems to suggest Atal is both the 10th and the 13th PM of India, while many sources (including us) seem to think he is just the tenth.... NickCT (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  After further reading, I think we should not mention the number. There's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here which is Grover Cleveland. He's called the 22nd and 24th president of the US, so it seems reasonable that Atal is 10th and 13th PM of India. It seems like the majority of reliable sources seem to treat Atal as just the 10th PM, but, as others have mentioned, the "official" sources seem to call him the 10th and 13th. Weighting the majority of RS against the "official" sources seems like too hard a debate to resolve, so I'd suggest we just avoid the whole thing and not mention anything. NickCT (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indira Gandhi also had non-consecutive terms. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh man..... you're right. So why do you think "www.pmindia.gov.in" treats Atal like he's the 10th and 13th, but Indira like she's only the 3rd? NickCT (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  As a random sidenote; does anyone else think it's weird that American's frequently refer to their president by his number in the sequence of presidents, but Brits don't do the same w/ their PM? NickCT (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Figuring out the number for the British PM would be even trickier than the debate above about Indian PMs. Presidential systems are probably easier than Parliamentary systems in this regard in general, although the number can still be arbitrary, see List of presidents of the Philippines. CMD (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like it is a very good mess. I agree to remove the numbers. At least someone can’t say that Wikipedia is wrong without understanding that there is actually a mess like this. Also, we should add an FAQ as Valeree suggested. GrabUp - Talk 02:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Most reliable sources don't make a distinction between acting PM and a PM. Some do make a distinction. These ones call Shastri 2nd PM. (verify with proquest/newspapers.com/wp:lib). But we should go with primary and official sources with this one and count Nanda as 2nd and make changes to all other articles and list. — hako9 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreeing with you here. When Nanda was appointed as prime minister, he had the dignity as a full Prime Minister. Hence the numbering must change. Naageshwarg (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

PM modi is 14 th president of india and currently serving more than 10 years from May 106.222.222.30 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There have been mutliple consecutive PMs (Nehru, Indira) in consecutive Lok Sabhas, if they were counted separately each time (to reach 14th in 2014) then PM Modi should be counted in the same manner per precedence. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Having looked more into this, I'm inclined to think we should omit the numbering altogether. The numbering makes some sense when office bearers have fixed terms that are essentially only interrupted by their demise, such as for the US presidency. In a parliamentary system, where a Prime Minister may be sworn in one day and hold office only to fail to prove their majority soon afterward, does the numbering even matter? List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, for instance, does not have any numbering. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 Agreeing with you, Instead of directly saying he is the 14th PM, We should atleast let the people know that there is a confusion, Or just omit the numbering so that there won't be a confusion like this in the first place. We should make a decision as soon as possible, Is everyone ok with this suggestion? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, I agree to remove the numbering. Additionally, we can add an FAQ to the talk page for future comments from users. GrabUp - Talk 17:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Grabup So, have we made a decision, or do you want further confirmation? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Naageshwarg: I have converted this discussion to an RFC. At the beginning, I have provided options for voting. This will help establish a clear consensus for the future. I urge everyone to vote and share your opinions. GrabUp - Talk 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Haldighati outcome

Multiple editors have asked on talk for it to be changed to inconclusive. There have been several sources provided for both Mughal victory and inconclusive (on talk). I don't feel qualified to judge which sources are more authoritative or how any contradiction should be handled. (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, and I have no opinion on what the infobox should say; but "Rana Pratap beat the Mughals" is a common narrative among the nationalist right wing, and drive-by comments seeking to get this changes can safely be disregarded. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United Front (India)#Requested move 27 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United Front (India)#Requested move 27 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Godaan has "low importance"

Are we sure that Godaan has "low importance"? If I'm not mistaken, it's the most famous/relevant novel ever written in an Indian language. --Super nabla 15:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Super nabla: That's just a subjective rating an individual editor gave it on the Wikiproject Novels rating scale back in 2006. You are welcome to change it but frankly getting this assessment "right" is not of much importance. IMO any efforts are better expended on improving the article itself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Numbering Indian prime minister's

blatantly unnecessary to remove the numbering. It gives people idea of the post, it's history and it's stature. The post of PM is very much executive and it's important that we don't compare it to UK PM's position which is very much historic. I request to add numbers before the PM post. Felix the luck felicis (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Indian 'jobtitles' count

