Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.

Click here to add a new section

Wikipedia Meetups edit Upcoming Odia MeetUp Bangalore 04 November 27, 2011 (2011-11-27) Recent Outside India Past meetups

Native languages in lead

Those who've been seeing my contribs and talks would be familiar with my rant. Its about these native language transliterations. User:Hari7478 has been repeatedly adding transliterations to articles, citing that it is the subject's mother tongue. It is sometimes as unreasonable as adding Marathi scripts to Aishwarya Rajinikanth, just because her father was born in Maharashtra, and adding Tamil script to Ramesh Aravind. Some other articles where this has been happening by the same user is Rahul Dravid, Soundarya Rajinikanth and Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). The user seems to be operating on some nonexistent policy that the transliterations should be only of the subject's mother tongue. There is no Wikipedia policy that states so. I have reverted all his controversial edits pending consensus here.

It is difficult to come up with a generalized policy to handle these kinds of issues. I'd like Wikipedians' comments on this. Lynch7 12:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to bring to your notice; there are also discussions going on elsewhere about adding Urdu title for film names. eg here at Talk:Zindagi_Na_Milegi_Dobara#Urdu. A decision taken there and implemented on film articles can be misunderstood as taken for all India related articles & be brought to practise. Hence suggestion to conclude on both topics together. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Purely on the basis that this is English Wikipedia and that even most Indian contributors whom I have come across are not proficient across the whole spectrum of subcontinental scripts/languages, is it feasible to adopt English (Latin character set) transliterations as the norm from now on? Or will we then just end up with a whole new set of arguments regarding which is the correct transliteration? Among other benefits, this might enable some of us truly monolingual types to spot vandalism/abuse that sometimes appears using Indian character sets. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Sitush, and this is what I initially aimed for, when I started actually doing something about it. I did receive some comments at Village pump (idea lab), but I just didn't have the energy to take it up further. Lynch7 13:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of my edits regarding "transliteration of names" have been frequently removed by new users/Ips without a proper explanation. I want them to be reinstated. Recently an admin' MikeLynch (talk · contribs) had reverted my edits, although they were well sourced. Upon his notification i'm bringing the issue here. I'm hereby mentioning the corresponding pages and the problems invovled.

• Jairam Ramesh - In this page, i had provided reliable sources which speak of his "Tamil brahmin" origin. See this:[1]. Some new users/Ips used to revert my edits and keep the kannada transliteration alone. But they don't provide any source about his Kannada ancestry, except for the fact that he was born in Karnataka. I suppose transliterations can only be added in the corresponding person's mother tongue. And, when i've provided sources about him being a "tamil speaking brahmin" , why is my contrib' being deleted? Please resolve this. I strongly believe that a tamil transliteration is a must, and that it should come first, for which i've provided sources.
  

• Sri Sri Ravi Shankar - See this:[2]. He happens to be a "tamil iyer brahmin" who was born in papanasam, tamil nadu. But users are frequently adding a kannada transliteration of his name, just because he currently resides in Bangalore. I suppose only the transliteration of one's mother tongue is added.
  

Please resolve them. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You might want to reply on the broader issue in the above section. Lynch7 13:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Will post my replies in the above section. Hari7478 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Native language transliteration should be not be as an "identity tool". It should be used only to show how the non-English name appears in the original language and for a pronunciation/search guide. The transliteration should be pertinent for the reader to gain more information not to identify him as belonging to X group.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, i say we remove all the transliterations in the disputed pages, temporarily, until a solution is reached. I've been providing sources for all those contribs of mine.

However, almost all the articles concerning "a person of indian origin" has a corresponding transliteration in an indian language, believed to be his/her native tongue. I don't think it would be practically possible to adopt "Sitush's newly proposed idea", as you couldn't stop new users/Ips who are unaware of it from doing the same mistake.

I suppose the current policy on transliterations is widely being followed across all global wiki' articles. See below:

Karolos Papoulias - President of Greece. Xabi Alonso - Footballer. Although he hails from Spain, he belongs to the indigenous Basque community. Henceforth the article does not have a spanish transliteration, but rather has a "Basque pronunciation" IPA.

That being the case in wikipedia, why don't we follow the same principle in the "India related articles" too? Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Har7478, can you justify why so many India-related articles have multiple native language script entries? You can, by the way, forget the issues relating to newbies - they are largely irrelevant and no worse than the usual issues of sourcing, pov etc. Equally, the fact that other stuff exists (including extant Indian articles) dpes not prevent us moving forward. Finally, mine was a question rather than a "newly proposed idea". I am sure that it has been raised before. You may want to consider indenting your posts properly - usually, one colon more than the previous post in the thread ... and there is no need to use HTML br markup. I've reformatted your post above accordingly. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no policy on transliterations. I cannot state that loudly enough. Show us one policy which says something about the compulsion of having to include a transliteration, and some clause which says that it has to be the mother tongue. Lynch7 14:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, ML. Just guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). I'll take a look at Village Pump but it might be easier first to get the issue settled here. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal:
People: Mother tongue + Language of their work. Eg: Rajnikant’s mother tongue would be Marathi but as he has works more in other South-Indian languages, those should be added. (I am unsure for this particular example of which would be the “other languages”. He has films in Kannada, Tamil, Telegu.)
Places: State language. In case of disputed territories, both languages can be added.
Films: The language of the film as well as the languages used in the credits of the film. Many olden films (few new) would have Urdu titles even if the film is Hindi.
Another question: While using a non-English language, should the content be the phonetic translation or the meaning’s translation? As this is applicable for titles (films, books, etc.), i suppose that only phonetic translation should be used. However, many places also have different names in different languages. E.g Sion, Mumbai is called Shiv in Marathi. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Mike Lynch - True indeed. There is no such policy. I understand that when there is no policy in that regard, one cannot revert another user's edit on any grounds. The only solution would be to remove all transliterations as of now, until we reach consensus. But, do you intend to differ from the usual format that is widely being followed across most wiki' articles (global), just because there is no exclusive policy regarding transliterations? My proposition is this:"Why don't we follow the same format as in the Xabi Alonso & Karolos Papoulias articles ?" @ Sitush - I suppose you were talking about articles like Makar Sankranti and i agree with you. But right now, let us settle the issue on "naming conventions in wiki' articles about individuals". Hari7478 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There is no prevailing convention, like the one you speak about, and hence there is nothing to be followed. Obama mentions no native language like Hawaiian (or whatever), or any African language (his father was African), and it is a FA. Rajnikanth mentions Tamil and Marathi, and is a GA. There is clearly no set convention being followed. Lynch7 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
@Animesh, thanks for taking the initiative and proposing something. I tend to agree with your proposals (though honestly I'd want the scripts to be removed altogether), but there are some kinks. We usually do not know what the mother tongue of a person is, in most cases, and this will start unnecessary debates again. Language of their work is a must, or else it won't make sense. I strongly agree with that. Lynch7 15:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Rajinikanth's birthname is "Shivaji Rao Gaekwad". He got his new name, only after his foray into tamil film industry, which was given to him by a tamil film director. So the name Rajinikanth has a tamil transliteration while "Shivaji Rao Gaekwad" is written in marathi. That was the consensus in that page, although i wouldn't agree with it. But Obama's case is different. He is American. Except the american indians(natives), all others in the US don't have an american ancestry. For example: "Sylvester Stallone" is an American of Italian & Irish ancestries. But there is no "Italian/Irish transliterations" in that page. That's a different case (US related articles). But that isn't the case with "Europe & Asia related ones". See:Hakan Yakin - Although a swiss footballer, i don't see any swiss german transliteration, but only a turkish one as he is of turkish ancestry. I really wonder if he knows turkish as good as swiss german. Regardless of any of it, that is the format in all "Asia/Europe related articles". See Wael Zwaiter. Only the Americas is different. Hari7478 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 :) Again, there is no such fixed convention. There is no world's difference between US/Europe/Asian articles as such. There exists loosely formed Wikiprojects, but other than that, there is no division as such. Those conventions are what we're here to discuss and/or propose (for Indian articles) anyway. Lynch7 15:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Hari Potter, be careful with your wand. Dont rub off other's comments. (Kiddingly calling you Hari Potter. Dont Avada Kedavra me. MikeLynch actually said something good about me in that comment of his.) Removing scripts would be a very easy, though tedious, task. But its like going one step down & i dont wanna do that. It is infact good to have these scripts just for the purpose of knowing how they look. Frankly i (or anyone who doesnt know the language) wont understand a thing nor know if its right or not & nor even know if its actually Tamil or Telegu. But just for the feel, its good to have. Actually, a phonetics of Indian-words should be more beneficial that original scripts. eg. Chutney should have chútnee. - Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bingo Animesh, you've understood my point :P . Yes, removing all scripts till this discussion is over would be futile. I'm waiting for other users' comments on this issue; lets see how it goes. Lynch7 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mother tongue won't work because of verifiability issues, and I remain unsure about the rest of your proposal. I just feel that using these scripts is asking for trouble, especially on caste-related and politics articles. There is no urgency about this though, so I'll have a think and watch what others say. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "language(s) of their work" will be effective. What if the actor has roughly done equal number of films in more than one language. Other than mother tongue, I see no valid criteria. Again, mother tongue may not work in cases where the subject's parents are of mixed background (Rekha being a classical example). So I too may have to wait for others comments —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Then Rajinikanth in Tamil and Deepika Padukone in Hindi will be meaningless. Don't you think that will be a bad situation, since Rajini is not as famous in Maharashtra as he is in TN, and Deepika is not as famous in Konkan as she is in Bollywood. Lynch7 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In my opinion, it is better not to include any transliteration. One this is an English encyclopedia, so why would a regional language transliteration be needed anyway? And two, we can avoid all the edit wars that keep happening because of it. So in short, remove them for good. — Abhishek  ^Talk 16:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That may create problems with some of the south Indian actresses, where it's diffucult to say in which language they have done more films. Take the case of Madhavan, a Tamilian by birth has done more films in Tamil, but many would say that he is a Hindi film actor as he is more active in Bollywood these days. Again, things might change tomorrow so it's difficult to decide things based on your proposal —Commander _{(Ping me)} 16:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Hari, in that case consider adding Rahul Gandhi's name in Kashmiri, Farsi and Italian along with Hindi. After all he is part Italian, part Farsi, part kashmiri Pandit no? This is becoming absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.136.99 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been for removing them all, because this is the English language wiki, and most English speakers will not get anything out of them and cannot verify mistakes in them. Pronunciation would be better. Also, they bring about too many debates and arguments. For actors, the names are always given in English only in the film credits that I have seen. Anyway, there can and should be Interwiki links on the left side of the page that show the name in various languages. BollyJeff || talk 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

