Talk:List of Indian poets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Poetry (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

article criteria[edit]

What is "Indian language"? I find the naming of the article confusing, and not conforming to other such list articles. This article probably is about Indian poets, so it should be moved to List of Indian poets. It is better also to start articles on List of Hindi language poets, List of Bengali language poets etc ... i.e. individual language lists. There is no "indian" language, and in many cases, for example Bengali language, there are poets in , say Bangladesh, who write in Bengali, and therefore can be listed in any articles listing Bengali language poets. I suggest this article be properly moved as suggested to remove the confusing "indian language" title. --Ragib 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, what exactly is an "Indian language"? Also, we already have language specific articles, country specific article. --Ragib 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved it to "List of Indian poets" -- I would suggest adding links to other relevant articles (e.g., relating to Tamil or Bengali poetry), as well as links to more poets. Always useful, also, to add the information on these poets to the relevant List of years in poetry pages. Best, Sam 17:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks[edit]

I am gradually going to start removing all the redlinks from this list. If the listed poet is not notable enough for their own WP entry then it should not be listed. This is simply a magnet for vanity. Gillyweed (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed lots of recently-introduced redlinks from the Bengali poets list and will continue with the other sections. Seems that some relevant wikilinks have disappeared recently as well. --Bonadea (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I may be adding some redlinks, but only with footnotes indicating that the individuals are, in fact, notable poets. There's nothing wrong with redlinks to a notable subject, since we can expect to eventually have an article on it. That should avoid the notability/vanity problem. Almost all other lists of poets have red links, since there are more notable poets than we have articles for. See WP:REDLINK#When to create red links: Only make links that are relevant to the context. Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles. I'm looking at an online book about Indian poetry which mentions prominent poets and finding some names not on this list. Here's a link to the book. [1] I think this addresses the objections above. -- Reconsideration (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This link is also incredibly useful -- to the introduction and index of the Oxford Modern Poetry in English volume. [2] Reconsideration (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

lead, hidden text[edit]

I rewrote the lead and hidden text, to avoid mentioning WP or WP instructions or guides for inclusion in the article itself, which is to be avoided. descriptions like "these are poets who have received major awards" , yes, but no language like "poets must have a major award to be included". I have put this type of hidden text at the start of EACH editable section for other articles, to be absolutely sure that people adding new names to sections towards the bottom of the list still read the hidden text. i will also trim out names without references. i really like the instruction to link birth and death years to xxxx in poetry. i havent seen that before, and it fits with my understanding of who should be linked to straight "year" articles, and who should be linked to "year in blablabla"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, that was brutal but necessary. if any of the names i removed are notable, please add them back with solid references establishing notability, or just write an article on them. i clarified the hidden text and put it at the beginning of each editable section. hope this helps. my apologies if i removed any names which to the native speakers are clear candidates for articles, but we cannot tell if you dont show us.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, names are being added without citations. This is not a list of all published indian poets, but a concise list of notable indian poets. Since i cannot read any of these languages, i cannot judge if a poet is notable, but if a name is added without any reference, i will remove it. citation tags are for articles, not lists, as i understand lists to be collections of ALREADY cited sourced material.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

List based on language[edit]

There is separate article for the list of poets in some languages [e.g. Hindi, Punjabi]. So, can we remove the names in the current list. - Rajaram Sarangapani (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

-->

Organizing the article[edit]

Need to organize the article in the following standard.

  • Poet name
  • Born and Death year
  • Style of Poetry (ex; philosophical, social etc).

Kindly list below if any other opinions. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

arranging poets names[edit]

I intend to arrange the poets name in the count of 15. For example:

Kannada

  1. Kuvempu (1904-1994)
  2. D. R. Bendre (1896-1981)
  3. Gopalakrishna Adiga (1918-1992)
  4. V. K. Gokak (1909-1992)
  5. K. S. Narasimhaswamy (1915-2003)
  6. U. R. Ananthamurthy (1932- )
  7. Adikavi Pampa (902-975)
  8. Ranna (949-?)
  9. Janna (13th century)
  10. Harihara
  11. Vaidehi (1945- )
  12. D. V. Gundappa (1887-1975)
  13. Purandara Dasa (1484–1564)
  14. Kanaka Dasa (1509–1609)
  15. M. Govinda Pai (1883–1963)
  1. Dinakara Desai (1909-1982)
  2. Gangadevi (14th century)
  3. Gourish Kaikini (1912-2002)
  4. Kumara Vyasa (late 14th-early 15th century)
  5. Akka Mahadevi (1130-1160)
  6. Nagavarma I (late 10th-early 11th century)
  7. Nagavarma II (late 11th-early 12th century)
  8. T. N. Srikantaiah (1906-1966)
  9. B. M. Srikantaiah (1884–1946)
  10. G. S. Shivarudrappa (1926- )
  11. Allama Prabhu (12th century)
  12. Shishunala Sharif (1819–1889)
  13. Sarvajna (16th century)
  14. K. S. Nissar Ahmed (1936- )

Kindly advice before we proceed further. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability and red links.[edit]