Hi, since we have a consensus regarding 'PM Count', should we not extend it to other similar articles? I recently removed similar items from this article since the numbering isn't part of the jobtitle and common name, and as well as based on the bolded parts in the excerpt from Template:Infobox officeholder - "The parameter |order= is used in conjunction with |office= to state that the officeholder is the nth holder of the office, for example "42nd President of the United States". This should only be used when there is a well-established use of such numbering in reliable sources. Do not add numbers simply based on a Wikipedia list of holders of the office, because (1) the list may not be accurate and (2) even with a definite list, different numbering systems could be applied (as to how various categories of "irregular" officeholders should be counted, and as to the counting of those serving for multiple non-consecutive periods) making the numbers arbitrary..
If |order= is not specified, the value of |office= can be wikilinked in the usual way, for example, "Minister for Defence". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree to remove it. There are hardly any sources available for these types of “orders.” If we don’t have the correct PM order, how can we get the correct order for other office holders? GrabUp - Talk 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Oral tradition

Would people be interested in joining a wikiproject on improving and creating articles about oral tradition? Wikipedia's coverage on this appears to be very poor Kowal2701 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Modi again

There's a discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination which may be of interest to those here. Valereee (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Rajiv Dixit

On Talk:Rajiv Dixit, one user has disputed the reliability of Lallantop, The Quint and FirstPost, with regards to this subject's engagement in spreading disinformation. Your input is welcome. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes#In media

Hello everyone, there's a discussion happening over at Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes#In media that some of you might want to check out. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita#Requested move 15 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 16:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tadepalle, Vijayawada#Requested move 27 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tadepalle, Vijayawada#Requested move 27 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gannavaram, Vijayawada#Requested move 27 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gannavaram, Vijayawada#Requested move 27 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2018 Kerala floods#MOS: COMMONALITY

Hello everyone, there's a discussion happening over at Talk:2018 Kerala floods#MOS: COMMONALITY that some of you might want to check out. It is regarding the use Indian Numbering System. A user want to change ten lakh (a million) to a million which is a count of number of people. Also note the entire article uses million, billion, ie., Western Numbering system in parenthesis as per MOS:INDIA അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone could potentially add reliable data for India on this Page

I am not sure if this is in the scope of this project, but I gtg as an anonymous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dog_bite 210.16.113.141 (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning assets and listing of criminal cases

A new editor has been listing assets and criminal cases of politicians [15] [16] [17]. Shouldn't it fall under WP:What Wikpedia is not? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Definite issues with the crime lists - primary source only and no context around them, resolution, impact on the person. WP:BLPCRIME has some thoughts, but lists like this I would remove. The assets I'm more likely to be okay with, but would need better attribution and dated to include. Ideally, a secondary source reporting this would be nice. Should every politician have this listed - I would question that. Ravensfire (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Re-assessment

@Sarvagyana guru, Extorc, Arjayay, Xoocit, Magentic Manifestations, UnpetitproleX, TheMandarin, CapnJackSp, Rohitsetthachok, Toadboy123, and RogerYg:, there is a discussion going on here about this article and I request you all to participate there. This article has been whitewashed of all attacks on minorities and will need experienced editors to add the attacks on minorities with reliable sources (some sources can be found in this article). 2024_Bangladesh_quota_reform_movement also mentioned attacks on minorities in the, "Aftermath" section but all of them were removed.-Bongabandhu (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This revert seems unjustified but I will leave that to you people to undo (the article is semi-protected).-Bongabandhu (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to Merge relevant information to Non-cooperation movement (2024). There are some relevant details that can be merged to relevant section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement_(2024)#Violence_against_Hindus

There are almost no WP:RS sources that call it a military coup, so this page title will get deleted as is clear on the deletion page, so best option is to merge or copy some details to relevant section