By "Languages of their work" i just wanted to point that excluding it & keeping only mother tongue wouldnt make sense most of the time. Eg. would be Rajnikant (classic example for today!), Gulzar (born Punjabi but has more Urdu work). Case to case decisions on people should be taken. Also writing "Rajnikant" in 5 languages apart from English is height! But for other articles a common decision can be made. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – This is an English Wikipedia and seriously I have never endorsed adding the local dialects and scripts in the lead. I would be fine with removing them altogether. Prose alone will suffice as to which language/nationality/caste etc the person would belong to. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :@Vensatry A transliteration has got nothing to do with telling a reader that an actor or actress has done more films in that language? So my opinion is to remove a transliteration all together from all the articles and just have its English title alone. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a little weird to associate one's work to his/her name being written in a script. I agree with user:Sodabottle who said "Native language transliteration should be not be as an identity tool. It should be used only to show how the non-English name appears in the original language and for a pronunciation/search guide.
Proposition 1: Regardless of one's native language, why don't we look into the origin of the name itself. Most of our names are "words of sanskrit origin". Except for a few like Lallan(Awadhi), Ambatirayudu(telugu), kanimoli(tamil), kannadakasturi(half kannada + half sanskrit) most others are sanskrit (Ganesh, Chaitanya, Vivek, Abhishek, etc), whether one is from north, south, northwest, etc. So why don't we simply add a devanagari script? There is no difference across the various states, in the pronunciation of these sanskrit names.
Proposition 2:Also, brahmins across the country (including south) are considered to be of vedic aryan heritage. They use sanskrit for ritualistic purposes, and are the only caste to put sanskrit into use (practically). So i would suggest the addition of "devanagari transliteration" in wiki' pages about "brahmin individuals". But although it is logically right, it would pave way to inconsistencies, vandalism, edit warring. As mentioned by Sitush "using these scripts is asking for trouble, especially on caste-related and politics articles". So why not consider "proposition 1"? Hari7478 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if its English Wikipedia, its an encyclopedia & hence its not harmful to have other language scripts. Ofcourse as BollyJeff said that Interwiki links are available, but not all articles will have it. Eg. Beed district from Maharashtra doesnt have an Indian-language page, including Marathi, but has it in other 10 foreign languages. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Then those Marathi speakers should get on the ball and write an article there, instead of just adding scripts here. BollyJeff || talk 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hari7478, your proposal appears ridiculous. Please don't bring caste into this discussion. There are many non-Brahmins who have names derived from Sanskrit. What do you do propose to do in such a case. And there are a number of Sanskrit names which are exclusively used in South India - like Swaminatha, Subrahmanya, etc. You might have come across a Subrahmanya who could not speak a sentence in Sanskrit. It is extremely ridiculous to give a transliteration in a dead language-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 17:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, language transliterations for people is necessary and should be based on their cultural heritage. For eg, I've added both Marathi and Tamil script for Sir T. Madhava Rao, Marathi because he is a Thanjavur Marathi and Marathi was his mother tongue, Tamil because his ancestors had settled down in Kumbakonam for centuries and Madhava Rao was born and brought up there. As for Deepika Padukone, Konkani would be enough - after all, both Konkani and Hindi are based on the Devanagari script. And as far as Madhavan is concerned, he is not such a big name in Bollywood as he is in the Tamil film industry. So Tamil script would be enough.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 17:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope, This gets into the realms of having to determine who self-identifies as what, as happens with Jewish people etc. The K.I.S.S. principle applies, surely? - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is almost the same as what Animesh had already proposed here.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And it is not acceptable to me, for the reasons that I have already outlined. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What if a new user? What's this new user old user theory? May be new to this editing-contributing business, but I've been watching wiki for years. It's time some "old" wikipedians start using their privileges wisely!. Moreover when someone gets to write a bio, and he writes only 2 lines stating he does not like people undoing his edits, just shows sheer arrogance. There many better things to do than just changing transliterations! Let's not make this a battle ground for propaganda! Thank you! §KevinBraun 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Abhishek: I didn't mean that, "a transliteration has anything to tell that an actor or actress has done more films in that particular language?" I asked that to Mikelynch :) —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way Devanagari was not always a script for Sanskrit! So let's not try and bring in such ideas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mikelynck and Animeshkulkarni were saying that scripts have to added based on "languages of their work". I just asked them what if the actor had done equal no. of films in two or more languages. Again that would create a lot of problems and edit-wars. Hence that wouldn't be a nice proposal —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, lets look at it this way; just think whether it will be more meaningful to have Rajini's name in Tamil or Marathi. Whenever people say Rajini, what comes to mind first is Tamil films, and not his birth in Maharashtra or the Bangalore bus he was a conductor in.

To be clear on my stand, I would want a complete elimination of these scripts. Whatever benefits they have, they don't outweigh the nuisance they cause. Vensatry (and Sodabottle) would know that; we've been reverting additions of scripts from Rajinikanth article and Hosur. What we don't want is this: Tomorrow, some user will come and say: "Hey, Deepika was born in Kobnhavn, I want Danish language up there!" I don't know why I'm obsessed with Deepika.

If the names in these scripts have some importance of their own, then by all means, we should include it. But it should never be something like: "Hey, this guy was born in my village, so I want my language up there!". Lynch7 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Also, if anyone cares, have a look at the presentation I presented at WCI11: commons:File:Native Language Transliterations.pdf. Lynch7 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

... and SpacemanSpiff and me have been removing dubious stuff, including a revdel at Jayalalithaa on 13 December. I can't even read these scripts, but I know a malicious editor when I see one. The problem is not merely in relation to films. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Case to case decision on people with multi-language-works should be taken. But as a general rule "languages of their work" should be added. Especially of people who work with languages. Vijay Mallya, as has nothing to do with language, need not have his name in Kannada or Konakani (& especially not in Kannada & calling it as Konkani. Can someone please verify what language it is & change the language's name accordingly?) But to not include Javed Akhtar or Gulzar's names in Urdu wont be justified. Hence the "languages of their work" proposition. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And I ask again: why make it more complicated than it needs to be? These additions add nothing for the vast majority of the readership, even in India. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! How can we get someone involved here who can make an official policy? BollyJeff || talk 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a decent proposal Animesh, and that would be my second option, first being a complete removal. Konkani script is same as Kannada BTW Case by case handling is what we're doing right now, and its not going too well aint it? :P Sitush speaks well; he has read my mind! Lynch7 18:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

They might not add value to Indian readers but might be of interest in fact to non-indian users to just look at how the name looks in another language. Isnt it useful for some American to see how the name "Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport" looks in the language these people on this airport talk? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

They can click the interwiki link. BollyJeff || talk 18:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with Animesh. No, people don't want that; for instance, I don't care what Gdansk is called in Polish, or how Nelson Mandela is called in Zulu. I'd not mind hearing it (i.e. the IPA pronunciation), but I can't read a word of scripts like Cyrillic or Hebrew; so how in the world is it going to be useful for me? I don't see a good use for it, be it Indian or foreigner. Lynch7 18:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Vijay Mallya has nothing to do with any language! But as far as coastal Karnataka is concerned, Konkanis there are very much part of Kannada heritage- in broad sense, just like Kodavas or Tuluvas KevinBraun 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

@Bollyjeff: Dont bring in Policy Makers so soon. They come & write essays. I leave the page then. :) But if you at all want, write "Caste" 10-15 times & they will all sprout out. :) Also, not all pages have Interwiki links. Replied to that above.

@MikeLynch: Same script? Really? But Konkani language writes itself in the normal Hindi/Marathi script unlike Kannada writes in Kannada script. So say all the Notes in my valet. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that Catholic Christians (from Mangalore) prefer Konkani in Roman Script? KevinBraun 18:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

/span>]] ::::::@Animesh, To the best of my knowledge, yes. Kevin, lets have that discussion on Talk:Konkani. Anyway, not taking it tangentially away from the topic, yes I would really like a policy on this. Lynch7 18:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think pushing for a policy is a long term thing. But there is nothing to prevent this project finding a consensus that it the India-related sphere it is the case that the existing guidelines are more trouble than they are worth and that instead we prefer our own, what ever that may be. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Lynch7 18:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We should stick to just discussing which languages should be added on biographical articles rather than places and films. I think our idea for the latter two is to just have one language, which is language of the state/region it is in for places and language of original production for films. As for biographical articles, I'm finding it hard to agree with "language of their work" because some people work with multiple languages. At the same time, mother tongue is also agree with, because while many retain their birth names, some, like Rajinikanth have changed their names to one that originates from a different language. If we followed the mother tongue rule, I'm not sure if putting Rajinikanth's name in Marathi on his page would make sense (unless his name was still Shivaji Rao Gaekwad). I'm thinking for biographical articles it's good to have the name in language from which the actual name originates (Rajinikanth is a Tamil name while Gautham Vasudev Menon is a Malayalam name). Another rule could be to add the language which they mostly speak at home, while that would be hard to figure out with out a reliable source maybe. EelamStyleZ talk 18:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@ user:ravichandar84 - I was just trying to come up with an amicable solution by suggesting the use of devnagari for all Indian names. Please look into "proposition 1" in my previous comment, where i suggested the use of devanagari for all regardless of caste,region,language. Hmm...I shouldn't have come up with the second proposition reg' brahmins. S'ry ab't that. Coming back to the point, "writing in devanagari" doesn't necessarily mean "writing in sanskrit". The devanagari script is not only used for sanskrit, but also for hindi,marathi and by hindu-kashmiris & sindhis. It is indeed the most widely used indian script across the country. Only, its usage slightly differs w.r.t languages.
All those languages that use the "devanagari script" have four schemes for the ka/ga sounds, namely ka kha ga gha. But there is just one "ka" for all the four different schemes in tamil. For example, the name "Ganesh" can only be written as "Kanes" in tamil, as there are no "G","SH" sounds in tamil. So what is the point in providing transliterations when you cannot even pronounce the name with it's actual sound? "Devanagari" is the most widely used writing system in India which is used for various languages such as "Hindi, marathi, konkani, kashmiri(hindus), sindhi(hindus) & sanskrit". Every railway station across India would have nameboards with english & hindi(which uses devanagari writing system) names, while the regional script differs with the states. One doesn't have to necessarily put it up as hindi, marathi or konkani; but simply make it like this - Deepika Padukone (Devanagari: दीपिका पडुकोण). The script is common. And, as i had mentioned earlier, the name Ganesh(गणेश) can only be written as "kanes" in tamil, as there are no "G","SH" sounds in tamil. So what is the point in providing transliterations when you cannot even pronounce the name with it's actual sound? If you ever want to avoid all these prolonged edit wars & vandalism, using devanagari could be the only possible solution for this never ending debate(as it seems)Hari7478 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Propping up Devanagari to somehow represent all the languages of India is highly objectionable, as most South Indian languages do not use Devanagari. This will only create more problems than solving any. Let us avoid it. Lynch7 18:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hari, What is the point in adding Devanagari script for someone from Tamil Nadu just because he has a Sanskrit name if he does not know a word of Hindi or Sanskrit or any other Indo-Aryan language?-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My proposal: Script for the person's mother tongue + Script of the lang of the place he belongs to/settled in/works in -Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That isn't a good idea. There are many north indians & tamilians in bangalore who cannot speak kannada, coz you don't have to necessarily know the language, as one could easily get along with hindi or tamil, in the city. It would be pointless to add a kannada transliteration for a north indian working in bangalore, who might not know kannada. Also, while devanagari(representing hindi) is used by the central government across all of it's areas such as Railways, Airports, post office, etc , regardless of the state in which the offices are situated, why not include it here? I'm not denying the addition of a corresponding native script, but why not make devanagari compulsory here, when the indian(central) government uses the script extensively, across all of it's areas, regardless of the region/state? Hari7478 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with MikeLynch here! Encouraging Devanagari does not make sense at all, to me it looks like another face of Hindi imperialism. I agree with RaviChandar. Mother tongue+ Second Primary place, E.g. For Rahul Dravid - Marathi and Kannada. For Deepika Pallikal- Malayalam and Tamil. KevinBraun 19:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should Devanagari be compulsory? hain? Are individuals Union govt. run/managed? KevinBraun 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

If in Karnataka one does not feel Kannada is necessary, or Malayalam in Kerala how can Devanagari (representing Hindi) is necessary for whole of India? KevinBraun 19:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

If any Indian script is made compulsory by this project then it is the last time that you will see me here. That might encourage some people! - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hari, your own argument proves why it makes sense to add Kannada transliteration for Ramesh Arvind, Rahul Dravid, Sri Sri Ravishankar etc. They all speak Kannada and they're living/working in Karnataka. Not worried about all those north Indians and tamilians (who can't speak Kannada) in Bengaluru who'll never have a wiki page by their name!! Thanks. KevinBraun 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not engage in what appears to be childish point scoring such as in your last sentence above, KevinBraun. It does not advance a discussion, it makes you look silly and it could be construed as an incivility. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, that has been taken for vandalism already. By the way too bad that implied bias has no way to be dealt with here on wiki. KevinBraun 06:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

