Misplaced Pages

talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rahuljain2307 (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 14 June 2013 (→Online religious conversion of ancient Indian Kings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:53, 14 June 2013 by Rahuljain2307 (talk | contribs) (→Online religious conversion of ancient Indian Kings)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
To leave "Talkback" notification, use the following code:
{{subst:WikiProject India talkback|Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics|question title goes here|ts=~~~~}}
Shortcuts
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78


This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
WikiProject iconIndia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Misplaced Pages Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

2013 Bangladesh India WikiProjects dispute resolution

(You must be aware that) the relation between WikiProject Bangladesh and WikiProject India (in alphabetical order) unfortunately have not been very smooth always. Very recently we have had some heated discussions at few AFDs and almost regularly we fight on some unclear issues. The unclear issues/problematic I can think at this moment—

This list might be incomplete. Consider expanding the list
  • Nationality of the people born before 1971 (the year Bangladesh was formed). This has been a serious issue with no clear consensus.
  • Categorization issue (example)
  • Riots, violence related articles disputes
  • Editors dispute
  • Alleged editor targeting

I am proposing an initiative from our WikiProject which will—

  1. Attempt to resolve the current disputes
  2. Attempt to build community decision and consensus on confusing issues
  3. Attempt to to strengthen the relationship between WP Bangladesh and WP India editors. --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tito for trying to address this important issue. Have you posted a link for this in Wikiproject Bangladesh?
Regarding the nationality issue, the problem is it is not a simple mathematical issue. I will propose that whoever lived in British India (before 1947) have British Indian as one of the nationalities. Then, up to 1971, have Indian or Pakistani as appropriate, and then Bangladeshi if the person lived in (or, had citizenship of) Bangladesh. All these need to go in the infobox. Meanwhile, the text in lead may have just the ethnicity (eg Bengal). See Sheikh Mujibur Rahman for example. For example from other parts of the world, see Albert Einstein. A notable exception of this proposed rule, currently, is Kazi Nazrul Islam, who had Bangladeshi citizenship only for a few months of his life. So, the info in the infobx of thia article definitely needs to be addressed.
Another aspect is those who dies before 1947. Will have to think something about them.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No, actually it was a suggestion to WP India to start the initiative. We can create a page Misplaced Pages:2013 Bangladesh India WikiProjects dispute resolution initiative, list the problematic issues and ask editors of both the WikiProjects and some best admins and WP:DRN, WP:3O editors to help us to find "peace"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
About the nationality issue, I would second Dwaipayan, except the case of Kazi Nazrul Islam. Nazrul is generally regarded as a Bangladeshi poet, there is also a reference given in the infobox where he was described as a Bangladeshi poet by Times of India. Similar case is there with Rabindranath Tagore (who died in 1941) where his nationality is stated as Indian. I would also add the issue of ethnicity, where some editors are trying to add Bengali Hindu as the ethnicity in the infobox of the Hindu people from Bengal. The ethnicity should and always be Bengali and the religion should be Hindu, we must not mix these two. About the category issue, my whole rationale can be seen in that discussion. I would like to show the example of Jibanananda Das, he is regarded as a native poet in Bangladesh, quite justifiably, as he was born and raised in and also lived most of his life in what is now known as Bangladesh. Now, if a reader is searching for a poet who was born in Bangladesh but don't know the exact name, he would definitely go for the Category:Bangladeshi poets. That's why the category is added in those articles. Lastly, I appreciate the proposal of Tito Dutta, but I guess this is not the right time to take this initiative as most of the experienced editors of WP Bangladesh are now in wikibreaks and not much active these days. I would suggest we wait till their full return to wikipedia. --Zayeem 09:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
@User:Kmzayeem will you explain why you added Jagadish Chandra Bose in the Template:Scientists of Bangladesh. If anyone is born in the geographical area of Bangladesh he does not become a Bangladeshi. Jagadish Chandra Bose died long before Bangladesh was created in 1971. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The explanation lies in the title, Scientists of Bangladesh not Bangladeshi scientists! BTW, why are you removing the categories from Michael Madhusudan Dutt without any discussion? --Zayeem 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added your category people from jessore, which is valid but Bangladeshi poets is misleading. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
So did you even see my rationales before removing them? Moreover those categories were added years ago, nobody raised this issue until recently! --Zayeem 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Your rationale is that if a Bangladeshi people searches, he or she can then go to Bengali poets category and "nobody raised this issue until recently!" is no argument. If you want to promote Bangladesh you can do it in a better way but your policy of confusing a nationality with birthplace seems very misleading to me. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Now this is what we call a personal attack! On the point of category, the Category:Bengali poets have almost the double number of articles compared to Category:Bangladeshi poets, it is quite understandable that a reader would find it easier to search from the latter. --Zayeem 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
We are here to build an encyclopedia which people can trust. You can make the template poets born in jessore, nobody is stopping you, but you cannot use wikipedia to fool other people by propaganda that Michael was a Bangladeshi. You can do it in any other place but not in wikipedia. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
My rationales about the category issue are given in the discussion in WP Bangladesh NB and here and don't think they have been countered with a reasonable explanation. Hence I'm re-adding those categories in the article. --Zayeem 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You are not following wikipedia guidelines of neutrality. You cannot add false info to help people in searching. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Look, adding a category doesn't mean that it's a fact, I've already explained these things in the discussion. It's quite justified to add these categories in the article, you can also get many articles about people who died before '47 and still have categories like Indian writers, Indian poets etc. Hence, don't remove those categories, however feel free to revert if anyone adds Bangladeshi as the nationality in the infobox or refer him as a Bangladeshi in the text. --Zayeem 13:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to use whatever nationality an individual had at death, if dead, or whatever their current nationality is? If I read this correctly, then a living Bangladeshi citizen born prior to 1947 would have British Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi nationality which doesn't make sense to me. That would make the case of Kazi Nasrul Islam straightforward as well. He would be merely identified as Bangladeshi. --regentspark (comment) 12:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