  • I have removed the red/black link including references that do not establish the notability of the poet, references are just about lifting the ban on book of Nasreen, The references can be accessed here 1 23. WE should not encourage the adding of the red /black links in the wikipedia lists of authors, poets, writers and etc. Please take a look at WP:redlink and WP:REDNOT. Justice007 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you are confused, Your argument is baseless there is no problem to include the poet name, as far I think you are confused, about the sources. Any way I re-stored the work with those reliable sources. for further please see WP:REDLINK#When to create red links: Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think before mentioning policies, you need to understand first yourself, you are quoting policies that are going against your edits.If you think subject is notable , please create first article then add the name in the lists, stop adding non-notable names, or ask reaching WP:consensus in this regard. Justice007 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I sure you are confused, or not able to understand properly whtat you read, and also I am sure you did not even bare to click the link and read what the policy is, and keeping on reverting :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not confused,I am trying to help you to understand the concept of the wiki rules, I have asked Muhandes to assist me in this regard to satisfy you about red links.Here is his opinion, this.For you easyness I am quoting the policy (Quote/passage) of WP:LISTPEOPLE,"Wikipedia has many list of lists articles. On lists of lists, nonexistent lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red)." Please remove non-notable red/black links names from the list.I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
* You are still confused;
* Even if you refer Muhandes, advice here he clear explains that : The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. Thus that poet is clearly attached with 3 very reliable sources from (1) The Guardian, (2) Gulf Daily News and (3) Inter Press Service. If you doubt this sources you may proceed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to verify the source reliability.
* And for your information the List of Indian poets is not a "list of lists" but it is a List of people only. And even for instance if we suppose this list as "list of lists" : it clearly says all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red), and you are admitting above that the list should be (blue, not red), that is why I always advice you that please do not just read but understand the policy. Dear by arguing and reverting, you are un-necessarily involving in edit warring and wasting your precious time, I have no objection to remove that poet name if that edit violates any WP policy. Hope I am clear to you. :) :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are non-notable red linked poets mentioned in the article, it is safe to remove those links. However, if there are individuals who do not yet have an article, but are notable (as demonstrated by reliable sources), it is acceptable to leave them in the list, granted that a reference succeeds the name of these individuals. Khuda hafiz, AnupamTalk 18:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

comment from anon IP[edit]

One will enjoy reading English Poetry of India of the following contemporary poets who have definitely made significant contributions to the strengthen the roots of English Poetry in India. A few significant poets (that come to mind) of recent times - who have not been evaluated as yet properly and need further study, are: Hazara Singh, HS Bhatia, I K Sharma Syed Ameeruddin, OP Bhatnagar, RK Singh, DC Chambial, PCK Prem, Mohammed Fakhruddin, Angelee Deodhar (for Haiku),Kanwar Dinesh Singh, Hetty Prim, PK joy, Motilal Jatwani, Jayanta Mahapatra, Pronab Kumar Majumder, Keshav Malik, Aju Mukhopadhyay,Niranjan Mohanty, Darshan Singh Maini, Goal Honnalgere, Maha Nand Sharma, RV Smith, Bibhu Padhi, K.V. Rughupathi, IH Rizvi, Nandini Sahu, SL Peeran, KN Sharma, TV Reddy, Dominic, Manas Bakshi, RK Bhushan, Asha Biswas, C Narayanswami and others. All these poets have more than five collections. Many critics have evaluated their poetic output and many have appeared in anthologies. ---added by P C K Prem (pckatoch). (Updated by Professor R.K. Singh)

This is not a page for discussing poetry. It specifically for discussing how to improve this article. Do you have a specific suggestion or specificc reliably published sources that will help improve the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


All articles require sources[edit]

A claim that all the content is sourced in the target landing articles is 1) irrel as our policies require the sourcing to be in the particular article where the claim is made, and also 2) patently false. there are dozens of the landing page articles that do not have appropriate reliable sources that identify the subject as being someone who meets the list criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi RedPen I always thought that you are a experienced editor, but what you are mentioning here, it seems to me your experiernce is not justifying the concerns you are raising. Please consult dispute with someone else who knows better than you. In the list no any red link exists and no any content is to be cite, it is very ridiculous when you add the wiki-links in the articles, and then templating "citation needed", similarly the lists of the articles are wiki-links/articles, there is no need of any tags. What you have mentioned the rules, I do not see anything relating or supporting your personal likeness. I hope this helps, and please discuss the dispute on the talk page of the article, so that other editors can give thier opinion too.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page.Justice007 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
you can call it ridiculous all you want, but it is clearly specified in the policies that all articles including list articles must be appropriately sourced with inline citations. The specific call out is clear evidence that the community consensus is YES ALL articles even list articles, particularly those involving living people, require sourcing. If you dont agree with the policies, make a motion to exempt list articles and see how far you get.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