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement_(2024)#Violence_against_Hindus

RogerYg (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@RogerYg: You should copy the sentences from the article to be deleted to the other (semi-protected) article. Nobody else will!-Bongabandhu (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Mani Majra

The lead paragraph is somewhat bizarre, Sector 13? Commercial hub? You have multiple instances of Manimajra together, and then also split apart to be Mini Marjra, there doesn't seem to be any consistency in the article. Then clearly it's written to be a town, so why not open the lead paragraph saying it's a town? Govvy (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport to Mumbai International Airport

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Maharaj_International_Airport#Requested_move_13_August_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Janakiram

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Janakiram and assess it per WP:BIO? The page might also need to be moved as well because it's not clear whether this is a one-word name or the person's first and last names mistakenly mushed together. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FULLNAME

It is regarding the use of fullname of the subject according to MOS:FULLNAME as supported by sources. Kindly provide your views at Talk:Prashant Kishor#August 2024. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#Requested move 16 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comments at Talk:Mughal dynasty#RfC: Mughal dynasty lead

PadFoot (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Ancient history of Fooland

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Ancient history of Fooland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Should Category:Ancient India be moved to Category:Ancient history of India? Ham II (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nidamanuru, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nidamanuru, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tadepalle, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tadepalle, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2024 Wayanad landslides

2024 Wayanad landslides has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on sources and Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike

Feedback on what the reliable sources allow us to say in an NPOV fashion about the motivations and goals of Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike is requested at: Talk:Mahatma Gandhi RfC on Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#Requested move 22 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia"

With regard to this discussion, there is, as far as I know, an 'informal consensus' to use "South Asia" rather than "Indian subcontinent." Is that correct? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is concerning articles about the pre-1947 history of the Indian subcontinent. (Edit: Only India–Pakistan–Bangladesh). PadFoot (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This would apply to the pre-1947 history as well, witness Joya Chatterji's Shadows at Noon: The South Asian Twentieth Century, Yale University Press, November 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

One has to be considerate and thoughtful in making changes though to pre-existing usage in articles. "South Asia" is less specific than India-Pakistan-Bangladesh. For example, Himanshu Prabha Ray's "Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia" is about some other Indian Ocean rim countries as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best for all editors who often participate in this topic area to provide their opinions regarding this matter and form a formal consensus. PadFoot (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, PadFoot2008, and Sir Calculus: Yes. Unless one means something very specific in the geophysics of the very northern Indian tectonic plate, South Asia is the NPOV geopolitical and now also historical term for what was the "Indian subcontinent," and this applies also to the use of "India," "Indian," or "Indo-" for what was the geographical extent of the British Indian Empire. It made some sense in the days of the British Raj, as it was one country, but today "India" refers only to one successor state, and is highly problematic. For the same reasons, the formerly "Indology departments" in universities worldwide and almost unanimously adopted "South Asia(n) studies" departments.

Similarly, though this is not exactly the same topic, terms such as "Indo-Pakistani," "Indo-Chinese," "Sino-Indian," should not be employed if other more neutral (and not to mention unambiguous) terms such as "India-Pakistan," "India-China," "China-India" are there (unless it is something of longstanding convention (such as Indo-European languages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But that is your own editorial opinion. South Asia should be preferred when talking about post 1947 topics. India/Indian subcontinent is the historical term should be preferred for the Raj and before period. PadFoot (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note: Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Indian subcontinent (n.),” June 2024, (subscription required), "The part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Fowler&fowler! Thank you for pinging me here.

Firstly. It is important to mention the context which resulted in this discussion in the first place. A user made changes to a series of neutral articles over the course of some days, most of them territories in present-day Pakistan. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

The user who opposes the term "South Asia" in the concerned articles believes that "Indian-subcontinent" or simply "India" is more appropriate and considers it to be better & neutral.