^I support that! --Zayeem 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I think, in the infobox, all the nationalities should be given (as in the case of Muzibur Rahaman or Einstein); and in the text (lead), to avoid clumsiness, the ethnicity (Bengali) is sufficient.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as nationality is concerned, I'm often reluctant to assign it. Nationality can be granted or adopted and is not necessarily one's place of birth (eg: my great-grandmother was born in Bangalore but she was not Indian in any sense of the word). The issue should by quite simple in the case of India/Bangladesh: find sources that are from the post-1971 period and determine from those which nationality should apply, if any, rather as with WP:COMMONNAME. If someone self-identified then that trumps other sources and should always be required for BLPs ... and please note that there are many sports people who play for countries other than that of which they are citizens. If there is ambiguity in the sources or no sources exists to verify the point, then omit it. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding categorisation of poets etc, are those categories intended to reflect nationality or language in which they write? - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There is already a category Bengali Poets, so definitely adding Bangladeshi poets mean Michael was a Bangladeshi or born after 1971 but actually he died a 100 years ago. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, we have two categories, Category:Bengali poets and Category:Bangladeshi poets. The category Bengali poets is about the poets of Bengali language or ethnicity, while the category Bangladeshi poets is generally used in the articles about poets who were born in Bangladesh or are referred as Bangladeshi. --Zayeem 13:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That is why I inserted the category People from Jessore but you are in a totally wrong dimension. He was born in Jessore but does that means he was a Bangladeshi? You cannot term everyone born in Bangladesh a Bangladeshi unless he has the citizenship or is born after 1971. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You are replying with the same words again and again. As I have pointed before, you will find many similar examples from the categories of other countries as well, including India. Let me show you an example of Martha Wadsworth Brewster, she died in 1757 but still have the Category:American women poets. We can go with the conventional terms in this case.--Zayeem 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Replied in your talk page. I am least concerned with Martha Wadsworth Brewster. If you wish you can argue on it on the talk page of the article. Wikiproject India noticeboard is not the place to argue about Martha Wadsworth Brewster. Show me a reliable secondary source that Michael was a Bangladeshi. Unsourced opinions are not the suitable place for wikipedia. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As I've said before one would not become Bangladeshi only by having a category, however feel free to revert if anyone adds Bangladeshi as the nationality in the infobox or refer him as a Bangladeshi in the text. Besides, there must be 100s of articles with these type of categories and its definitely not possible by a human to discuss in each and every article talk page. In addition, if someone removes the Indian categories from similar articles based on your rationales, many will rant on the issue in the same fashion. Hence, its better to go with the conventional terms. P.S no need to post about the issue in my talk page, we can have the whole discussion here! --Zayeem 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It is absurd that even after knowing he is not a Bangladeshi, you are keen to add the category. Please wait till any third man interrupts in the noticeboard talk page. P.S No more posting on your talk page. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
He was not a Bangladeshi in legal terms, however he was born in what is now known as Bangladesh, quite justified to add the category.--Zayeem 14:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages needs "Secondary Reliable sources" for justification. Can you provide it. Opinion does not matters. Again do not post before any third person interrupts. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As regards The "Indian" categories to those pages, Zayeem, the term "Indian" has a historical connotation (and has been used in history texts). It does not only mean something belonging to Republic of India(after 1947). The term India has been used in academia for indicating things before 1947, too. For example, Indian independence movement.For example, Rabindranath Tagore, who was a Bengali by ethnicity, and technically a subject of the British Indian Emperor, is referred to as Indian.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. And this is why we have to follow the sources. I really do not understand the obsession that some people have regarding nationality, which is generally an amorphous concept anyway, but if we must obsess then at least do so in accordance with policy. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Dwaipayan, I'm not saying we should remove the Indian categories, rather I'm in favor of hiving both Indian and Bangladeshi categories, going with the conventional terms.--Zayeem 14:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in wikipedia is conventional. It is a working draft. Only guidelines are permanent which enforces me, you or any other third person to stay NPOV and make any changes only with reference. I have reference that Michael was Indian but you do not have reference to prove he was a Bangladeshi. So debate closes. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I admit that some cases won't be simply mathematical, and individual considerations may be needed. However, Michael having Bangladeshi category is absurd (also lack of sources supporting that). Same goes for Jibanananda Das, although I can personally sense the sentiment in his case. Academia does not refer to pre-1971 Jessore, Khulna, Barisal, Dhaka as Bangladesh. That's the convention worldwide.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a little more complicated than I thought. Clearly, anyone who died before 1947 should be Indian because that's what they would have identified as. Bose and Tagore are therefore Indians. Anyone who died after 1971 is clearly a Bangladeshi because, I assume, that's the identification they would have made. Mujibur Rahman falls in this category. The problem is with individuals who died between 1947 and 1971. It does seem odd to call them Pakistanis not only because it is not PC, but also because our readers won't necessarily realize that he or she was never a part of what we know as Pakistan today. It is, at best, misleading. I scanned the text but couldn't pick out any examples from that period. Any well known names? (Sitush, your great grandmother is hereby granted honorary Indian citizenship by the all powerful Misplaced Pages admin cabal!) --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The greatest example was the Ex prime Minister of Pakistan Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy who was the godfather of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman what a Irony. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Ironical indeed. But a good example. Suhrawardy would have had no problems identifying as a Pakistani. Perhaps my simple solution above is a workable one for the general case. --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
@RP, I wonder if she could contribute from beyond the grave? Or might that constitute necropuppetry? Anyway, all the rows that are circulating re: matters India are rather depressing me at the moment, and many seem to be repeats of past rows. Is there any chance of declaring a Misplaced Pages Peace Day? - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest to take a look at the talk page of Jagadish Chandra Bose, there have been extensive discussion about the nationality where it was decided to include British Indian as the nationality, in response of edit warring on the nationality issue. I guess we should have the nationality British Indian for individuals who died before '47 to avoid further conflicts. --Zayeem 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you philosophically though I do not like the term "British Indian". You can add to Jagadish Chandra Bose the category "People from Mymensingh". But please do not refer to him as Bangladeshi.Solomon7968 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
"British Indian" only works from 1857, and even then may have a few exceptions. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The whole of Bengal except Coochbihar falls in "British Indian" if my history is correct. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought that Coochbihar and all the other princely states were protectorates under the British Crown and member of the Council of States and hence they fell under the so called 'British India'. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I am confused. Probably you are right. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How do other projects deal with this? For example, Germany since the Berlin Wall came down and prior to Bismarck's unification in the 19th century, Italy prior to unification, and the various Balkan and former Eastern Bloc areas? - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