TA DA!!!! We now have various options & solutions & questions & responses. But it will be too soon to decide on any of them. Hence we should let more editors come in & give their views. Maybe few more days later we can have all feasible options with us & then decide on implementation of them. Summerizing the above, potential problem seems only with biographical articles. Status on other articles seems to be more or less agreeable. Also please bring in views on non-biographical articles as they seem to have got little attention here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're discussing something broader now, not limiting ourselves to biographical articles. Lynch7 04:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To second Sodabottle's views, the English Wikipedia needs to have an English transliteration that helps in pronunciation aspect and there ends the matter. Other scripts are not necessary in my view on the English Wikipedia. If interwiki link exists and article exists, great. Otherwise, contribute to that language wiki and add the interwiki link. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• There was a discussion on this on VPP two years back (where Rajnikanth was specifically discussed). I've personally been back and forth about this. The advantage of an indic script is that it allows for source checking etc and allows the reader to actually search for material relevant to the subject where the subject's contribution is in the language mentioned in the script which a google transliterate is very dangerous for. However, on a more practical note, this just adds grief for regular readers, so it's better to do away with it. E.g. Take the case of Tishani Doshi, a Welsh-Gujarati author who writes in English and has lived in Madras for almost all her life. What defines the addition of a script (choosing this as an example as it's one of the few where the script wars haven't happened but is likely to when she wins one of the more major awards). Doing away with indic scripts on Bios will probably help us get stop wasting time on the script wars, so that's probably a decent option. —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And of course the worst part is vandalism, where indic-script names are changed to mean dog, prostitute and other words that children here shouldn't read. Now, most often, anyone who adds these scripts cares two hoots about the actual articles to go back and check that these things are stable. e.g. in Jayalalitha's page, there was a Kannada-Tamil script war, but when it comes to fixing the vandalism to these scripts, no one seems to care. Likewise on Narayanamurthy's page, the Kannada script was vandalized and no one really knew for a couple of days and the only reason I picked it up was because the IP involved did some other vandalism and so I had to check with Mike Lynch to see if there was anything funky going on. We shouldn't leave these to chance, the value of adding these scripts, at this point is far less than the grief caused. —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very real threat, and is an easy and difficult-to-detect form of WP:LIBEL. To put it shortly, the disadvantages far outweigh any advantages. Lynch7 04:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally against adding this unless really really necessary, like say a Movie Name or so. I have myself been at war with other editors, because the language I add is 'inappropriate' [ALWAYS]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Options

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is ultimately no consensus about which language to use, but I see a fair bit of support in regards to IPA and pronunciation and would think this would help normal readers, so I am going to say that 'Using IPA to clarify pronunciation' is the consensus of this discussion, all other sections do not meet a level of consensus needed to pass. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarified here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the name of an article subject (e.g. a biographical article or a geographical region) be added in his/her/its native language? --Anupam^Talk 10:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that this RfC also concerns films and other articles? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all India-related articles. Lynch7 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding options being discussed, add other variants below and indicate support.

Use IPA to clarify pronounciation and use Indic transcriptions only for interwikis

• Support Shyamal (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't see how Indic transcriptions help the reader. Time will be better spent on writing a one-line stub on the native language wiki. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support. As nom, if I could say so! Completely agree with Ganeshk's statement. Lynch7 03:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support: As per Ganesh. -- Karthik Nadar 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I still believe there's value to Indic scripts, but on a practical note this is a far better solution. I aso think Ganesh is on to something, when someone comes around adding scripts willy-nilly (just a couple of weeks back I had to block one racist editor on this, Devanagari vs Kannada script for Konkani!) they should be redirected to the appropriate Indic Wikipedia. We can easily make a templated note for that. —SpacemanSpiff 04:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  Before I forget, my support is for non-geographical articles. Geographical articles should have indic-scripts as every state/regional government has their primary websites and a good chunk of their local activity record in the regional language. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Lynch7 06:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Partial Support: I agree with "Use IPA to clarify pronounciation", for the rest I support "Indic transcriptions in mother-tongue of subject/ geographic location", the reason being the latter would take care of repeated additions of local language by local editors. They will invariably want to add the stamp on the personality/location, we are very territorial mind it! For this, state wise wikiprojects can devise and add one-line notes to their respective projects as this is a longdrawn and repeated issue. The same debate happened a few years as well, may some dig it from the archive. Also, native/mother tongue to give respite to all those people who somehow want to ensure others know where the celebrities come from. Geographic locations won't have much of an issue in this regard. --Ekabhishek^talk 06:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I entirely agree with Ganeshk's suggestion. Practically the best possible solution. But there's one minor complication - For example, the Zinedine Zidane page has a pronunciation help in french which links to the "Wikipedia:IPA for French" page. I remember another user who disapproved it, and wanted to use "IPA:for Arabic/Algerian Arabic" as Zidane is ethnically Algerian. These kind of problems will definitely arise in India related articles. What would we do in those circumstances? Hari7478 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, we would not want wars to start again. But I think if this will be a problem, it will be much more limited than the present problem. This is primarily because Wikipedia:IPA lists many languages, but the Indian ones listed are Hindi-Urdu, Sanskrit and Tamil. The idea of IPA is to take out the language thingy, and to emphasize more on how it sounds. Lynch7 08:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There might be another small complication, but i think it won't even be an issue. As i had mentioned before, tamil does not have enough alphabets to represent all types of sounds. However, today, most tamilians have sanskrit names, which can't be interpreted with a "tamil IPA". For the four different schemes "K KH G GH", tamil only has one "K" to represent all of them. In other words, for the english alphabets "K & G", there is only one "K" in tamil, as you can see from the tamil IPA page. So the name "Ganesh" can only be interpreted as "Kanesh" with a tamil IPA. However, the tamilian himself only pronounces it as "Ganesh" & not "Kanesh". In this case, a "tamil IPA" will not be useful even when interpreting the name of the tamilian, rather a "Hindi-Urdu or Sanskrit IPA" need to be used. In another example the name "Madhavan"(actor) can only be interpreted as "Mathavan" using a tamil IPA, because there is only one "TH" in tamil for the four schemes "T TH D DH". In other words, both the english alphabets "T & D" are only represented by one "T" in tamil. However, the actor himself pronounces his name as "Madhavan" and not "Mathavan". I support the use of "Hindi-Urdu, Sanskrit IPAs" in such cases, but i'm not sure if some south indian editors would approve of it. Hari7478 (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. My point is that, we want to stress more on how it is pronounced (that's your intention too). Let me be clear on my stand; We know how "Madhavan" is pronounced; now, just because he is a Tamilian, we should not use Tamil IPA. If the correct pronunciation of "Madhavan" can be got by English IPA, then its very well. If not, we go to the IPA which is best suited for that name. The critical point is that, we should not mention it as "Tamil pronunciation", or "Hindi pronunciation"; lets give the actual pronunciation based on some factors (mother tongue, area of fame, whatever), but we don't mention that it is Tamilian, Hindi, etc. My aim is to take the language completely out of the name.

• Support: IPA's in most cases are a must. My preference is to remove scripts, stop caring about whether the interwiki articles are created, as the other languages are totally unnecessary. If that is not possible, we would have to discuss each and every dispute in a haphazard manner like this one. X.One ^SOS 09:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course not; nowhere will it be explicitly specified that you have to go to other wikis and create articles. The idea is that it should be implicit; people see some language interwikis on the left, and then they think "oh, my language is not there", and then they go create it. That's the funda. Lynch7 10:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support: Agree with Ganeshk's suggestion. Also IPA should be for the correct pronunciation of names and not based on any other criteria. That in turn may be based on the mother tongue in which person has been named, but again if name has changed, it may not be so. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, Oppose & Comments: Adding IPA for ALL articles related to India where the title is of non-english origin is a good option. So Support for that. Creating relevant interwiki pages is not feasible. So Oppose on that. Comments: I am unsure of how this is proposed to be handled. Does 'no indic scripts whatsoever' mean that you want to remove all the indic scripts from the pages which are stable now? People who give vandalism as the reason for not having indic scripts should think on it. I doubt Editor's Favourite biographic articles like Gandhi, Satyajit Ray, Lata Mangeshkar, Karunanidhi, etc. as well as others like India, Ganges, etc. would remain calm & quite on deletions of Indic scripts. & i dont see this option being any good to just agitate more people. As Ekabhishek said, we are territorial! Also for film articles, the reason given for having Hindi & Urdu indic scripts as "original film shows the title in 3 languages" is a valid one. I dont know why & when was that ruled out. In fact, we should include only the indic scripts that were shown in the film, irrespective of the actual language of the film. Eg. As Hyderabad Blues is a Telugu-Hindi-English film but the titles in the film were only English, other two indic scripts should not be added. Also if we are keeping indic scripts on geographic articles (as they have little disputes) there will always be discussions & editings on other indian articles for including indic scripts. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously no one is asking you to go and create pages in all the 20 odd Indic wikis existing; the funda is that if interwikis exist, then well and fine; if they don't then any editor can create it. The point is that an interwiki should contain all the other language stuff, not the enwiki article. Lynch7 11:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing many comments above (SpacemanSpiff and Ekabhishek), it is possible that we could discount Geographical articles from this equation. Lynch7 11:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay! got the point of Interwiki links. :) Also for geographic articles keeping indic scripts is right. Only problem will be to convince editors hence forth that its applicable for only geo articles. And what abt the implementation? Who would wanna bell FAs & GAs? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering that most of our FAs are Geographical articles, they probably should remain status quo, as many editors above suggest that its OK for geo articles to have these names. For the other articles, someone will just have to do it.

Also, it might take some time for editors to get used to adding IPA (many of us will not be familiar with them), so we shall expect hiccups at that. Lynch7 12:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I have a concern that we could end up with multiple IPAs being shown, to represent various languages/scripts. Is this proposal that we use just one? If so, which one? Also, for geographic articles, could we end up with more than one script? Eg: Hindi + an official state language? - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Copy-pasting my comment from my talk page

It makes much much more sense to have just one IPA; Branding IPAs as "Tamil Pronunciation", and "Hindi Pronunciation" is meaningless for two reasons: 1) It creates that "stamp" of the language again, something which we sought to eliminate. 2) Languages like Hindi are so widely spoken that pronunciation differs from place to place. For instance, there are lots of pronunciation differences between Mumbai Hindi and Delhi Hindi. This pronunciation can in turn be based on the subject's mother tongue/location. Lynch7 12:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. But using the mother-tongue etc puts us back with the problem of verification and self-identification etc - a lot of actor bios, for example, are incredibly poorly sourced for these things, and in the case of communities such as the Yadavs, well, how do we define their region? It also creates issues for people such as the Welsh-Indian lady mentioned somewhere above. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we go for the next best option; if there is no clear verifiable source for mother tongue, then we go for the language he is identified with. Remember, we are not mentioning it as "X language pronunciation". If we don't know the mother tongue of a person like, say, Amartya Sen, who is not associated with any language, then we give just a pronunciation as any normal English speaker would pronounce it. Lynch7 13:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The mother tongue thing I spoke about was just a vague idea, I am completely open to improvements. Lynch7 13:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to clarify things here. The situation is messy and I am trying to cover all the bases, which is made even more awkward by my imperfect knowledge. If we're going to come up with a solution then let's at least try to make it a comprehensive one, otherwise the entire issue will just resurface again in a few weeks' time. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This would be a problem for sure. Calling it Ganga or Gonga (in Bengali or Bengoli i should say) will always be a problem. But as we have only 3 IPAs established in Wiki we can use those language pronunciations & then use the same IPA. Eg. as Bengali IPA is not present, Hindi-Urdu should be used & it should be called as Ganga even if it flows through WB & Bangladesh who speak Bengali. Dont know if Tamil IPA can be used feasibly for all South-indian languages. & yeah! IPA is gonna be tough too. Tried one on Vidya Balan. No one removed it since almost an hour. probably ppl didnt understand it -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely useless for most US users. (That we in the US ought to know it may be true, but in point of fact very few US people do, and we much serve the readers. We're not the only constituency, but we're one of them.) But since it's an international standard, we can justify adding it, but not relying on it alone. DGG ( talk ) 13:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that the scripts are "completely useless" for most US users also. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Being an English Wiki and seeing the wide number of multiple language cases, it is impossible to develop reasonable guidelines for other options. We could all spend this time doing better things. AshLin (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support: As per my comments in the discussion section above. BollyJeff || talk 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I have spent some time pondering this and have decided that, with the exception of geographic articles, this is clearly the most workable, neutral solution to what is a rather unusual situation. For geographics, I would prefer to see just the state's official language used as the variant term (&, yes, in the event that the state has several such official languages - determined by their official websites - then we would show all of those variants). - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Use mother-tongue of subject / geographic location to decide language