This is why 'South Asia' appears to maintain WP:NPOV better:

Here is some text from Indian subcontinent: "Since the Partition of India, citizens of Pakistan (which became independent of British India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which became independent of Pakistan in 1971) often perceive the use of the Indian subcontinent as offensive and suspicious because of the dominant placement of India in the term". Further more, it also says the term is closely linked to the region's colonial heritage. I fail to understand how a term not considered neutral & is linked to British Raj rule more suitable for inclusion in concerned articles.

The referenced maps for the concerned articles also use "A Historical Atlas of South Asia".

Here is an article discussing South Asia's history.

South Asia is clearly more appropriate as it maintains NPOV, is used by academics, and is also considered the politically neutral term and ends all disputes. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support Indian subcontinent or simply India here for pre-1947 historical articles regarding the India–Pakistan–Bangladesh only, i.e, the region historically called India or Indian subcontinent. India (or now in full, the Indian subcontinent) is the historical region consisting of the modern day Indian Republic and Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thus India or Indian subcontinent should be preferred in a historical context. South Asia is a different, much broader term encompassing a wide region including Iran (UN definition) or Afghanistan (more common definition) to the Maldives. Besides, it is a modern term used for the post-1947 era. Pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche, a big contributor to India-related topics, for his opinion. PadFoot (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ping anyone. If you want a consensus, have an RfC and advertise in history, linguistics, MOS, and WikiProjects India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also advertise the RfC in Geography, Archaeology, etc. Take especially care to word the RfC neutrally and not express any opinion in the statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Rawn3012, @Kautilya3, @Abecedare, @SKAG123 and others. PadFoot (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Again: PLEASE DO NOT ping anyone. There is no hallowed editor here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment. Also since, we are talking of replacing subcontinent here and not South Asia, why notify country projects outside India–Pakistan–Bangladesh? I am not saying anything about Nepal or Afghanistan. PadFoot (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Because Indian subcontinent is also applied to the subducted part of the Indian tectonic place under the more Eurasian plate parts of Nepal such as Mustang, Nepal Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes but this only concerning India–Pakistan–Bangladesh, not any other country at all. PadFoot (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Padfoot2008, you are wasting community time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologised already, I didn't see your comment, how in the world am I wasting community time? I would have deleted the comment, but you know that wouldn't work. PadFoot (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries. We both missed each other's comments. But a neutrally worded RfC is the best way to go. It should be advertised in a broad range of relevant Wikiprojects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologise once again as well. I agree that a wide range of projects should be notified but the discussion is concerning only India–Pakistan–Bangladesh not any other South Asian country. It might give a false impression otherwise. PadFoot (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There are knowledgeable editors on this topic in Wikiprojects History, Geography, MOS, Asia, .... We cannot leave Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, etc out as (according to the OED) that term is sometimes applied to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I started this discussion, and only regarding India–Pakistan–Bangladesh. That would be like adding an issue. I am not saying that there should be any changes in the historical articles regarding the other countries, this is not regarding the Indian subcontinent, this is regarding historical articles regarding IPB only, not the entire subcontinent. PadFoot (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• When referencing sources, it's crucial to use the exact terminology mentioned in the source. If a source uses 'Indian subcontinent,' then 'Indian subcontinent' should be used; if the source uses 'South Asia,' then 'South Asia' should be used. The terms 'South Asia' and 'Indian subcontinent' are not interchangeable, and editors should not substitute one for the other based on personal preference, especially when countries like Afghanistan have no relevance to the context where the term is being used. It is highly recommended to adhere strictly to the terminology used in reliable sources. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from changing 'Indian Ocean' to 'South Asian Ocean'? DangalOh (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  So in describing the anthropology of the Third Reich we should use their terminology, in particular "Aryan" with their meaning? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Whaaaat???? That escalated quickly. Which scholars are you comparing to Nazis? All those people who referred to that area as the Indian subcontinent? Everyone pre-1947? What kind of argument is this? What the Nazis did was historical and cultural revisionism. They deleted names they didn’t like, and they added names they did like, irrespective of what major scholars had to say. That’s exactly what you’re trying to do here, not me. Lol what an example. DangalOh (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• In general I think "South Asia" is right for post-independence periods, but I get less happy with that going further back. The article title using "ancient South Asia" is I think the first time I've seen that term, & I think ancient India is still a valid term, in for example Buddhist contexts including most of Nepal. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  For the titles with "Ancient South Asia," see not only that book of Himanshu Prabha Ray, but also these books of George Erdosy, Raymond Allchin, Bridget Allchin, J. Mark Kenoyer, Robin Coningham, Ruth Young (archaeologist).