I've been through this whole thing many times in the past. Several issues complicate the national "tag", and that caused this "conflict". So, here are my observations:

  • "India" as in "Republic of India" is not the same as "British India" or "India" as a general region. When you tag someone as "Indian poet", what does that mean? Does it mean and Indian poet linked to the current nation, or someone born in the region where the current Republic of India is located at? To give an illustration, let us consider Iqbal, Pakistan's national poet. He was born and died in Lahore, which is part of Pakistan post 1947. But he died prior to 1947. So, what is he, "Indian poet", or "Pakistani poet"? If you claim him to be "Indian poet" that will be very confusing to readers because clearly the "India" they have in mind doesn't contain Lahore. Similarly, if he is tagged as a "Pakistani poet", then according to some arguments put forth above, it will be incorrect (Pakistan didn't exist when Iqbal died). Another example is Goethe. When he was born, Frankfurt was a part of Holy Roman Empire, and Germany didn't exist. So, why is he tagged as a "German poet"? (Notice that there is a slight difference in the cases of Iqbal and Goethe ... The "German" tag may very well indicate ethnicity rather than the nation state).
  • Tagging people by nationality of them at their death is also problematic. For example, many freedom fighters of Bangladesh died prior to Bangladesh becoming a free country. Would you tag them as "Pakistani x"?That would be very misleading.
  • Also, when you add "Indian poet" to someone, what does that mean? The problem is that the same category includes both poets belonging to historical region of India, as well as the poets belonging to Republic of India. The two groups are not exactly the same. But if you apply the same tag to both groups, confusions will arise. (I also want to know why this logic of "Historical region" applies to Indians but not "Bangla deshis" ... the term "Bangla Desh" has been used prior to 1947 even to indicate the historical region of Bengal. (referring to Tagore's poems, songs where this term was used).
  • My solution was simple: use ethnicity which doesn't really change. For example, no matter how many times Nazrul's bones are moved, he will still be a Bengali. So, in the lead, it is perhaps better to tag him as "Nazrul was a Bengali poet ....", and in the categories apply appropriate stuff.
  • Also, we can err in the side of inclusion. That is, tag someone like Surya Sen as belonging to both India (as in British India) and Bangladesh (as in the region where he was born and lived and died). --Ragib (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Your Iqbal point is very relevant here. He first coined the term Pakistan in a speech in 1930 (ahead of Jinnah). Thus it can be argued that he himself owed his allegiance to the then hypothetical Pakistan. The same applies for the freedom fighters of Bangladesh who owed their allegiance to the then hypothetical Bangladesh. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I note that Iqbal is classified as British Indian. Pakistani would not be correct because there was no Pakistan (but...). Ragib, what about Suhrawardy? Would the Pakistani tag apply? Bengali doesn't seem correct because he was a founding father of Pakistan. --regentspark (comment) 17:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Why incorrect, Of course Pakistan did not exist then but he himself believed him to be a Pakistani. Interested editors may check the article on Choudhry Rahmat Ali. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Suhrawardy was definitely a Pakistani national. He was the Prime Minister of Pakistan at point of time. And when he died, Bangladesh was not born. Not only him, many people of former East Bengal who died before 26 March 1971, would be Pakistanis by nationality. Even Hindus, who were freedom fighters in the Indian Independence Movement, like Trailokyanath Chakravarty, and chose to stay on in Pakistan and died before 26 March 1971 were Pakistani nationals. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Solomon, if I suddenly start to believe I am an American or British, would that make me so? :) Also, he can't be a citizen of a non-existent country, even if he believes himself to be so, according to the many arguments posted above. (Regents, will reply shortly). --Ragib (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Muhammad Iqbal was technically not a citizen or national of Pakistan. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Ragib, you have raised valid points.
  • In case of Iqbal, the nationality in the infobox should be British Indian, but the category Indian poets is okay, because as User:Dwaipayanc explained above, the term Indian has historical usage. It not only corresponds to the present Republic of India, but also the ancient, medieval and colonial India. User:Kmzayeem may argue that by this logic the category Bangladeshi poets is also justified, but please note that the term Bangladeshi does not have any historical usage. Most certainly it was not used before 1971. There is no contemporary evidence regarding the use of the term Bangladeshi before 1971. Even after liberation, the nationality of the people of Bangladeshi was officially Bengali, which was later modified to Bangladeshi by Ziaur Rahman.
  • Tagging people by nationality at their death may be problematic, yes in some cases, it may be. However, for the overwhelming majority of the cases, it won't be. This rule makes more sense than others if any, and its simple enough to be understood and implemented. Can you please name some freedom fighters who represent the problematic cases?
  • Ethnic categorization is well accepted. Category Bengali poets have never been questioned. But why categorize someone as Bangladeshi poet when he/she never was a Bangladeshi national?
  • Surya Sen can be tagged with People from Chittagong no problem. But can he be tagged with People from Bangladesh. I think no. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I support BengaliHindu. People from chittagong is Ok but not Bangladeshi. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The "Historical usage" theory also applies to Bangladesh, as referred by Ragib earlier. --Zayeem 18:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The historical usage doesn't apply for Bangladesh as explained below.
  • Prior to 1947, the term Bangladesh was informally used (in Bengali) to refer to the whole region of Bengal. It was not an official name. The term Bangladesh was not officially used in present territory of Bangladesh in the period between 1947 and 1971.
  • Bangladesh was not the only term used to refer to the region of Bengal. Other terms like Banga, Bangadesh and Bangla were used interchangeably.
  • The people of the region of Bangladesh was called Bengali (Bangali) and not Bangladeshi. Can you provide any pre-1947 reference where a particular person has been called Bangladeshi? Then how can you call pre-1947 people like Michael Madhusudan Dutt, a Bangladeshi? BengaliHindu (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
@Ragib can you explain which poem of Tagore explicitly stated Bangla"desh". Solomon7968 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a famous Rabindra Sangeet "Aji Bangladesh er ridoy hote"! --Zayeem 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Solomon, আজি বাংলাদেশের হৃদয় হতে ... --Ragib (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As explain above, in pre-1947 days, the term Bangladesh was informally used in Bengali to refer to the whole of Bengal. Bangladesh, Bangla, Bangadesh and Banga were user ingterchageably, albeit informally. By Bangladesh, Tagore must have referred to the whole of Bengal and not the current political territory of Bangladesh. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are few writings of Tagore where "Bangladesh" or "Bangla" was mentioned (search result for "Bangladesh"), but, he did not mean the current Bangladesh (geographic location), might be both Bengals! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who have the slightest knowledge of Tagore knows he was one of the first "Internationalists" who warned the civilisation of the consequences of agressive Nationalism. It is shameful that editors here are using Tagore to justify the use of "Bangladeshi Poets" in case of Michael. The Philosophy of Tagore was completely different. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The term bangladesh (and others such as banga, bangla, bangadesh) were used in literary creations even before 1947, and that denoted Bengal. This was in poems etc, but hardly in academia. The academia (published reports, texts etc) used Bengal. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with User:Dwaipayanc. I also noted that Satyajit Ray used the term Bangladesh as late as 1960s to refer to perhaps the whole of Bengal. However, after the birth of Bangladesh, Bengali literature from West Bengal do longer use Bangladesh to refer to the whole of Bengal. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess we need to make sure we don't mix ethnicity and nationality (citizenship is probably a better word). Iqbal was an Indian (or British Indian), a Punjabi, and an inspiration for Pakistan. Sen was an Indian (or British Indian), a Bengali and a Poet. Suhrawardy was a Pakistani and a Bengali. Michael Madhusudan Dutt was an Indian and a Bengali and a Poet. Perhaps a category like "People born in what is now Bangladesh" - not sure how to frame it - would take care of linking a historical person with a modern region? --regentspark (comment) 18:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest User:Kmzayeem to work on the article List of people born in what is now Bangladesh if he is willing to do so, instead of misleading people by category bombing. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I support you infact I created a new page List of colonial universities in British India two days back. User:Kmzayeem can you take your time to improve that. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