• Strong Support Adding the native language of an individual or location is helpful to readers and is the standard convention used throughout Wikipedia - in articles on Japan, Syria, India, etc. WP:India should follow the same conventions rather than create its own. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 10:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support at least for geographical features. I would have thought having those in the local scripts was standard. For biographical subjects, it should be in their mother tongue, but I feel less strongly about it, unless they have an iconic status for their ethnicity. --JN466 13:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The general mood seems to be support for adding native language for Geographical articles (as commented by users above). Lynch7 13:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment only (Sorry!) My knowledge of languages, scripts and associated considerations is too slight for me to advise in detail. I think that in general we should encourage cultural and ethnic groups with a pride in their language, names, scripts, pronunciations etc, to exhibit and explain items that they think some readers might care about or be interested in. The fact that some readers might not care, or even might get huffy about resource consumption or the aggrandisement of a group that they disapprove of, matters far less than inclusion of material that someone, somewhere, sometime, might be interested in. That is how reference material works; not everyone cares about every aspect of every entry, but everyone should care about the comprehensiveness and quality of the work, as long as the material is relevant and in context — in a word, encyclopedic. If someone thinks that Chakradakramakra needn't have his name in his local medium, he needn't add it, but if a successor editing the article disagrees, thinking that he deserves that recognition in that medium, sure, let him add it, always observing WP principles of course. In general, there is no need to justify inclusion of material; it is removal that needs justification. JonRichfield (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm ok with adding the local script for geographical entities (see caveat below though) but oppose a general rule for people. It is impossible to always determine the 'mother tongue' of a person, or even to say with some degree of confidence that a person self-identifies with a particular group. If reliable sources support such an identification, then it's probably ok. However, it is not the job of wikipedia editors to associate people with language groups. (Caveat for geographical names: Often, the same region has multiple identities across time as well as across cultural groups. For example, I notice that the Delhi article has its name rendered in Hindi. However, I could easily construct a case for including Urdu (it was for many hundreds of years a center of Urdu learning and literature). I could just as easily include gurmukhi since it has a large punjabi speaking population. For Haryana, which has been a part of the Punjab for most of the existence of gurmukhi, we should perhaps include that script as well. In an English language encyclopedia I think it better to stick with just plain old english.) --regentspark (comment) 15:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument for Delhi is valid. But this will happen only with few geographic locations which have conglomeration of various languages & in such cases, having multiple enteries of indic scripts is fair. The article itself says that Hindustani i.e Hindi-Urdu is the principal spoken language. Urdu as well as Hindi enteries here are fair to have. Only other place i am able to guess is Mumbai whose Marathi stand is clear. Also for geo-locations under dispute of border both languages are proposed to be used. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - per RegentsPark. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. X.One ^SOS 10:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support — In the case of geographical articles. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 10:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Use English transliteration

• Support: At the risk of sounding Anglo-centric (which I guess I am), an English transliteration in addition to the IPA phonetics often helps me (and perhaps others) get a better feel for the pronunciation. Miniapolis (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Didnt get your point. Wont IPA be sufficient for pronunciation? Please give some example. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What Miniapolis probably means is writing "Bengaḷūru", instead of just "Bengaluru" (with the diacritics and accents and stuff). Correct me if I'm wrong. Lynch7 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clarify my muddled comment, but actually I meant the opposite. Maybe it's just me, but I have a lot of trouble with IPA :-). Miniapolis (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... i too find IPAs difficult. But thought that maybe whole world understands it & hence i should now learn it somehow. I dont even know how to read this. [bɑːl tʃʌθri]. But do all people find it difficult? If so, IPA wouldnt be a good option either! [ˈbeŋɡəɭuːru] or [Bengaḷūru] or just simple [Bengaluru] -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Maybe we all think everyone else is comfortable with IPA except us :-). For me the simple [Bengaluru] works best as a guide, but that may be just because I'm a native English speaker. Miniapolis (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Partial support: In addition to IPA (which is often confusing, as noted by Miniapolis), I like having an "English transliteration". But the English transliteration is much, much less precise, and open to misreading, so IPA is also essential. I wonder if there's a standardized form of English pronunciation guide used by one of the major dictionaries, that's easy for an English speaker, but still fairly accurate? I expect there'd be some concern about having too many versions of a name (original script, common English version, IPA, English transliteration...) but this transliteration might just be the one that the reader actually understands, so I'll support it. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support: There is no harm in having English translation for an Indian word, as long as we stop edit-warring over language scripts. But of course, it is difficult to find RS's for each and every word for a translation, so different people perceive the words in a different manner. A small consensus might be enough for that. X.One ^SOS 07:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Use Indic (state specific) for geographic locations

• Support: This seems obvious, logical, and hopefully won't complicate the job of the page-patrollers. Miniapolis (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Opinion also stated elsewhere for this option. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Cautious support As someone who has had to look at the boards of buses to see if the destination matches where I need to go, there is a value to it. Fairness would mean having it in all the official language scripts (22?) of India - if that be the case it should probably be an infobox rather than the lead. (For this particular example, Mysore would needs to to include the Malayalam script, if not all) Shyamal (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support official language(s) of the state/city. e.g. in Delhi this would include Hindi (Devanagari), Urdu (Nastaliq) and Punjabi (Gurmukhi), in Bangalore it would include Kannada, in the case of Yanam it would include Telugu, French and Tamil. —SpacemanSpiff 05:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  What about the Munnar example below? According to one of the linked sites, the language spoken there is largely Tamil but, since the town is in Kerala, I assume that the official language is Malayalam? --regentspark (comment) 13:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that unless we have a very good source (like official Census data) that clearly states that some language other than the official language (Tamil in this case) is very widely spoken (this is open to interpretation), we should not include any other language other than the official one. Lynch7 13:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Miniapolis's comment. In the lede or in an infobox - both are good options from the reader's perspective. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Use every relevant language and transcription

I fail to see the harm of providing information that may of of use to the widest range of individual needs as possible. This can include ipa transcriptions of every relevant form, the original script, and a Roman transliteration, The main title should always be in Roman, because the only thing that is certain of everyone coming here, is that they can read the English languages in Roman characters. Beyond that, we're not paper. It always amazes me that when there are multiple choices people argue which of them to use even when it's not a matter of selected an article heading--use anything verifiable that any editor desires in good faith. DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind including anything that an editor wants in good faith; but why in the lead? Lynch7 14:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And what about the vandalism/abuse that goes on, especially when it is a BLP? Patrolling this sort of thing is a nightmare, although probably it is the case that those not regularly involved in India-related articles do not realise this. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As I say above, I don't like the idea of casually associating a person with a group, unless that association is relevant. For example, transcribing Premchand in Hindi and Urdu is relevant because he wrote in those languages. Transcribing Rajiv Gandhi in hindi is probably not because it is not relevant in describing his persona or work or life. And, of course, opening the lede to all languages will be problematic because we will be starting the article with a lengthy digression that is not germane to whatever the user is looking for - never a good idea in a lede. --regentspark (comment) 15:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, but it is not always easy to make a distinction as to whether it is relevant or not, and this will open up more grey areas on what is relevant, and what is not. For Geographical articles, it is easy to distinguish (official language, language most spoken, etc) but for other articles, its not always so easy. Lynch7 15:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

MikeLynch, than bringing in Tamil or Hindi or other indic scripts, how about adding .ogg where ever it is significant? Let transliteration be only in English. KevinBraun 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

Audio always helps clear things up better, but again we must be wary of it for the simple reason that WP:LIBEL is extremely easy to add using audio, and we don't have people who check each audio file whether it is good or not. Lynch7 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think deciding relevance is really the problem here. (eg. Bal-chatri, hardly of use to the average Indian, but geographic name renderings do have a practical value for travellers) Also can we have example renditions of all the options at the top of each option block. Shyamal (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG on this point (and they've worded it better than I could have). If we have a reliable source for the name of a subject in some relevant (ie. local) language, why on earth would we omit it? We don't have to stick to a single name. To pick an example from a more familiar alphabet, I think Munich is fine; it tells you what the place is called (and how it's pronounced) in relevant languages but that doesn't harm the article in any way - it just provides additional information to the reader. Isn't this meant to be an encyclopædia? At worst, if multiple transcriptions of a long name get a bit unwieldy, we could move it out of the lede into a separate section. bobrayner (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments

Can anyone (uninvolved) close this discussion and make out a consensus (unless there is a sense that this discussion is not yet over)? (Please note that even though all these "options" may be named so, it doesn't mean that they are necessarily incompatible with each other). Thank you. Lynch7 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is currently no consensus on the issue. There are several editors who have supported the addition of scripts and several who have opposed scripts. Right now, in order to address this issue, only scripts which are officially recognized by a state/province should be added. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, Hindi and Urdu are appropriate. In Haryana, Hindi and Punjabi are appropriate. In Madras, Tamil is appropriate. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you closing or commenting, Anupam? If the latter then how are you addressing the non-geographic content, and why say it here rather than above? Comments here - other than ones contesting the request to close - seem to me to be out of place. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Anupam cannot close this because he has taken part in the discussion if I am not wrong. Lynch7 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also request the editor who closes it to make a table or so for all states, just like Anupam did for 2-3 states. (Thats coz i guess there will be disputes there too.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually see that most people support the removal of all scripts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of them do agree to retain in Geographical articles though. Lynch7 12:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like removal from biographical, but keep on geographical and films. BollyJeff || talk 00:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people are quite getting the hang of how an RfC is closed. Commenting here with your opinion of consensus is pointless: comment in the above sections with your rationale and let an uninvolved person determine what, if any, consensus is clear. This section should not give people a second bite at that cherry, and it is already clear that various people are trying to take that second bite. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. So call this a summary section, and when someone does close it they can do so in whatever way is proper. BollyJeff || talk 01:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My remark was not aimed specifically at you, BollyJeff - no worries. There is in fact no need for any involved contributor to comment here or in a "summary section". RfCs can run for up to 30 days, although they can also be closed earlier if a non-involved person sees fit. I really doubt that such a person would be willing to close this one yet if only because of the time of year at which it is occurring, which coincides with various holidays/religious/pagan celebrations of significance etc and therefore might impact on the ability of interested parties to comment. In any event, it might have been better to request closure at WP:AN or somewhere similar. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Taking a neutral judgement the second option i.e. "Use mother-tongue of subject / geographic location to decide language" would be more stable as a policy. It addresses both personal and impersonal articles. As a policy it can be more objectively administererd in the Indian articles.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As Sitush rightfully pointed out, I was wrong in naming the section header; I have changed it to "Additional comments" since that's what is happening here anyway. If you want to state your point of view, then please do so in the relevant section! (Until this RFC is closed by someone uninvolved who knows how to gauge consensus). Lynch7 19:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Bumping. This issue needs to be resolved & so I do not think it wise to let it archive. - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bounce. Still not resolved. Lynch7 07:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since comments have dried up, I have requested closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia_talk:INB.23Options. I hope that no-one minds. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

7 days up. Are there any limitations to the number of times we can bump? Try replying after 7 days, unless this is closed. X.One ^SOS 13:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Timestamping and heading over to WP:AN to get a closer for this discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mentioning caste of Individuals

After settling "transliteration of names in Indic languages" issue, how about removing Caste related mentions from Individuals' bio? Mentioning caste makes no sense in the age we're living, also religion for that matter. KevinBraun 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

May be there was already a discussion about this issue in the past. However a fresh discussion would be useful. thanks KevinBraun 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

If they have self-identified then it is not a problem; otherwise, it is and I tend to remove the stuff. This is just basic application of WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But most of the times it is not the case. As is, many have not self-identified or make a mention of their caste in the public domain, yet caste finds mention in their cases as well. KevinBraun 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