  I believe it is especially used by archaeologists, and applied to the prehistory of South Asia, i.e. the one that predated recorded Indian history, i.e. IVC, Neolithic (Mehrgarh), if only for the inconvenient reason that most is in what is today Pakistan. Only highly biased India-POV scholars would consider Mehrgarh to be a feature of what is commonly called "Indian civilization," and not instead the neolithic as influenced by Iran and eventually Iraq. Similarly, it is also applied to Modern History, as in Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's Modern South Asia, which begins at least with Company rule, if not the late Mughals, or Ian Talbot's, A History of South Asia, Yale, 2016. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, that makes sense. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Pov pushing goes both ways. As per the article itself: Jean-Francois Jarrige argues for an independent origin of Mehrgarh. Jarrige notes "the assumption that farming economy was introduced full-fledged from Near-East to South Asia,"and the similarities between Neolithic sites from eastern Mesopotamia and the western Indus Valley, which are evidence of a "cultural continuum" between those sites. However, given the originality of Mehrgarh, Jarrige concludes that Mehrgarh has an earlier local background," and is not a "'backwater' of the Neolithic culture of the Near East."

  And the current topic is not even about who influenced whom. Ok lets even assume everything about indus valley is from near east. So what? I would suggest instead of diverting the topic and blaming scholars for having a point of view, make a good argument for why the Indian subcontinent without Afghanistan should be labeled as South Asia if sources don’t mention it that way. DangalOh (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say it was a backwater, and by the way, I've read the Jarriges. The neolithic diffusion was from western Asia, but that doesn't mean that Mehrgarh was not original. For one the flora and fauna were different. The first attested use of cotton, of the drilling of teeth in vivo with a bow drill no less, of the domestication of Bos indicus, and so forth. What does it have to do with this topic?

  I was merely pointing out that Mehrgarh has little to do with the Indian civilization that resulted from another kind of diffusion, i.e. from Central Asia ca. 1500 BCE. For that reason archaeologists prefer the neutral terms such as South Asia. After all, the terms "Indo-Pakistani subcontinent," and "South Asian subcontinent" were also used once upon a time.

  The main issue is that the term "subcontinent" itself, which suggests a cohesive, self-contained geography and/or culture is increasingly outdated. Who uses it now? India by the way is a late arrival at the subcontinent table. There term was originally used for North or South America, later for Australia. My suspicion is that "Indian subcontinent" was originally a feature of British grandiosity about the Jewel of its Crown, which became bequeathed or was appropriated by the Republic of India and is now a feature of Indian grandiosity. Best to do away with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your suspicion is irrelevant, incorrect and shows your ignorance. I doubt you even know why Columbus named that different area as 'India'. You start by diverting topic to Mehrgarh and when someone replies then you accuse them of changing the topic. Like what? And what do you mean by Indian civilization only starting in 1500 bc? You mean only Indo aryan migrations are responsible for the start of indian civilization? And Please stop using the term "Indo-Pakistani subcontinent." Enough is enough. No one in history referred to that geographical area as South Asia or Pakistan. It was not British South Asia either. "South Asia" is a very modern and political term, especially used post-independence to provide newly formed religious states some validity and assign them some history (I suspect). And while that is fine, it doesn’t mean you can easily engage in historical revisionism and change or remove names as per your own will because you feel those names are now outdated. Additionally, South Asia is not equivalent to the Indian subcontinent, even in geographical terms. As @Vanamonde93 correctly suggested: south asia should be used in socio cultural context (even genetics) but Indian subcontinent should be used in strictly geographical sense. DangalOh (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  "South Asia" is a very modern ans political term, especially used post-independence to provide newly formed religious states some validity and assign them some history (I suspect).