I fail to understand the argument repeatedly put forth above. Here is what the argument looks like:

  • Historically, "India" referred to the whole region, so even if someone was from/born/lived/died a place which is not part of Republic of India, they are historically "Indian".
  • Historically, "Bengal" or "Bangladesh" referred to the whole region, but if someone was from/born/lived/died a place what is now "Bangladesh", which is not the entire undivided Bengal, they cannot be historically "Bangladeshi"

The two arguments above are contradictory, yet the same users above are stating both viewpoints. Which one is your *actual* position? --Ragib (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ragib, there is no historical entity known as Bangladesh. The point is that Tagore or Sen would have identified themselves as Indian so it is ok to assign that nationality to them. I'm afraid I don't see a contradiction and I think you're confusing ethnicity with nationality. --regentspark (comment) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
With due respect, Regentspark, you really didn't get my point. I wasn't making the above arguments, rather these were two arguments made by Indian wikipedians above. (see User:BengaliHindu's comments etc.). --Ragib (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A Compromise formula

I'm proposing a formula that had worked fine for many years since I had faced this issue as early as 2005. To summarize the formula in general:

  • People who are citizen's of India (i.e., were Indian citizens who are living or died after 1947) -> "X was an Indian Y".
  • People who were born/and-or mostly living in or died in what is now the Republic of India (died prior to 1947) -> "X was an Indian Y") or "X was a z-ethnicity Y from British India/Mughal empire (in what is now India).
  • Bengali People who were born in British India and lived/died in East Pakistan -> "X was a Bengali Y from former East Pakistan (current Bangladesh)"
  • Bengali people who were born in British India and are living/lived in Bangladesh with Bangladeshi citizenship -> "X was a Bangladeshi Y"

With this formula, the following happens:

  • "Tagore was a Bengali poet from British India" (or "Tagore was a Bengali poet from India during British India")
  • "Surya Sen was a Bengali revolutionary from the Chittagong in British India (which is currently part of Bangladesh) (or something suitable that explains everything)

There can be outliers that need to be dealt individually.

The advantage of this formula is that it removes the possibility of confusion. A major confusion in this whole issue arises out of the fact that "India" prior to 1947 is not the same as India post-1947. If you say someone is an "Indian poet" (e.g. Iqbal), that causes multiple confusing points for non-South-Asian readers. Does this mean Iqbal is related to current day India? Or according to some of you above, the historical region known historically as India? I'm not, contrary to what RegentsPark claims above, asking to mark Iqbal as "Pakistani" or Tagore as "Bangladeshi". Rather, I am saying that blindly putting "Indian" tags on everyone in the south asian region pre-1947 is misleading when the current day Indians (post 1947) are also put in the same category. Instead, it will make sense, and be more accurate to say exactly what they were, "Iqbal was a (his ethnicity, pardon my ignorance here) poet from Lahore(?) in British India (currentday Pakistan)". This is accurate, leaves no room for confusion, and doesn't require current day interpretation of what country Iqbal identified with. Thank you all. --Ragib (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries Ragib. I misunderstood, it happens. Your detailed explanation makes sense and I think we're on the same page. (Iqbal was a Punjabi.) So, bottom line: pre-1947 deceased people are either British Indian (if their relationship with current day India is unclear or tenuous or transcends any one modern SA nation - Iqbal, Tagore), Indian (if that relationship is clear - Premchand), Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or East Pakistani if they died as citizens of either entity. Looks clear enough to be workable. --regentspark (comment) 02:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ragib, thanks for the suggestion. As per your suggestion, a person can be described as X is/was a Bangladeshi Y if he/she lives/lived in Bangladesh with a Bangladeshi citizenship, even though he/she might have been born in British India (pre-1947) or East Pakistan (1947-71). By this logic Chandravati cannot be describe as Chandravati was a Bangladeshi poet, because she never lived in Bangladesh with Bangladeshi citizenship. Hence Category:Bangladeshi poets is not applicable for Chandravati. Same logic would apply for Michael Madhusudan Dutt and Nabin Chandra Sen. Please confirm if my understanding is correct. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ragib's proposal makes eminent good sense. Bangladesh is not just an empty identity, it also is a defined land area. Pre-Independence America may not be the USA, but it still remains American. Magna Graecia may be Greek in culutre, but it still remains a part of the Italian identity, though the very name Italy emerged almost a thousand years later. Nothing should stop a person from being both from Bangladesh (a land area) and India (a citizenship or whatever), it applies doubly to people and things that belong to both Bangladesh and India in geographical terms. As for precedence in order, India can have it all as the bigger and older body of identity. Aditya 04:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have a solution, I guess it will work.