I would argue that caste falls under the restrictions of WP:BLPCAT--ethnicity and religion can only be included if they are verified by a reliable source, and generally need to be self-identified. I'd say caste has a lot of parallels (in terms of its real-world implications, as well as its lack of objective verifiability) to ethnicity and religion, so we should follow the same restrictions. Kbr, if you find any, just remove them with an edit summary indicating that a source is needed. However, if the information is verified by a reliable source, it seems like including it is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So WP:BLP applies. No big deal. Look, the standard of India-related bio articles is generally pretty poor. Often, even if a citation exists at the end of a paragraph, it will be found upon examination that the source does not even closely support all of the statements preceding it. So you either {{cn}} or you delete on sight. I admit to being inconsistent in that respect, but on the issue of caste I do delete on sight - it is a highly personal, highly contentious and potentially defining point, whereas which school they attended is usually just a damn nuisance. I do not care what the Govt of India etc may say: like it or not, caste is a major issue in that country and even the existence of the various official classifications, the politically-driven AnSI surveys and the mere fact that so many people clearly of Indian origin choose to war over it here confirms that point. The debate regarding whether caste should be significant or not is one that needs to take place outside the Wikipedia project. We are not censored provided that we have reliable sources, but the BLP policy takes a more strict line than in most instances. I spend a vast amount of my time ripping apart articles such as these. I would rather not do it but, hey, someone has to plough that furrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sitush's point that adding info about cast/race/creed/religion/sexual-orientation/etc. type of personal things without proper references could be disputable. But as long as it is not disputable and over a period of time if editors dont object on it even with the lack of reference, the info need not be removed. If X is of a certain ABC cast and no one objects it, why should the info be deleted just because a source is not present. You have to accept the fact that India related articles cant be fully sourced. Never!
I also disagree with Kevin's point of caste and religion not making sense, in any age we live. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds as if you are proposing an exception to WP:RS/WP:V for India-related content. Much as I accept that there is systemic bias here, I really do not see how we can just throw out basic policies in this manner. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Just keep it there until someone raises a flag" is not a good way to do things on Wikipedia. Suppose someone puts something libellous to some article which is not very well known; take for instance: Borapa. How do we filter this? We don't have some board of editors to review content. Lynch7 14:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You can add anything to an article as long as the language is neutral and is supported by reliable, neutral sources. If a person is identified as belonging to a particular caste by a published book or a reputed newspaper or journal, then there is no problem.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not necessarily sufficient in a BLP. It should also be relevant to the person concerned, hence the self-identification point. The same applies to BLPs of Jewish people etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats the fact with India-related articles. We arent fan of documenting all stuffs. Even if documented, we dont keep them in order to make it available. You have to compromise. Either believe on what all people say and add it so or just not add anything at all. Which means you either build an encyclopedia or not. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Believe in what people say". WP:OR couldn't be violated better. This is an extremely irresponsible statement you are making. Lynch7 17:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If A thinks a certain thing is right, A says it so. If B says it is wrong, B will say it so. One of them has to prove themselves. Option would be to prove by providing what you call as reliable source. If no one has that, go for consensus. 1000 people say A is right & B is wrong then A IS right. Even if some newsreporter or some author hasnt cared to write it down in past. Knowledge in India used to spread orally. You will probably find a "reliable source" for that. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not merely contrary to our policies but also contrary to all the known methodologies of "proof" of which I am aware. Frankly, it is ludicrous and is a far wider definition of consensus than our own policies and guidelines permit. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sitush - such an approach would be akin to polling all the people of the world as to their religion, and then declaring the one that comes out tops as true -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine! But what we can really do is stop discussing hypothetical problems to find hypothetical answers. This is not some school assignment where we will get marks which we dont need. & i dont understand, why do you keep citing so-called-policies as if they are not ammendable? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a hypothetical problem: it is verifiably the case that hundreds, if not thousands, of India-related BLPs are in breach of policy. And then there are the "List of caste X" articles etc, which also fail to comply. If you want to try achieving an amendment of the BLP policy then you are welcome to try but you would have to take your proposal to a wider audience than is present at this forum. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'd like to contest Kevin Braun's opening thesis that caste does not matter as being a world view of a person living in a Western Society where the issue is not important. Caste matters in India. it is an official policy subject of the government of India which positively discriminates as per it. You are asked this information for many types of government records. Chances of employment in government including recruitment of soldiers into the armed forces involves caste issues. It matters not just "de jure" but "de facto" in Indian society and Indian politics. So using a secular argument or a Western ethos to do away with mention of caste altogether is not the approach I suggest. We need to have a different solution. AshLin (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See my message above of 00:28 22 December. I do not think that you'll see many here who disagree with you regarding the reality in present day India, although some may wish it was not so. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless a person self-identifies with a caste, or the caste is relevant, I don't see why we should automatically include the caste of an individual in an article. I'd go so far as to say that self-identification without relevance is not sufficient for inclusion but .... --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my preferred approach. So, for example, an article about a leader of a caste association or a philanthropist who assists just one community would naturally note that they are of that community, whereas an article about a film actor or sports person almost always should not. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You would not want this to happen but it happens for sure. A group of a certain people belonging to a particular caste get together maybe for a function or so. They have an inauguration of something or prize distribution or whatever. Who is their first choice as chief guest? A celebrity who belong to their caste, religion, region. These groups publish periodicals. Who will they cover through it? Someone who has some commonality with them. A certain boy from a small town makes it to the national hockey team. He will be congratulated by this group. This news will then make to paper. We editors will then use this as a source to record that he made it to the team. He didnt do anything for the caste in particular. But it was his caste itself that made him visible to you. In such cases, why do you dont wanna include caste of actors, businessmen, journalists, sportsmen, professionals & such types? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For the simple reason that we don't know for sure. We can't simply be toying around like this with WP:BLPs. You should know very well that caste is an extremely sensitive thing in India, and just throwing them around mercilessly will trigger the big red WP:LIBEL alarm. What is natural in a normal case, would not be natural for a BLP. In short, if it is not explicitly mentioned, then we make absolutely no inferences; I cannot state loud enough that BLP policy is more more stricter than normal WP:V or WP:N or whatever. Lynch7 18:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why am I getting the feeling that we're going round in circles. Lynch7 18:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

With the story i told i wanted to point out how apparantly irrelevant caste of people can really be relevant. Ofcourse the caste should be included only if it is referenced. But i dont agree with "self-identified caste" clause. What does that exactly mean? Should that person explicitly come forward & tell his caste? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The rationale for 'self-identification' is straightforward. Let's say X, a famous cricketer, is born into a certain caste, let's say Badaganadu Brahmin - I picked it at random from the list on wikipedia, but does not believe in the caste system. Now, a reliable source, say the Times of India (though its reliability is suspect imo!) says that X is a Badaganadu Brahmin and we predominantly feature this in our article on X. This is a violation of the basic principle of liberty, the right to choose your own identity. We can't go around assigning an identity to a person without their consent or without that facet of their identity being relevant to the notable aspects of their life. That is why, unless a person specifically identifies with a social group, it is best to leave it out of the article. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

With the story you've told, the most we can possibly do is tell that that person got such-and-such award from this community people, but there is nothing to definitively suggest that the person actually belongs to that caste. In short, yes, that kind of statement (or a mention in a reliable biography) would be something that I would be looking at. Of course Sitush and rgpk may opine differently though. Lynch7 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we are in involved in Verifiability not Truth and it is so rare that someone opines about his belief online, I am of the opinion, that if there is a reference that says he is A Caste, that should be added with citation. If he says he doe not believe in religion or caste that gets added too with cite. If the caste information is uncited, place a tag and delete some time later. People notable enough to be in Wikipedia do lose a certain amount of privacy which a normal person enjoys due to his anonymity. Imho personal liberties cannot be the excuse for keeping the information away from Wikipedia if a RS exists for it. I am speaking of course wrt Biographies concerned with this WikiProject only. AshLin (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree in general with what Animesh is saying. In UK and USA, on many forms one is asked to identify ones ethnic or racial origin. Also, biographies of a number of British politicians, i.e. Ian Duncan Smith, Sebastian Coe, Boris Johnson, David Cameron etc. give details of the mixed heritage of their subjects. For example Coe is quarter Punjabi, Smith is one eighth Japanese, Johnson has Muslim heritage, Cameron is partly of Jewish extraction etc. Are these facts relevant ? I guess they must be because the UK media and the subjects themselves frequently mention them. Similarly caste is central part of the heritage of a Hindu and therefore essential to the biographies of Indian notables. I believe, for a variety of reasons, contemporary Indians take pride in belonging to their caste and would not make an attempt to hide it. Do mistakes happen with a person wrongly being labeled? Yes, all the time. Take the Marathi surname Deshpande. A popular Marathi writer P.L. Deshpande is repeatedly added to the list of Deshastha brahmins, however he happens to belong to the Saraswat brahmin sub-caste. The surname is also found amongst the C.K.P. community. The mistake is however, immediately rectified. In P.L. Deshpande's case because one can find numerous references identifying his caste, however, with others it may take longer but not impossible to find. In my view, the way forward would be to put a citation tag if the reference is not there rather than immediately deleting the unsourced information. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that you may not have spent a lot of time in the UK, Jonathansammy. Your depiction of the situation is a little wide of the mark, although also not particularly relevant. In any event, in the case of BLPs we simply cannot allow an uncited claim of caste to remain. Period. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"I have the feeling that you may not have spent a lot of time in the UK, Jonathansammy."

What is the relevance of this statement to the point being discussed, Sitush? I am a Guardian reader and was surprised to see you in one of your posts equating The Hindu, a respected. secular, and middle of the road Broad sheet being compared to the almost parochial rightwing tabloid like the Daily mail. That aside, the point I am trying to make with this and also my original message is that ethnic origin is mentioned in biographies of not only Western politicians but also scientists. Check the the List of Jewish Nobel laureates and see for yourself. If you accept what I am saying above, then I don't see why caste of an individual can not be treated in a similar way to the ethnic origin. I do, however, agree with you that caste claims should be backed with reliable sources.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that this discussion has also been taken up by Animesh on my own talk page in the last few hours, I am beginning to think that those who continue to insist that statements regarding caste are valid in situations where the relevance is moot and/or a person has not self-identified should perhaps read WP:JDLI. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

its quite clearlty and blatantly pov (how can a comment as suhc even be made?) that "makes no sense in the age we're living, also religion for that matter" WP doesnt push anything as the editors seem to uggest. if its sourced (and per BLP not a threatening mention in a vindicative way) then of course its notably enough tfor a notable person to have it mentioned.Lihaas (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

WP is also not a collection of trivia. Unless the point is relevant to the subject then there is no particularly pressing reason to include it, even if it is impeccably sourced. We do not, for example, usually mention the Christian beliefs of thousands of article subjects but we do appear more often than not to mention alleged Hindu beliefs (even when there is nothing to support the statement). It is wrong and people need to stop pushing these trivial and more often than not unsourced agendas. That a Bollywood actor is a Hindu, for example, is not usually a notable point for the wider world, although it may have some personal significance to the actor. This overuse of Hindu/Muslim and caste/community membership smacks of petty point scoring and an intrusive gossip style of writing. It is not encyclopedic unless there is some context to provide relevance. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

By removing the caste of a person from his article i assume you will also want to remove his name from that caste's article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if it is a BLP violation. I've been doing this for months now. I have tended to approach this issue from that end, ie: in the process of cleaning up the "List of notable members of caste X" articles. In fact, it is through that process, and by talking with various experienced users, that I developed a fairly decent understanding of just how this sort of thing should work and also the scale of the problem that exists - it is a pretty big one. However, I have only concentrated on caste so far, which means that the even bigger problem of the alleged religious beliefs of individuals is probably pretty much untouched. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So you will be striping down all such list and examples of all such people from caste articles and include only names of such people who have contributed something to that caste thus giving impression that all notable people of that particular caste work only for that caste. There are no notable sportsmen, actors, businessmen, singers, painters, doctors, mathematicians, etc. belong to this caste. Let me go and check some other caste which will probably have some notable actors. Oh no! Not here. Maybe some other caste. OH NO! They are nowhere to be to found. That means all notable people like these do not belong to any caste. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would like to point out that caste matters. If Wikipedia articles under WikiProject India is to be relevant to Indians, this is useful and meaningful information to some Indians. If we have a policy where citations of reliable sources exists, I dont see the information violating the 5 Pillars. Quoting 5 PILLARS - "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person."