  What is it that you are suggesting? You do realize both India & Pakistan got their independence from the British Empire right? History was not "assigned" to any state. It has always existed in the areas of the respective countries. The use of the term 'Indian subcontinent' began in the British Empire. Most of the Indus, the river which gave name to the present-day 'India', flows mostly through Pakistan, its delta is situated there too in Sindh. Can you answer why this Britannica article [25] leads with Indus River, great trans-Himalayan river of South Asia. And not Indian subcontinent? Are they engaging in 'historical revisionism'? 'Removing' names?

  The NPOV term 'South Asia' is used by academics as well as political bodies. @Fowler&fowler gave you some examples. We rely on academia. Also, it is not nice of you to call someone with significantly more editorial experience ignorant. Who is more familiar with Wikipedian policies than both of us. Sir Calculus (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  All i hear is ranting which translates into " It hurts our feelings so the term should be avoided" and with extreme examples which dont even fit. I am not here to debate on "Pakistan's independence" or "Creation of Pakistan by partition". Whatever floats your boat. NPOV dosent mean you can change or censor a geographic regions historical name. Britannica article states : "Indus River, great trans-Himalayan river of South Asia" mainly because its referring to the region "post 1947" which also includes southern part of modern Tibet (as its the origin). And what part of Vanamonde's , @PadFoot's and my suggestion and explaination is so hard to understand? What part of "use whatever term the source you are citing is using" is hard to understand? What part of " socio-culture vs geographic" is hard to understand? You cannot force south asia on Indian subcontinent "everywhere". Context matters. DangalOh (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  • First attested use of "Indian subcontinent" according to the OED is 1905, 10 November: The busy harbour [of Bombay]..has become the chief centre of direct communication between Europe and the Indian sub-continent., The Times
  • First attested use of South Asian as a fixed collocation (i.e. in its present-day meaning) is 1880: "Many of the birds are much more nearly allied to South Asian or Malayan forms than to those of Africa." James Sibree, The great African island, chapters on Madagascar 1880. London

  OK, I'm done with this thread. My vote is for South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  And first attested use of "India"? Why so selective? - The first attested use of the term "India" can be traced back to ancient Greek sources. The name "India" is derived from the Old Persian word "Hindush," which referred to the region around the Indus River. The Greeks adopted this term as "Indos" to describe the land beyond the Indus River, which is modern-day India and Pakistan.

  The earliest known use of the term "India" in Greek literature appears in the works of Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian, in the 5th century BCE. Herodotus refers to "India" when describing the easternmost lands known to the Greeks.

  In Sanskrit, the region was historically known as "Bharata" or "Bharatavarsha," but the term "India" became more prominent through interactions with the Persian and Greek civilizations.

  Also, this is not simply a vote. I do not wish to have useless fights. My suggestion or vote is : Context Matters DangalOh (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• My understanding has been that "South Asia" is distinctly preferable in socio-cultural contexts, while "Indian subcontinent" might be more appropriate in strictly physical geographic uses. It does get a bit fuzzier as we move back in time, but in general I would default to the usage of contemporary academic sources, where "South Asia" is increasingly prominent, though it is clearly context-dependent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  RegentPark mentioned the same thing in the talk page of the Mughal empire and Mughal dynasty articles. “South Asia”is typically the preferred terminology. Although sometimes it may depend on context. Nonetheless, I still think “South Asia” should be used in most cases. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Follow the sources! There is no hard and fast rule about this, from what I have seen we usually go by this on a topic-by-topic basis and either of the terms may be used but that is context and WP:3PARTY dependant, the best bet is to see what most of the tertiary sources are using (at least for the leads). In certain cases there may not be a need to insert these terms at all. Gotitbro (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• I think it is best that the term used should be based on the source that is being referenced. My vote: based on the source (if that can count as a vote). MohReddy (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• In 2016 there was extensive discussion on the change in California school textbooks of "India" into "South Asia"; see, for example, The New York Times. Not surprisingly, the HAF opposed the changes; this context may also be in play here at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Science fiction in India/Indian science fiction article is needed