1) Those people who were born in undivided India(prior to 1947) but those parts are currently in Bangladesh, and those people who earned their fame as Indian or when died then still partition of India did not happen, will be referred as Indian.

Example- Jagadish Chandra Bose- Born in undivided India long ago before partition, earned fame as Indian.

2) Those people who were born in undivided India,either went to East Pakistan after Partition or where they were born that is right now in Bangladesh and resided there, and earned their fame as Bangladeshi, will be mentioned as Bangladeshi.

Sheikh Mujibar Rahman.

Ovsek (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Was not India still India before her independence?

The country was called British India, because she was under British rule! Here "British" is an adjective. For example Quit India Movement, no one says Quit British India Movement. The country was named India by ancient Greeks from Indus River. I have just mentioned "Quite India Movement". Here is a list of newspaper articles published before 9 August 1942 which show direct and clear use of the word "India"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well,your argument has a serious gap.

We know "Quit India Movement" was anti-British movement.

1) we generally know British India as British ruled India and only India as free India from foreign rule.

2) What you said "Quit British India" means( If I explain) "you" are ordered to leave British ruled India, hence India was ruled by British, this "You" then does not represent British.It does not make sense. So it is clear, hence the movement was anti-British,then it was British who were ordered to quit India."Quit India" means I am ordering you to quit India.Whom am i ordering British, because "Quit India" movement was anti-British.

Dont accept British documents,because British-India's government was not representative of Indian people,British Viceroy was nominated by British parliament, and was responsible to British parliament.Ovsek (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the moot point, which people needs to understand. Well put forward by Tito! I'm also adding a few points in support of Tito's argument.
  • British India was officially known as Indian Empire and issued passports under that name.
  • Indian Empire was a founding member of the League of Nations and the United Nations under the name India.
  • Indian Empire was a member nation of the the Summer Olympics in 1900, 1920, 1928, 1932 and 1936 under the name India. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
we had a discussion on this a while back. the term "Indian Empire" was never used officially in India or Britain.--it did appear on the leather cover of passports but not in the inside where the actual text appears. (The legislation about passprots did not mention the covers so it was an unofficial decision by some worker in the printshop), Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting observation. Since India was named by the Greeks, therefore you probably may also propose that nothing was Indian before the Greeks named it India. May be the Aryans never came to India, or the Mohenjodaro was never an Indian town. Say what? Aditya 04:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Indian

Please take a look at the article Bangladeshi Indian. There is a unresolved discussion in the talk page as well. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I also think, it is incorrect to call Rabi Thakur (i.e. Rabindranath Tagore) a Bangladeshi Indian. But, that has been solved. Is not it? In addition, I feel, the naming of the article is not the best one. It can be Indian people of Bangladeshi descent or something like that. I am unsure how the list includes Jibanananda Das who died in 1954! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is now somewhat better than what it was. However, I feel that the list "Notable Bengali Bangal people living in India whose ancestry lies in present-day Bangladesh" is somewhat out of context and hence confusing. It can best be removed. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Bengali films 1931—2013

We have some 90 articles (lists) in Misplaced Pages on "List of Bengali films", for example List of Bengali films of 2013, List of Bengali films of 2012 etc.
Now, all these articles list only Indian Bengali films. So, it is clear the articles have been misnamed. Now, what to do? A request move discussion was taking place at Talk:List_of_Bengali_films_of_2013#Requested_move where two things have been suggested

If you are creating a list of "Bengali language films" and naming the article "List of Bengali films", that MUST contain Bengali language films made in Bangladesh. I don't know about the size of the Indian Bengali language film industry, but according to Cinema of Bangladesh, as of 2004, 100+ Bengali language films are produced in Bangladesh per year. As for List of Bangladeshi films, I don't see why that needs to be merged with this list of Bengali films, that's because it represents films made in Bangladesh regardless of language. (there are indeed a few English language movies made in BD, though just a few). Let's keep 3 lists List of Indian films, List of Bangladeshi films, and list of Bengali language films. --Ragib (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

a) Did you mean "List of Indian Bengali films"? b) See a merged Bangladesh India (in alphabetical order) template, this merge can be done similarly, but first we need to prepare content first. 100+ films per year? Misplaced Pages badly lacks information and articles on Bangladeshi Bengali film. c) Bengali Tollywood is a large industry and Misplaced Pages articles are more or less up to date, start from the current list: List of Bengali films of 2013 --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has Category:Lists of films by country of production and Category:Lists of films by language. I really can't see why the lists for films made in Bangladesh and films made in the Bengali language can't co-exist. Check the categories Category:Lists of British films and Category:Lists of American films. I am pretty sure most of these films are made in English. Aditya 03:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an RM at Talk:Godhra train burning

RM is to move Godhra train burning to a more suitable name, something like Godhra train carnage, Godhra train massacre, Godhra train violence. At present it seems as though the train was the main target, that's why the RM was proposed for clarity issues (Per WP:COMMONNAME "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."). Mr T 11:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RM closed as "no consensus". I don't think mentioning here the opinion that the proposed alternates titles were "more suitable" quite agrees with WP:CANVAS but, hey, it is done with now. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian awards and their relationship to notability

A number of WP:BLPs of Indian citizens cite awards such as the Bharat Jyoti Award granted by the India International Friendship Society or the Best Citizen of India Award granted by the International Publishing House (or sometimes the India Publishing House) located in New Delhi.