Any consensus in WP:BLP arising out of purely Western notions of what is invasion of privacy should not be applied uniformly to all cultures across the world, especially where core tenets of belief are different. In India this is not trivial information, it is sought out and found useful by some people, it is information legally sought by the government. In this case, we should accomodate the key Wikipedia requirement of having cited references. But to exclude information because of a different value system elsewhere in the world, seems more like a WP:JDLI situation to me here. If the information were completely trivial such as the person wears white shirts in preference to others would be unencyclopediac. But here, the caste for example explains a politician's background, his policies, his approach to emerging issues. If the relevance of the information is disputed, as it is in this case here, I'm of the opinion we need to err in the favour of the reader. In the case of caste, this is of interest to many people in India, so we should retain the mention but we should also have a policy which can be enunciated clearly, decide the contexts, the referencing and other aspects and enforce that. AshLin (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually think that it is relevant for politicians, especially because of the number of caste-based parties and pressure groups etc. I remain to be persuaded that the same applies to authors, film stars and the like. There may be some notable exceptions but as a whole it seems to me that direct family connections (fathers, uncles etc - akin to, say, the Dimblebys, Redgraves etc) matter more in India than caste for those spheres. I can see the systemic bias point to some extent but by the same token WP:BLP does exist and we are not a gossip rag. I stress again, that in the vast majority of cases that I have seen the caste has not even been sourced and it is in those cases that I have been deleting. Although the Indian population huge, and Wikipedia might actually be a useful tool for improving knowledge and maybe even literacy in that country, it remains the case that the vast majority of the English Wikipedia readership is not likely to have connections to India and, I would suggest, this will remain the case until/unless English becomes the dominant language in the subcontinent.

However, if this is the route that people want to take then be on advance notice: I shall most likely start taking sources such as the Times of India and also many of the websites used for movie articles etc to WP:RSN if they are used to support caste-based statements. I have long believed that these are often dubious & have frequently found them to be mirroring each other, plagiarising and simply getting it wrong on even the most simple stuff. In fact, of the major English language newspapers of India only The Hindu appears to me to be any more authoritative than, say, the UK's Daily Mail. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Though properly sourced, even by The Hindu, why do we include spouse's name in political leader's, businessmen's, author's articles? That info is irrelevant most of the time. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that yours is a rebuttal phrased as a question, rather as you tried on my talk page recently. Well, naming spouses and children when they are not themselves notable often does irk me but, again, in my experience in the India sphere they are often not sourced at all. But none of this relates to the current discussion: let's just stick to the India stuff here, since anything else would have to be raised in a much broader context. The subject here is caste, not close family. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! The point now is neither caste nor family. It is relevance. You dont mind including a properly notably sourced caste of a politician as it is relevant with his work. But you mind including it on doctor's bio as its irrelevant according to you. So with the reason of irrelevance if you are removing caste, you should also propose to remove spouses, children, birth-place, etc. info from biographies. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Caste can probably dealt with here, although perhaps with a request for input at RfC. Spouses etc would affect a far wider range of articles and therefore would need to be dealt with at a forum with a wider initial base. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have forgotten that WP:NEWSORG already exists. So the approach to be taken for any newspaper and its use already exists. Placing TOI on a non-Reliable Sources list will do more harm than good, it has use and application besides being a source for stray caste facts. I dont recommend that you go the backdoor route. I AGF for your intentions but its obvious that there are or may be nuances out of your knowledge. For example, in the case of authors, I have reliable been told that Dalit poetry from Southern India has been suprressed with an agenda by the establishment over the last two hundred years or so. In business, we have a Dalit Chamber of Commerce. I'm sure there are many more cases. It is obvious that caste has not yet worked its way out of the Indian system. I suggest you go one step further and propose a policy here which is put to consensus. Once approved, this will give you the unassailable right to delete caste in WikiProject India where it does not apply within the policy and equal opportunity for those who find caste relevant within agreed parameters of policy to add it. Just a discussion on this noticeboard is not enough. AshLin (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should assist in determining the nuances, and let's not forget that I completely opposed the person who originated it. I've been accused on this noticeboard of wanting to perpetuate caste, and I'd hate to leave this discussion with people now thinking the opposite: my line is somewhere in between and always has been. Sure, an RfC may be needed at some point but I would also remind you that we have managed without in the past - eg: removal of varna from lead sections. My comment about ToI was intended generally, not merely in relation to mentions of caste. I think that someone else has recently queried its reliability & I know that it was denigrated in the recent India maps protest. Nonetheless, that is for another day and I'll stick to the caste issue here.

Having a Dalit chamber of commerce is no different from having the SDNP - it is a pressure group and if someone has involvement in it as a Dalit then there is no problem. I cannot understand your point regarding suppression of poetry: how does that relate to biographical articles, except in so far as if someone's poetry is suppressed then that may be notable in itself? It seems to me to be no different from, for example, noting that someone was a Russian dissident author during the Cold War period. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that those who argue that 'if it is sourced' it should be included are not correct. Content is guided by WP:V, which is a threshold for inclusion. Reliable sourcing is a necessary condition for inclusion but it is not a sufficient condition. Content on living people must also satisfy WP:BLP (as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR) where there is an explicit presumption in favor of privacy. In particular, it should be possible to reasonably infer that the person does not object to the information being included and the information should be notable, relevant, and well-documented (not just well-documented). In other words, if person X has never talked about his or her caste, nor is it relevant to that person's life, it is against our policy to include caste in the article. For example, it is relatively easy to infer the caste of Ramachandra Guha from the material in the article. But, we have no reasonable basis for concluding that he would not object to its inclusion. Neither is that information relevant to his work. Therefore, his caste should not be included in the article (and, fortunately, it isn't.) --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Again! How is caste irrelevant to any person's life? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The WP:BLP correct answer is that it is up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not it is relevant to their life. Failing relevance with the reasons for their inclusion in wikipedia, we don't make that decision on their behalf. --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you not understand about the policies, Animeshkulkarni? In particular, WP:BLP? AshLin mentioned a vote but if such a thing happened then please note that it would be adjudged according to WP:CONSENSUS and that would mean that non-policy based comments are pretty much ignored. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Where in whichever policy does it state that caste is irrelevant and hence should not be mentioned? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Geez. Sorry but I am beginning to lose my patience here. WP:BLP refers to it and this has been pointed out to you previously by myself, RegentsPark, Qwryxian and at least one other (MikeLynch and/or Boing! said Zebedee). I think that you will find all of those named are pretty experienced contributors and all but myself are admins also. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, WP:BLP does not say that caste is irrelevant but none of us have been saying that either. It says that info of this nature should be included only if it is relevant etc. Is this what you are misunderstanding? - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I will neglect your patience-loosing line as its irrelevant to this discussion and hence not comment on it.
So you all mean to say that info of this nature (i.e. caste) should not be included if it is not relevant. And you are pointing out at some biographies like that of cricketers, actresses, doctors, artists, etc. as being the examples where caste is irrelevant. Right? Hence i am asking the question "How is caste irrelevant?". Do you want to say that a certain woman born in a backward class where education was not given, they were married of at early age, where they were not allowed to come out in front of stranger males whould have become a notable actress or pilot? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a good example because it helps clarify how and where we can talk about the caste of an individual. If there are reliable sources that directly associate her caste with her becoming an actress or pilot (for example, a source that says "despite being born in the Z caste that disallows women from this or that, X has had a successful career as a leading light of Bollywood"), then I'd say yes, that statement is relevant in the article. However, if there are sources that merely say that "X was born a Z", with no link between her success and the caste, then I'd say no, there is no relevance. Making the relevance explicit, or even assuming that caste is somehow relevant, would then be a violation of WP:OR. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This was an example where the caste of that person could have been a hinderance to his/her success. Hence there are chances you would find a source which would associate it the way its said by RegentsPark. But if the caste had been an advantage for their notability, i doubt any sources would take the risk of associating it directly. They would rely on readers to assume it so if they want to or just leave it. Their not associating it so does not however make it irrelevant. This care can be taken by us also. To not associate the caste with the subject but merely mention it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would be WP:OR (or WP:SYNTHESIS. Material that is not explicitly covered by a source should not be included in an article. In your example, the hinderance or help to a person, if not explicitly stated by a source, is a conclusion that may or may not be warranted and we should not make it or include material solely because we believe that the implication needs to be made. With a BLP, we need to be extra sensitive.--regentspark (comment) 19:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse it will be so. Thats why i said that we have to take care to not associate the caste with subject's notability. And that can be easily done & is done many times. Subject's caste is mentioned in his "early life" section which says about his birth-place, his parents names, schooling, notable relatives, other basic things. We usually dont write "He is a Hindu Brahmin critically acclaimed Hindustani classical singer." If so, am sure its clearly completely neglected article by regular editors or was written just few minutes ago. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If the caste is not associated with the subject's notability, then why mention it? Like I said, in a BLP we only include information that is relevant and that we can reasonably infer that the individual won't object to its inclusion (if it is not relevant). Given that you're saying that the information is not relevant, then how can we 'reasonably infer' that the individual does not object to the inclusion of caste? --regentspark (comment) 21:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear. If a reliable source indicates that the caste of an individual is relevant, it should be added to the article. If no reliable source indicates that it is relevant, then it can be added only if one can reasonably infer that the person won't object to its inclusion per WP:BLP. Even if one can reasonably draw that inference, it must still be WP:DUE for inclusion but you first have to cross the BLP barrier. --regentspark (comment) 21:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But we do include various non-notability related points in biographies. We have religion (which i guess would be on your next to-be-excluded agenda), parents names, what they wanted to be in childhood, non-notability related education, previous professions, etc. We include them as it is a biography. If we have only notability related things, it would become a career portfolio. & you are not sure either if these are objectionable or not. And even if objectionable, we arent writing anything that the sources didnt not already say. The objection should be directed to the sources. We are also taking care that no notability-related inferences can be drawn from caste. We arent giving any undue credit also. Its one line. Thats the least you can write. Okay fine! We will mention the caste in a very long 30-40 words sentence so that it doesnt appeare to be given weightage. We also will not hyperlink that caste. Blue colour stands out. You know what, you can make a "Special checklist for mentioning caste", put it on all talk pages, make editors comply with all things on it such as these. But caste should be included. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Religion should not be mentioned either, unless it is relevant or we can reasonably infer that the person does not object to its mention. I believe, for example, that its exclusion has been discussed on the Arundhati Roy talk page and was explicitly excluded there. But let's not get side tracked by WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not sure why you're so keen to get caste included on BLP articles. I've given you substantial policy based reasons for excluding caste when it is neither relevant nor self-identified. Could you give us a substantial policy based reason for including caste when it is neither relevant nor self-identified? Or, as a weaker criteria, when it is neither relevant nor do we have a basis for believing that the individual will not object to its inclusion? --regentspark (comment) 00:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I fail to understand on which policy of BLP you stand your opposition. Hence i will try to go through those which i feel you are pointing at. (1) Verifiability: Issue cleared. We include caste only if verifiable by all the WP policies of referencing & sourcing. (2) Neutral Point of View: We are taking care that caste is not the determining factor to subject’s notability nor is undue weightage given to it. (3) No Original research: We won’t be including original researches. In fact we would also be taking care that no inferences can be drawn by readers with regards to the subjects’ notability & caste. (4) Privacy of personal information: Caste of a person in India is not personal information. Schools/colleges have it, government has it, census includes it and almost all application forms have it.
Also, as i mentioned above, removing names of notabilities from caste articles gives wrong impression that the only notable people of this caste are the people who work for the caste. Wikipedia is used as source of research (even with all the limitations and don’t-believe-wikipedia-completely clauses.) There have been notable researches done with regards to caste and genetics, caste and social-&-economic-differentiation, etc. I repeat, we are not going to make these researches. But we are only going to provide basic information of who belongs to this caste. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear above. The policy is WP:BLP and the point is "presumption in favor of privacy". The question for you is why, when caste is not relevant to a person's reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia, should we ignore the reasonably infer that the person does not object clause. Hope that helps clarify the policy point in question. You need to provide a reason, with sources that support that reason, if you believe that the policy is not applicable here. --regentspark (comment) 11:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Its stated in the policy itself that as a reliable source has published it, it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Plus, caste is not a private entity like medical records. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are two caveats. First, it must be widely published and second it must be due. Merely published by one odd reliable source is insufficient you will need to demonstrate that it is published in a wide range of reliable sources. Second, since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, you will need to show that inclusion of caste is not indiscriminate. We don't, for example, include the height and weight of an author even if it is available from reliable sources. You're arguing for a blanket rule of inclusion for the caste of an individual. Could you explain why we need such a rule (rather than simply attempting to refute policy points that argue against the inclusion)? --regentspark (comment) 01:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wide, as usual, is not defined. In an article which has references of 4-5 sources of early-life, childhood, etc. where caste can be mentioned, one source mentioning it is wide enough. (Ofcourse for the sake of objection you may object that too. Cant help! That’s how much our subjects are documented.) Caste is not something that you would find in western bios. That for one makes it not indiscriminate. Within Indian bios you will find how our subjects belong to various castes. So that too makes it not indiscriminate. I am not asking for a blanket rule of including castes in all bios. I am saying to put a sentence in every bio that “He/She belongs to (blank) caste” even if the caste is not know. I am objecting on deletion of this info.
Also rewinding on the BLP Privacy issue, i don’t think it covers caste in it. For one, i don’t think caste was even considered while creating that policy. (Was it? Can we have some historic info of how these policies are made?) And another one is that this policy fears identity theft and is hence made so to avoid adding personal info like telephone numbers, addresses, bank account numbers, etc. I don’t see how caste can be the reason for identity theft. That must be some lousy thief. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is time you answered a few questions otherwise this discussion will not go anywhere. Why do you feel caste should be included in Indian BLPs? I think you need to provide some sort of evidence that it is not possible to understand an Indian without knowing what caste he or she belongs to. --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That was a funny question. For understanding anything, not just people, the more info you get, the more you understand it. You can say that frog is an amphibian animal with protruding eyes without a tail. You understood it. Now you add to it that it has webbed digits. Did you understand it more or not? & btw, you havent answered two of my questions. (1)What impression do you give to the readers who will find names of only political leaders and people who have their work field based on the caste and no mathematicians, jurists, military officers, doctors, etc.? (2) Isnt Wikipedia supposed to be a source for research? There have been notable researches related to caste. Shouldnt we atleast provide names of people who belong to these castes? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. The inclusion of caste violates the right of a person to define their own identity. If you're going to include it, you should have a good reason to do so. I don't see how, for example, knowing the caste of Ramachandra Guha adds anything to his article. As to your questions, (1) I don't understand what you're getting at. Why would it matter whether we include the caste of mathematicians in their articles? (2) Is there research that links mathematicians to caste? By explicitly including caste because of some generic "researches related to caste" you are engaging in WP:OR. Should we include height because some research somewhere has shown a relationship between height and income? Now, could you please answer my question: What does caste, when it is not relevant to a person's notability, add to the article (other than your apparent personally held belief that "caste is important")? --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