and per Wikipedia:LIST#List_layout" If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." If you want to start an RfC to determine what exactly the community consensus is about what/who should be included, I am fine with that, but whatever criteria are ultimately agreed upon will need to be stated in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to start here RfC, please add for me the template RfC. Later I discuss further.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
the Request for Comment needs to be formatted in a way that the responses will be able to help identify what the consensus is. We can do it as a "Should the criteria for inclusion be X or Y" then people can weigh in on their preferred option. I have no particular preference for what the criteria be, other than that they can be concretely determined and are within a standard definition of what one might expect to find in a List of Indian Poets.
the current, wide open criteria "consists of poets of Indian ethnic, cultural or religious ancestry either born in India or emigrated to India from other regions of the world." could be one of the options, since the the various facets are items that could be shown to be true in a source and it is a definition that would not be surprising, although it is a little indiscriminate.
What do you think the criteria should be? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with your explanation, would like to see other editors comment about the exact concept of the rule.Justice007 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Does Wikipedia:LIST#List_layout "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." apply to this article requiring it to have a specified criteria?

  • Clearly yes - "Indian Poets" could mean many different things "Poets born in India" or "Poets who wrote in India" or "Poets who wrote in an Indian language" "Poets whose ancestors came from India" etc etc etc. Clarity for editors and readers on who should be in the article (and who should not be) is required and thus some type of criteria must be specified in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  :: No need of references while all articles are wiki-links/articles cited with reliable sources. Clarity can be seen in the articles, not needed in the lists. Can any one specify where and what to cite in the list, the wiki-links/articles those already are cited with reliable sources need which kind of sources????.I consider it non-sense.Justice007 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Include clarification per reasons given above by TheRedPenOfDoom. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment My own opinion is that it's mere pedantry to say that sources in the related article are OK if they unambiguously indicate membership in the class. Ambiguity can arise if there's a question whether someone's notability in another field also indicates significance as a poet. (And any red-linked items included on the ground that the person is obviously appropriate for a WP article do need a source, for how else could anyone tell? ) Hyperlinks are part of article content, as I see it, and as long as the material is sourced in WP it doesn't matter where exactly. The fundamental rule is NOT BURO and IAR. It's unconstructive to challenge the obvious just for the sake of challenging it. But some people disagree, and in case of challenge, it's simpler to copy over a key reference than to argue the matter. Such reference ordinarily does not have to show notability; if challenged, that should be discussed at the article.on the individual. But certainly a list should define the scope, if it isn't totally obvious from the title. A reasonable challenge shows it isn't totally obvious. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • "There is a source for this claim over there somewhere" is not, in my view, a valid reading of acceptable application of WP:V WP:CITE WP:CIRCULAR and other policies. In particular, something that may at one point be used as a reference in a different article to verify a claim here could be removed at any time from the other article with absolutely no notice to this article that its tangential piece of verification had been removed. Given the open nature and lack of coordination between articles that is Wikipedia, blind dependence that sourcing is or was or may be in the future in a different article is really a nonstarter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The current lead is so all-inclusive as to nearly meaningless. I would suggest that the list be restricted to people who are primarily noted by reliable sources as being "Indian poets" and that, for BLP cases, the claim they are "Indian" must be specifically well-sourced. The concept of having any connection whatsoever to India or the Indian subcontinent however tenuous (which seems to be the tenor of the current lead) is overbroad. Collect (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
your analysis may be beyond the current subject of the RfC which is whether or not a specific criteria for this list article is necessary or not. But, perhaps this article is better as a "List of Lists" that directs people to List of poets born in India, List of poets who first published in India, List of poets who wrote write/wrote in Indian Language X , List of poets who wrote write/wrote in Indian Language Y. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes It's a useful guideline and would be useful here. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Include clarification It is beneficial and should be done succinctly. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

step two - what criteria do we think are appropriate?[edit]

The RfC above is pretty clear that there is not consensus to ignore the Wikipedia:LIST#List_layout guidance: "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."

The next step would be to identify what criteria are appropriate for a List of Indian poets. There do not appear to be any Feature List quality addressing anything like Poets or Novelists or Writers from X to use as a guideline, but some other articles pretty much at random:

  • List of poets from the United States: "The poets listed below were either born in the United States or else published much of their poetry while living in that country."
  • List of Irish poets: "This is a list of poets either born in Ireland or holding Irish citizenship. Poets whose work is in Irish are included."
  • List of Persian poets and authors: "The list is not comprehensive, but is continuously being expanded and includes Persian writers and poets from Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan, India, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Lebanon, and Azerbaijan . This list is alphabetized by chronological order. Although a few authors in this list do not have their ethnic origin in the Iranian people, nevertheless they have enriched Persian culture and civilization by their remarkable contributions to the rich Persian literature. The modern Persian speaker comprehends the literature of the earliest Persian poets including founder of the Persian poetry and literature Rudaki[1] (approximately 1150 years ago) all the way down to the works of modern Persian poets. Some names that lived during the turn of a century appear twice."
  • List of Russian poets "This is a list of authors who have written poetry in the Russian language."

Any suggestions? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2014[edit]

Please add Devarakonda Balagangadhara Tilak, Sirivennela Sitarama Sastry to the list of telugu poets Rpodila (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Alexf(talk) 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)