I would like to reach out to the WikiProject India community for input regarding the notability of such awards. My own take on these awards is that they appear to be handed out rather liberally (and quite possibly, for sale) solely for the purpose of bolstering one's resume, but that they have little real legitimacy. However, as an American with little access to Indian media, I admit that I might be perceiving the situation entirely incorrectly. So I ask those in the community who are closer to the topic: are these awards at all meaningful? WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is whole politics. 2 years ago Mamata Banerjee came to power in West Bengal. To create a class of intellectuals who will support her she created the award Banga Vibhushan in the model of Padma Vibhushan. Only a few awards of India are de facto notable all else are politics. Hope this provides a light. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Absence of Aryabhatta, and Tansen, Euro Centric bias

We have a meta:List of articles every Misplaced Pages should have‎. It does not have any mention of Indian scientists and no Indian composers. Interested editors may see the discussion on meta:Talk:List of articles every Misplaced Pages should have. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Change

I recently saw some articles written systematically biased in favor of British.

Those are-

Home_front_during_World_War_II#British_India-All I wanted to say India was a colony was Britain,Britain declared war without consulting with Indian leaders.One said it was vandalism.

Indian_Army#World_Wars,here is a picture saying Sikh soldier,may I ask are Sikhs separate from Indians?Are only Hindus Indians?Please take action.

Here should be section because large element of Indian army also played critical role in Freedom movement.

India_in_World_War_II here the writer wants to prove Netaji was collaborator of Axis,some what may be truth,but not completely.As well as Quit India Movement is missing.

As well as Pakistanis always try to ignore the fact that Pakistan was created following partition of India.In many articles no mention that this present Pakistani area was part of India previously.They say "independence' and creation are synonyms,are they?

In short British want to prove India was supportive with Britain,and try to ignore Indian opposition to British as much as possible.

They are also many more.Ovsek (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In Indian_Army#World_Wars, the picture mention "15th Sikh Regiment", which is the name of regiment and is not a sikh/hindu/indian issue. 2nd, you must have failed to notice the "Gentlemen of India" also mentioned in the same caption.--Vigyanitalk 05:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Off course the soldier is from Sikh regiment,but the problem is when other Indian soldiers are mentioned as Indians,not by their regiment.Why this exceptions for Sikhs?Ovsek (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You guys wont change,ok sorry.Ovsek (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

unfortunately Ovsek wants Misplaced Pages to reflect his personal POV views, and if he does not something that happened in the past he will try to "fix" it to his liking despite the objections of other editors. He does not cite RS to support his claims. For example he wants the section on India in WW2 in the Homefront article to be called "British India" instead of "India." Yes "India" is the name used then and now by RS. He is unaware that "British India" is actually the term for the part of India controlled at the time directly by the British (while the rest of India was controlled by Indian princes). Rjensen (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello,dear,I know in British period India was divided between 2 parts,directly British controlled India,Princely states.How ever British was in absolute control of India.India had no self identity.British declared war against Germany with out consulting with Indian leaders?India was ruled by British people(Viceroy) nominated by British parliament.Can you please tell me why this?It is very easy to say any thing but hard to prove.If it was India then why India achieved independence in 1947?Why Britain declared war on Germany with out consulting with Indian leaders resulting in resignation of Congress province government??Why Indian freedom movement happened and it's long history happened???

Fact is India was India but hence India was controlled by Britain,so it is better to say British India.These are not my personal views.Ovsek (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Factually incorrect that "divided between 2 parts". There were French India, Portuguese India... Solomon7968 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither French India or Portugese India played important role,as it was played by British India.With exception of tiny exclaves of them,they had no importance in mainland India.World know India is being ruled by British.Mainland India decided their fate,that's why when mainland India got freedom,India tried to get them back.Ovsek (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In the British system then (and now) only the king declares war so in 1939 the Parliament in London did NOT vote on it. Likewise the Viceroy had no power to declare war. Rjensen (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Off course,but King cant do anything without consulting with ministers.In case of India,King declared war without consulting with Indians.Ovsek (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these edits are pointy and not constructive. Sikh is a specific identity and the article is on the Indian Army so I don't see the problem there at all. The nation of India supported the war while the section clearly mentions the differences between the views of the INC and the Muslim league. Looking over Ovsek's last few contributions, they all appear to be nit picky and pointy ones (eg. ) and labeling editors as 'imperialist' is definitely an NPA violation . Ovsek, if you want to keep editing here you need to straighten up a bit. Follow titodutta's suggestions, they are wise ones. --regentspark (comment) 10:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok,sirs,sorry If I was offensive-I am giving another images describing Indian Sikh soldier issue,these 2 pictures are from Indian army in WW2 article-

Indian_Army_during_World_War_II#North_Africa here in this picture soldiers are off course Sikh and are from Sikh Regiment.Here they are mentioned as "Sikh Soldiers",I dont know how they are mentioned as Sikh,they wear turban and by religion they are Sikh in this sense or they are from Sikh Regiment in this sense?

Indian_Army_during_World_War_II#Hong_Kong here you can find another section of Indian soldiers,by religion they are definitely Hindu,according to order of battle Battle_of_Hong_Kong#Order_of_battle they are Rajput soldiers and they are Hindu,by religion.In Battle of Hong Kong,2 Indian groups participated Sikhs and Rajput troops,these soldiers cant be Sikh.

It can be argued off course soldiers are mentioned by their regiment,then you can see when Sikh soldiers are mentioned according to their regiment as they belong to Sikh regiment,then these Rajput soldiers are not mentioned as Rajput soldiers(They belong to Rajput Regiment),instead it was said Indian soldiers.

So it is clear Soldiers are not mentioned by their regiment but by their religion.

Now Rajput soldier's religion is Hindu and Sikh soldiers are Sikh.

Problem is when we call Rajput soldiers as Indians,then why we dont mention Sikhs as Indians? Are they not Indian?If we have to mention soldiers by their religion,then Hindu Indian soldiers should be said Hindu soldiers,and Sikhs as Sikh soldiers,we dont do it,when we mention Hindus then we call them Indian,but when we mention Sikhs then why should we omit their nationality?If we have to mention through their regiment then say these soldiers from their respective regiments in all cases.

I hope you understand,English is not native language.And also Indian Sikhs as only Sikh indirectly fuels in Khalistan Movement.