For now I've redirected it to Bengali science fiction, but obviously this is just a temporary solution. Perhaps someone would like to at least stub it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Would note that while The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction hosts an entry for Bengal ([26]), it lacks a broader one for India. Though that is probably due to the lack of expert subject matter writers on the topic for that project. Gotitbro (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

CK Birla Group - Changes made by IP address user in lead paragraph

I have been monitoring this CK Birla Group for the last couple of weeks. The user with an IP address changes the content often. The topic is related to International Sponsors of War, and it was presented under National Engineering Industries. I have taken the help of live support & started with a discussion. However, it is not working. Check the Talk page Talk:CK Birla Group. My message WP:BRD or WP:EW -> Hello, many unwanted edits have been made by a user with IP Address 2405:201:404b:a3:dc64:5c61:c9c2:a1a9 over the last few days. I have tried reverting it, however, that user is still changing it. Behaviour - The statement he is adding to the Lead Paragraph is related to International Sponsors of War & removing a statement under the section Orient Electric. The reason - I am reverting is because the International Sponsors of War is related to National Engineering Industries & it is already present under its section. It is getting repeated. Another edit on Orient Electric is authentic & it was present long back. Therefore, would like to address this & look for a solution. I have checked with Live Help & got to know about WP:BRD or WP:EW. I have read both articles & the user is an IP Address, so mentioning my thoughts here. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 06:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @VKG1985. I think best practice, in my opinion, would be to see how much coverage in reliable secondary sources has National Engineering Industries received as a result of directly being mentioned in the International Sponsors of War. If it is relatively minor coverage of the company being named in the International Sponsors of War, that information can remain under the National Engineering Industries section in the main body. If there is more substantial coverage, then I suppose it becomes a more pertinent piece of information and so could be mentioned or kept in the lead section. MohReddy (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MohReddy, I checked in Google with query -> "ck birla group" international sponsors of war -wikipedia and found only 1 reliable source which says DecconHerald Article Kyiv had, in May, also moved against C K Birla Group of Companies and its subsidiary National Engineering Industries Limited (NEI) for helping the military industry of Russia to replace critical bearings in its tanks. Sourced Reference The New Voice of Ukraine says CK Birla Group and its NBC Bearings brand, stepped in to fill the gap left by the exit of Western firms, NAZK says. According to customs data, for the period from April 2022 to March 2023, NBC Bearings' share in the import of bearings from India to Russia was 38.4%, totaling $12.3 million.. In either case, it is stating NBC company which is a subsidiary of the group. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @VKG1985, seeing as it is mainly about National Engineering Industries, I agree with you that it is probably best to keep it under that section. However, as you have pointed out, this information has also been published in ThePrint, DeccanHerald and The New Voice of Ukraine, which is not insignificant coverage given the type information being covered. If that IP user persists with changing the content, perhaps you can edit the content to completely indicate that National Engineering Industries is the group company that is specifically named in the International Sponsors of War. Let me be clear, I do agree with you. I am merely just suggesting this as a way for you to avoid the headaches of an WP:EDITWAR. MohReddy (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MohReddy, I will revert in talk page. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian caste system

Hi Team, Those who are interested in developing this Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian caste system are most welcome. This project has been in an idle state for a while. So editors are invited to help develop this project. @Ekdalian: @MaxA-Matrix:. Thanks--2409:40E0:101E:B099:64A6:F246:64CE:5B20 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"Will ask government to block you": Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Change name of YSR University to NTR University

The government of Andhra Pradesh has recently changed the name of Dr. YRS University of health sciences back to Dr. NTR University of Health sciences. Requesting to apply the same to the wiki page: Dr. YRS University of Health sciences.

Here are the articles: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/its-official-govt-undoes-name-change-of-ntruhs-to-ysruhs/article68442287.ece

https://www.chennaionline.com/news/andhra-pradesh-reverts-university-name-to-ntruhs/ VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Karwal

Karwal ("a Scheduled Caste in the state of Uttar Pradesh") needs attention (and sources) from people with local knowledge, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)