Sikh is religion,like Islam.An Iraqi solder is also Muslim,like Iranian Soldiers,should we call them Muslim soldiers instead of saying Iraqi or Iranian?WW2 was not religious war like Crusade that you can say them Muslim soldiers or Christian soldiers.Ovsek (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sirs,I by no mean do vandalism-I added During WW2,hence Britain declared war on behalf of India without consulting with Indian leaders,it led to their resignation-Indian_Provincial_Elections,_1937#Resignation_of_Congress_Ministries it is one of the source.

I add this type of statements in Pakistan articles(mainly of Military and political back ground) such as Following Partition of India,India was divided between 2 new countries India and Pakistan,Pakistanis dont mention it,When I do(cause it is fact,so it should be mentioned)they say it is un-constructive?

I added "Quit India Movement" in "India during WW2" article,cause it happened,they say un constructive?!As well they randomly try to prove Indian revolutionary leaders were bad,collaborator of enemy,ignoring their argument.Netaji said Britain was acting like hypocrite because they were saying to fight for human rights,but it was British who were violating Indian's human right in India itself.no mention of it here.India_in_World_War_II

But Netaji said this- "He criticized the British during World War II, saying that while Britain was allegedly fighting for the freedom of the European nations under Nazi control, it would not grant independence to its own colonies, including India." Subhas_Chandra_Bose's_political_views

2001_Indian%E2%80%93Bangladeshi_border_conflict here in this,I found the the link previously provided(You can see in History) about strength,did not work.So I changed it to "unkown" as i saw in many war article's,I was opposed,the link provided about causality says Indian causality was 15,not 16,so I changed this,I was opposed,finally an user from Pakistan,agreed with me about the the causality and dead link,these were changed.That's what I do.Ovsek (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd also suggest not to make long postings. We are all volunteers here and generally lack the time to read and interpret long messages. You might want to take each point to the talk page of the relevant articles and (briefly!) make your point there. For example, you could say "Shouldn't the image be titled 'Indian soldier' since the article is about the Indian army in WWII?" Then wait and see what others say and where consensus lands. --regentspark (comment) 21:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I did it in the " Indian Army in WW2" article's talk page's image section,still they dont agree.Ovsek (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition,they just only revert,without discussing it in Talk page.Ovsek (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion Ovsek (here) and I don't see a problem with the discussion. At least one editor agrees with you. And the discussion is ongoing so it is not correct to say that they only revert without discussing it. Generally, you can expect that your changes will not be made without consensus so just go on discussing it there. Few things happen quickly on Misplaced Pages. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, then what about the topics?Ovsek (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Politician categories

Should all the Lok Sabha member categories - Category:7th Lok Sabha members etc - be subcategories of Category:Indian politicians? I don't mind sorting it all out if there is agreement. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 10:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Lok Sabha shouldn't really contain any names - it should just be a list of subcategories for each of the ordinal Lok Sabha categories (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc). - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

INCOTM for July

INCOTM is restarting and you are welcome to nominate articles for collaborative improvement during July 2013. If you would like to receive notices on your own talk page regarding INCOTM then please add your name to the list at Misplaced Pages:INCOTM/Members. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The yellow religion boxes

I see a lot of these showing up in articles (example: Visakhapatnam#Language, but they are unsourced. This concerns me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Welcome back to WikiProject India noticeboard. (In my opinion) remove unsourced sensitive/important content! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 21:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Yes, sensitive and important is darn right. Religious distribution for populated places is sort of like a BLP for geography', if you know what I mean. Someone may be adding them en masse. I'll try to track him down and see where these figures are coming from. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this is something we can all handle. We just sort it out here and implement it.
Here are some plans for this religion box matter:
  • A - We could remove the religion boxes, which may prompt others to restore them with a source.
  • B - We could citation needed tag them on sight.
  • C - We could find a single, good source for lots of places all over the country like some india.gov.in/‎ site, spot check a few, and if need be, form a team to list and update articles with these religion boxes.
Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good thoughts. I have already removed the religion box from the article you mentioned! Using article blamer (that "edit history" search tool) we can track the editors! If you want to restart that "Telugu script RM post", we can try starting that once again! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 23:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me, but maybe we should see what others think. The figures may be accurate but just need a source, so Plan C may be best.
By "Telugu script RM post" do you mean the addition of Telugu script to the infoboxes? If so, I don't think there was a strong leaning one way or the other. Plus, that's not very controversial, so it's not a big deal to me. If you want to raise that issue again, please feel free. Cheers :), Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced data should be removed immediately imo. If the data is sourced, then it is worth discussing whether it adds value to an article or not. --regentspark (comment) 00:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I found http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/religion.aspx and at the bottom it shows some province breakdown. But where are the tables??? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ram Thakur

Ram Thakur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article is in hopelessly irreparable condition! I started from this version. Will WP:TNT or reducing to stub help? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 11:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling in English of Son Beel

Hello all,
The article started off as "Son Bill", then mentioned an alternative spelling as "Shon Bill"

The newspaper refs I've looked up predominantly favour "Son Beel".
I'm confused! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Welcome to WikiProject India noticeboard! Actually this is an issue of "transliteration", As far I can understand the word is "সোন বিল"/"सोन बिल" (Bengali/Hindi) where the meaning of "Son" might be gold and the meaning of "beel" is "water land" (common Indian word). Now transliteration of बिल/বিল is correctly done. "Bill" might be confusing! In addition I have found out a Government document of the state, which might be helpful! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 11:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Women's health in India needs a little help at GA

Article passed GA. Where's the party tonight? --Tito☸Dutta 18:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

Hello all, I'm the GA reviewer for this article. It seems that the nom who was on a WAP project has long gone. The article is nearly ready but could do with a better lead section. I've suggested some possible images you might like to include, also. Be glad if you could lend a hand... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Child's play at Godhra, Gujarat, riot related articles

Editors blocked. No more discussion required at this moment. --Tito☸Dutta 18:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

See this version. All editors are reporting against each other. User Kmzayeem has been reported twice too. This is neither disruption, nor vandalism. This is immature behaviour. Suggested remedies: 1) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2) Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct 3) NPOV noticeboard 4) Edit warring noticeboard (already tried) --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 19:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I just blocked 3 editors for this lameness. I'm happy to dish out more vacations for editing if people can't play nice. Thanks. Spartaz 19:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct is preferable.--Zayeem 19:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Why good for everyone?  Dislike Faizan 10:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's stop this now: grave-dancing is unhelpful. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saran and Ballia districts

Can anyone help me figure out the pre-1937 provinces or whatever that Saran district (Bihar) and Ballia district (UP) came under? Our articles on those two places are pretty abysmal but right now I'm trying to fix another issue and it would be helpful to know what administrative regions they came under around 1902. With reliable sources, of course ;) - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link on Ballia town and Ballia district of Encyclopedia Britanica 1911 Ballia and a link which gives details about Saran district and another link to a google book The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang - :) - Jethwarp (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, although I'm still confused! It seems that Ballia was a part of the United Provinces ca. 1911 but the info for Saran appears to be much more recent. The 1911 EB entry for Saran refers to a place in Bengal, which is almost certainly not the district I am concerned about.

The problem that I have is that various modern sources put a 1902 birthplace as being a village in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh and a similarly-named village in Saran, Bihar. I suspect they are the same place. I've even forgotten the article subject right now but it will come back to me before the day is done. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1911 EB entry for Saran refers to a place in Bengal is correct - for province of Bihar & Orissa were not formed till 1912. So the Saran before 1912 that is till 1911 was part of Bengal Presidency after which it became part of Bihar. - Jethwarp (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

RM at Mahatma Gandhi

The article Mahatma Gandhi has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the article's talk page.

Mr T 17:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Support: British renamed Mumbai to Bombay and until few years ago 'Bombay' was common name but after changing back to Mumbai, Mumbai has become common now. Like British, Congress has renamed Mohandas Gandhi to Mahatma Gandhi and forced people to accept it. We need to correct politically sponsered name as per WP:NPOV.

(can't post this to article talkpage due to edit box limit) neo (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RM at Udaipur Airport

The article Udaipur Airport has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the article's talk page.

Jethwarp (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of Jainism related articles

It seems nobody is watching Jainism related articles and User:Rahuljain2307 AKA User:Rahul RJ Jain AKA User:The Fake ID is getting away with vandalism and WP:GAME. He has removed massive sourced contents, cats, infoboxes, templates, wikitables etc from dozens of articles. Instead of tagging contents with cn or refimprove he has removed massive contents from the articles. He also keep redirecting, moving, AFDing articles, merging contents at whims. Earlier I had reported him only related Chanakya but now I am trying to report his whole history on ANI here. neo (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Will keep a watch on all his edits henceforth - Ninney (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But it seems massive contents are lost. neo (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing is "lost" since anyone can easily go into the page History and either revert to the version prior to the vandalism edits, or can copy-paste useful content from earlier versions if it's buried too far back. If you're concerned about lost content, use the "Contributions" button to see the edits of those accounts, and check the History tabs of them to see if there are any large deletions or inappropriate additions that have not yet been corrected. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Online religious conversion of ancient Indian Kings

Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has changed religion of Bimbisara, Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya to Jainism. I have removed his edit on Bimbisara, so far he has not reverted it. Chandragupta Maurya is still showing religion as Jain. I can't edit that article due to edit box limit. But he has resorted to edit war on Chanakya and is fighting over it at article talkpage, reliable sources noticeboard and dispute resolution noticeboard. If we do not correct him, these kings will be converted to Jainism and he may go on converting more Indian kings. neo (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And extremely irritating for me also when users and admins don't comment at all. For every irritation there is equal and opposite irritation. Irrr... neo (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal. Looks like a straightforward sourcing issue. If sources use one religion, use that. If sources disagree, use both or none. --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly as RegentsPark says. Content disputes don't belong on ANI, they belong on DRN. 3RR belongs on its own noticeboard. I've gotten rather sick of someone bringing issues to the wrong board again and again (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the dispute of Chanakya, I have provided three book sources to support my claim. Last time User:Neo. used four web-blogs as reference which I demonstrated to be unreliable. The five websites he is using now does not even support his opinion, apart from being of dubious reliability. I have already stated my views at the talk page. Even WP:DRN is an overkill according to me, however as I might be wrong I am using it to solve the issue. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Karisma Kapoor

Can someone look at Talk:Karisma Kapoor#Sunjay Kapur or Kapoor? and helps us decides her husband's name. This User:‎Isaacsirup is editing based upon his own ideas despite strong reliable sources presented. The sources he cite having clearly proven unreliable. But probably he doesn't understand or have taken it personally or just simply trolling.--Vigyanitalk 16:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi.. I was not aware of the essay. I have now read it. I had thought that google hits is rather a supportive statement. However I might not have engaged myself much, if it was only google hits. My main reason to argue was his twitter, linkedin and his company profile.--Vigyanitalk 16:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I also went by his official names and restored last version by you but I don't see that you have made any changes. neo (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't indent to do an edit war. I reverted once, then started a discussion. 2nd revert was, once could verify that twitter account indeed belong to Sunjay Kapur by logging into my own twitter account. After that the other editor still pressed his own views and kept on reverting himself. In fact before coming here also, I gave the other user a lot of time to come up with some sources.--Vigyanitalk 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Or if I am missing, do you mean something else by changes? or you mean that I have not edited that article before?--Vigyanitalk 17:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought you have changed name from 'sanjay kapoor' to 'sunjay kapur' but even after restoring your version I saw 'sanjay kapoor'. neo (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh.. this thing has taken lot of time today. Now I see the problem. The Sanjay Kapoor is mentioned at 2-3 places and I only changed at one. Plus you reverted to 2nd last version of mine, not the last. Anyhow no worry, I will fix it now.--Vigyanitalk 17:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Symbol of Indian National Congress

One editor has removed the Indian National Congress symbol from the article of same name, with an edit summary that there is "no authentic confirmation". Before removing such well known and widely accepted symbol, consensus be reached by other editors and I have reinstated the symbol. The symbol (a hand inside tricolour) is widely accepted in India as the symbol of Indian National Congress and there is remote scope for any dispute regarding the authenticity of the symbol. The symbol is used in more than 100 articles of wikipedia, shown as a symbol of Indian National Congress. If any editor disputes the authenticity of the symbol and using it in 'Indian National Congress' article, then I propose, a thorough discussion should be done before removing the symbol from the article. Rayabhari (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics Add topic