“The inclusion of caste violates the right of a person to define their own identity.” This statement of yours is what WP calls as Original Research! Whereas information published at Caste_system_in_India#Genetic_analysis is not Original Research. Table published here about Adult literacy of maharashtrian castes in 1911 by Christophe Jaffrelot is not Original research. DNA analysis published here is not Original Research. For genetics-caste relationships read Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia, which is also not an Original Research. These all are examples. I personally don’t know anything about Ramachandra Guha and hence i can’t say anything about him. But i would take some other example now. The article on Deshpande says that majority of the people with this surname are Deshastha Brahmins. But PuLa is Saraswat. Hence not mentioning it specifically misleads readers. Also, as already said few times, the article on a particluar caste, eg Iyengar would only include names of spiritual leaders and politicians. Same will happen with all castes. So it also raises a question as to where do other notabilities belong and also gives impression that all notable people (Iyengars in this example) are only spiritual leaders or politicians, which is also misleading. Now, if you at all don’t know whether Rahul Deshpande is deshastha or saraswat or whatever, you are helpless and can not avoid people from being probably mislead. But if you certainly know what he is, you SHOULD avoid deceptive information. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fletcher is a common surname in the English-speaking world. It is thought to have first been used for people involved in Fletching. There probably are still some people called Fletcher who do indeed fletch today (one of my friends has that name and certainly fixes my arrows on occasion). However, we don't go around every article where someone is called Fletcher and say "by the way, this person is/is not involved in fletching". As for the lists of notable members of caste X, well, practically all of those which I have come across have been cut by something like 95% because the entries within them were unverified: we do not usually have separate lists of "notable people from town x" or of "notable Christians" and so on; perhaps should not have these caste lists. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That could be the case with Fletchers as it might not be a common notion in English-speaking world to assume a Fletcher to be a fletcher. But in India, every Deshpande would be assumed to be a Brahmin, with first priority being a Deshastha Brahmin. Exceptions and inclusions should hence be mentioned. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong reply, on at least two grounds that have already been mentioned to you. Firstly, this is the English language Wikipedia and, like it or not, will have to adapt to how most speakers of English perceive the world. Or provide a really good explanation to counter their bias ... which brings me to my second point. You would need to provide reliable sources to verify this opinion that the general reader of Wikipedia is unable to recognise that there may be exceptions to a "rule", and that is after first providing sources to verify that the "rule" is in fact one that Wikipedia policies would recognise in the first instance. I am fairly sure that you cannot achieve both of these across all of the 4000-odd communities that, for example, the AnSI determined to exist ... and then repeat it on every relevant article and still get round the consensus that is WP:BLP.

Given enough time, almost anyone can find an exception to any rule, if only because rules are merely hypotheses. There are ways to deal with exceptions, whether it is on Wikipedia or in the wider, real life context. A default such as you seem to suggest is definitely not the way because it fails both Wikipedia's communal consensus and the wider test of what is "reasonable". It gives undue weight to matters that are personal and unverified over the basic right to privacy and self-determination. It is, for the sake of example, the rule of the gutter press over the humane. Can you not provide some better substance to your position? - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh! The "english-wikipedia-is-for-english-people" card! If english readers dont care about knowing the caste of people why do they even care to know what caste at all is? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous piece of logic. Caste as a systematic, historic and present day socio-economic-religious reality has a valid place in any broad-based encyclopedia. Libelling someone does not, nor does making unfounded or factually uncertain statements. Further, the system can be a valid subject without it being necessary to brand individuals.

It seems to me that despite numerous requests, including such recent examples as that of Regentspark at 23:04 28 December, you are still failing to provide a rationale. Since it now also seems that you are the only person pursuing that course here, I think that it is incumbent upon you to do just that. Any further response that does not address your rationale is merely prolonging a situation where you keep drumming your personal viewpoint without providing just cause: it is, indeed, pointless. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine! Lets delete it. Lets start with FAs & GAs. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No censorship please, when a reliable source for example says that Ravi Shankar was born into a Brahmin family, then that alone is nothing demeaning towards him, just as it is not demeaning to say B. R. Ambedkar was born into a Dalit family. What would Ambedkar's article look like if you took out every mention of caste? It would be nonsensical. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Hekerui, No! For B R Ambedkar it wont be removed. It will be removed only for those people whose notability has got nothing to do with their caste. eg. businessmen, artists, jurists, other professionals. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and where do you place the cut off date? Ravi Shankar's autobiography mentions caste, how soon after his death until one is allowed to add the info back?And if you to justify the deletion of material with WP:BLP, then all the dead people articles retain the mentions and only those on the still living are cleaned out? Judgements about inclusion of such info should be made for individual articles, not across the board. Hekerui (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point! But i was assuming that caste should be deleted from all people's articles, living or dead. Because all points mentioned above relate to dead people too. Like privacy, branding individuals, no relation of caste with notability, defamation, etc. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this one and am surprised that no-one appears to have raised it earlier. The simple answer is that since caste is inherited and most people have close relations, we have to be careful that we are not committing a BLP violation of the relations even when the subject of the article is dead, whether they are named in the article or otherwise. If caste was not irrelevant to the person's Wikipedia notability then it remains irrelevant after they have died. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The originator seems missing after opening this box. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Poll

The issue is whether caste should be mentioned in articles for persons when the article gives no indication of how caste has impacted that person's life. For example, there could be multiple reliable sources which state a person's caste but none of them give context about how that person's caste has ever influenced any aspect of that person's life or actions.

When reliable sources say something like "This person has caste X and therefore..." then caste is almost certainly notable and should be included. When sources mention caste but there is no source which gives context or confirms that the person's caste has ever had an effect on their life, should editors include caste identity in the article?

Support inclusion

• Support inclusion of caste for various reasons stated in the discussion (though they seem irrational, ridiculous logics & what not to few editors). Will Support exclusion of caste if other non-notability related info like religion, DOB, place of birth, spouses, childhood fantasies, affairs, etc. are also excluded. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AK, have you ever read WP:OSE ? If not then I think that perhaps you should. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Thank you! ....though they seem irrational, ridiculous logics & what not to few editors... -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Ok, you are entitled to think what you want about a widely quoted statement. Now, have you read WP:CANVAS ? I see that you have been drawing attention to this discussion on the talk pages of selected articles, and doing so in a long-winded way. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You yourself said somewhere that most of the regular editors in this portal havent yet commented on this issue. Plus deletion of caste from bios is gonna attract many Indian editors and instead of handling all editors on individual bios its better to have them all here. I cant see why you would have problem with more opinions. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The way you ask for opinions is to say "There is currently a discussion taking place at the Wikipedia India Project noticeboard regarding the circumstances in which mentioning caste in an article might be valid. Feel free to comment there." It is not for you to "summarise" as you have done. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

& it is not for you also to remain silent. Feel free to comment there. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - No, I will not comment there. That spreads the discussion around and is therefore A Bad Thing. My suggestion to you would be that you revert all those postings. If you wish to announce it then do so in a concise, neutral manner and ensure that you "spread the word" across a wide range of articles, not a select few. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, I see that you are still doing it, despite my concerns raised here. I am going to issue a formal warning, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Spreading discussion around is a bad thing! Good to know that. & thanks for your suggestion. But you too are free to revert it and post a more-suitable-neutral-msg-as-per-me if you want to. & dont be sorry for issuing warning. It didnt kill me. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've just posted a note on the 100 or so pages where I have found your somewhat distorted summary. The reason for this was because in the last sentence of your message you tell people that they can comment "here" (ie: the article talk page) or at WT:INB. How on earth do you think people can keep track of a discussion that could potentially be running over 100 or so articles? It is ludicrous, sorry. My message tells them to come here if they wish to comment, and not bother doing so at the article talk page. That has been some pretty intense forum shopping that you were doing, AK. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am still not sure of what your problem is with my actions that you call as Canvassing or Forum Shopping. I am just inviting more editors to have more opinions. I dont like to draw conclusions from 10 editors for a topic that would affect all biographies and caste articles. But thank you for directing them here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - To say that one's caste, ethnicity, or religion is important or not important to him is purely subjective. It depends! My caste, ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, might not play an important role in my own life, but i will not generalize and say that it's the same for most people. On the contrary, this appears to be far from the case. In spite of widespread globalization and modernization, most people (particularly in the East) still prefer to marry into their own castes, religions, or ethnic groups. When this is the case, who are we kidding when we say that these factors do not play an important part in most people's lives? If there is a citation about one's religion, ethnicity, or caste to a reliable source, then i see no harm in mentioning either of them in a biography. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 18:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional Support If reliable sources refer to that person's caste/religion/ethnicity, then deliberately excluding this information is nothing but WP:CENSORSHIP. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If it is censorship (which is a highly dubious assertion), then it is censorship as a result of policy - see WP:BLPCAT etc. On that basis, any !votes here are meaningless, and instead should be taking place where changes to policy can be resolved. Even if a decision was reached here to allow the inclusion of caste without valid justification, any Wikipedia editor would be entitled to revert such material, as policy (decided by Wikipedia contributors as a whole) permits (or arguably, requires). No project, notice-board vote or similar can override such basic tenets of policy. This discussion is a waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion

• Oppose - Principally, on the basis of WP not being a collection of indiscriminate information, our policy regarding living people (where applicable, and this includes non-notable relatives etc). There are also major issues regarding the clarification of what constitutes a reliable source in this context and, of course, weight and the problem of how to deal with passing mentions. I could go on, but I would be repeating all of the arguments set out in the discussion above. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose - in general biography articles vide Sitush's arguments. However, listing of names of prominent personalities from a community may be permitted in articles on specific caste/community. AshLin (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - unless the caste meets the requirements of WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS; specifically the information is supported by a source clearly meeting Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria and there is self-identification. I would like to note as well that regardless of the outcome of this discussion, no consensus of any sort here can override fundamental BLP policy. If the caste material in any article is challenged it needs to be removed until it can be verified by reliable sources. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with exceptions. Caste ought not to be included except when there is self-identification and recorded by a reliable source, when caste is relevant the person's area of notability (there may be a grey area where the caste is indirectly or distantly relevant, these will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis) and lastly when the caste has mentioned by a wide range of reliable sources even though there hasn't been self-identification nor is there a clear link between why the person is notable and their caste. I admit I am a little hesitant about this last point but I think in extreme cases, it is a matter of common sense to include caste when reliable sources frequently mention it and there is no dispute. This way should be used sparingly though and I can't think of any example off the top of my head! My views on religion and ethnic groups are similar. Gizza^{Talk ©} 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Ponyo above: this poll is invalid in any case, as it proposes a violation of policy, which cannot be decided here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, it is meaningless and the policy-based reasons for why this is so have been explained time and again in the discussion above. But some people are reluctant to accept this. If sufficient "oppose" statements are made here, citing policy, then hopefully that will draw a line under this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Suppose someone identifies his/her family as belonging to a certain caste but says nothing more, would we then delete this information in accordance with the proposition? The existing BLP sourcing and category policies are sufficient, as they allow any user to fix problems with individual articles - no extra proposition is necessary. Hekerui (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the reasons discussed above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel, unless the caste has something to do with important events in the life of the person, it has to be excluded. But I wonder how are we going to handle the caste pages which lists famous people belonging to that caste and some pages also have description of the achievements of the people belonging to the caste. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

AfDs

Strolling through AfD page found few India related articles. Your votes can help here.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puliangudi Palanisamy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Raj
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bollywood songs
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Citation Index (ICI)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dhangar

Isnt there any automated system which will do this job of keeping updates? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DSI - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You can also watch Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, though it has more things than just deletes under it. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Have taken up the cleanup of Bollywood songs with a request that the article be spared from deletion and other editors kindly join me in adding referenced context to build it up. AshLin (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks, didn't quite realise it applied to situations where the interest was more altruistic and not involving editwars, POVs etc. Thanks once again. The editors may kindly disregard my above message while deciding. AshLin (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Salem district" or "Salem District"

Now, the "district" all Indian district names are given in smaller letters. This shouldnt be the case, individual districts are proper nouns and as in the case of Fucheng District and New York State should be capitals.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 06:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav

This is a recently created article by a new editor. Unfortunately, there is already a lengthy article on the subject at Ganesh Chaturthi. I've left some suggestions re a merge at Talk:Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav. This is not my area at all, so I'll leave it to project members to sort out. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems that led to this is that the title "Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav" had been red-linked at both Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences and Bal Gangadhar Tilak which led the new editor to assume, not unreasonably, that no article on the subject existed. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is difference between Ganesh Chaturthi and Sarvjanik Ganoshotsav.Sarvjanik Ganoshotsav "was started" by Tilak, whereas Ganesh Chaturthi is something which was/is already there from centuries. "Sarvjanik" Ganoshotsav was started in last century. Thanks for attention. AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there exists a good section in Ganesh Chaturthi on Tilak's contribution to the way the festival is celebrated. The Ganesh Chaturthi article is quite small (for a festival of such importance and magnitude, and considering that there is likely to be no dearth of sources), and splitting the article further will not really be of much use, when the same content can be included coherently in the main article itself. Lynch7 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav. Lynch7 17:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Cricket League

People here may have a view on the Celebrity Cricket League. I moved the article from Articles for Creation today, because the League is in its second season and attracting significant media coverage. However, a member of the Wikipedia Cricket project seem to view the tournament as a non-notable celebrity 'jolly' and wants to delete it. The deletion can be challenged, if desired, on the article's Talk page. Sionk (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Barkha_Dutt & CIOL as reference

Can someone comment at Talk:Barkha_Dutt on using CIOL as WP:RS. I have seen it being used as one in many places(or those places are wrongly referenced?). Also the Controversy section has been totally cleaned up leaving only Radia tapes controversy.Can someone also help to weigh in, neutralize the article taking care of WP:BLP concerns? Thanks Srikanth (Logic) 21:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hindu Voice

I've got the feeling that Hindu Voice is not a reliable source. Can anyone confirm/deny, please? - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this site? It's not. Too fringe. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Locating it was a part of my problem - I had a quote but no link. I've now found out that it is this. I am having all sorts of difficulties with an article right now precisely because the subject matter is fringe-y ... and I am seriously wondering whether it there is any real notability other than from the subject's acolytes. The counter-argument would be the old "news blackout" routine, as you & I have seen elsewhere in the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant [this. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) That is a blog, a self-published source and hence cannot be treated as a reliable source. With regard to "news blackout" arguments, it's not our job to validate the truth, but to represent mainstream news and academic sources accurately and within context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are conservative. They are written dispassionately without favour or prejudice towards the subject. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view does not say that if you don't have proper sourcing for articles, you can use blogs and cruft to back up assertions. NPOV does not refer to content neutrality, but neutral representation of authoritative and reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: blog, yep, thanks. That's how I thought it would be from the quotation that I had to deal with, before I found the link. Re: remainder - that is why I have serious doubts about Ishwar Sharan, which is taking me ages to clean up of POV/misrepresentation etc and ultimately is looking likely to be a candidate for AfD due to the only real notability being derived from a few other fringe types in a mutual support exercise. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ishwar Saran may be borderline notable (I've seen a bit of coverage on him, but I haven't really done a check on notability), but his opinions are definitely not! It doesn't rise to the level of the P. N. Oak fringe which is "well-covered and debunked" fringe. —SpacemanSpiff 15:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

R-Day Editing

Greetings to all Editors,

Wikipedia Club Pune is hosting Editing Workshop on 26th January 2012 (Republic Day of India). We want to invite all of you to be part of it.More details can be found on Republic Day Editing Workshop Page.

Please help us to make list of non-developed articles on English as well as Indic Language Wikipedia, Please all names of such articles on Page itself,under "Topics".

Thank you. Keep Editing, Keep Inspiring! AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Bolywood.jpg

This is a heavily overused file on many of our articles. However, on looking deeper at the flickr page, I found that this image is of a local performance in Bristol, some local artistes, some invited and so on. So, quite obviously, it is not representative of Bollywood or of Indian culture and so on. I've removed the image from a few articles (Bollywood, Dance in India, Cinema of India, Culture of India, Maharashtra) and have also asked for the file to be renamed on Commons so that this confusion doesn't come up again. Anyways, as this is a heavily used file, repeatedly added, I figured I'd let people know and also maybe help reducing usage where we can find more truly representative images! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a Bollywood-inspired show in Bristol, which is not really a "true" representative of Bollywood. I have completed the image rename you requested. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

THank you, let's hope it stays off of representing Indian cinema/culture except in the context of non-local adaptations etc. —SpacemanSpiff 19:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR of Mysore

I have nominated Mysore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 02:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would request editors who wish to place existing FAs under FAR to please line up experienced and willing Wikipedians beforehand, prior to placing an article on FAR, unless you feel it needs to be demoted outright. In case, the aim is improvement through FAR, lack of editor support may render the article to fail the review. We have just lost the battle of Ahalya (which was a FAC). Kolkata is struggling. Gandhi is hardly anywhere near ready for plain GA. The amount of effort needed to retain/achieve quality status in today's world is just not funny. AshLin (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Republic Day

Happy Republic Day to all editors of WikiProject India. Its a national holiday in India and eminently suitable for a few friendly edits on topics about India. AshLin (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

State of COTM/GAOTM - Jan 2012

Hello friends,

It is time for a review of the Collaboration of the Month for January 2012. Lets have a look at what we achieved in these COTMs. As usual, I'm delivering the verdict before the month ends. :).

Last month we had decided to take up just one COTM considering that fewer members were taking interest in it and choose an article for Good Article improvement. The one's selected were :

• Premchand as INCOTM &
• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - for GA.

During the period under question, Premchand had 133 edits from 17 contributors. This was very good from the point of view of COTM even though it was about half of the previous COTM - Mullaperiyar Dam. The COTM was a success in this case as the article on Premchand improved substantially:

• Improved infobox
• Improved lead.
• Size - increased from 974 words to 3361 words - a 3.5 times increase.
• There was very large restructuring of Biography alongwith expansion. Biography went from zero subsections to seven.
• A new section on "Styles and influences" has been added.
• Referencing greatly improved from 7 to 47.
• Images went from nil to two.
• List of works, now in tabular form but still quite trashy.
• External link cleanup done and went from five to two.
• Five books were listed in the References (=Bibliography) & Further reading section. Previously none.

Is Premchand ready for GA? No, the article is still having huge gaps in content and the list of works is far too clunky to even think of it. It needs even more development despite the increase in size. However, the article reads much better now, is referenced a whole lot better and is now satisfactory which it was not earlier. So, imho a successful INCOTM.

The top four editors of Premchand during January 2012 to the time of writing this email were:

• utcursch - 51 edits
• Hisham - 43 edits
• Nitika.t - 19 edits
• Redtigerxyz - 11 edits

To encourage contribution, they have been awarded a Barnstar for taking time and effort to participate. This is the first barnstar both Hisham and Nitika.t are getting for their contribution as editors and separate from their official role. I trust they will value these more than the others they have received till date.

MANY THANKS TO ALL WHO CONTRIBUTED IN PREMCHAND COTM (Yes, I'm shouting!)

The GA of the month was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi saw lots of activity - 316 revisions by 27 users, boy, that exceeded Premchand. But it takes a humungous effort to set articles right for GA nowadays. There was a lot of editing and deletion as we had User:Rjensen, a history prof in the states doing lots of work, judging material with the fine eye of an expert. His user page blurb is revealing.

We are honoured to have User:Rjensen amongst us. His improvement of Gandhi brings to the article the hallmark of the professional historian.

The top editors were:

• AshLin - 119 edits
• Rjensen - 64.
• Karthikndr - 56.
• AroundTheGlobe - 30
• Debastein - 13

The reason why is that yours truly has started the Master Class and the class is still stuck on Reference cleanup. About 110 refs have been cleaned up by me. The article has now got 146. But there has been many references removed, some fused, and almost all improved in some way or the other. Yet about 60 odd refs still remain. A number of posts on Master Class dealt with this aspect.

Of the three Master Class students, one was preoccupied with studies/SSB interview and outreach and genuinely had problems to edit, one did not bother to edit after opting in and the third, Debanjan was hampered by his College server not downloading Wikipedia to see much less to edit. But Debanjan came back with a vengeance and in barely couple of days clocked up 13 decent edits here alone.

Kudos to AroundTheGlobe and Karthikndr for their sterling work in GA.

Since we are nowhere near completion, Gandhi defaults to February. We continue to edit it till it is GA or bust. Barnstars for GA will be awarded only after Gandhi becomes GA again.

In the next post, I shall be discussing the proposal for next month's COTM.

AshLin (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A curious category

Given that this project does not do a tremendous amount of formalised housekeeping, what function does Category:India articles with comments serve nowadays? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Just thought I'd bring this to attention here: India national cricket team and Indian cricket team are two separate articles for some reason. The latter was turned from a redirect into an article on 28 November 2011 and has been misleadingly thought to be the main article by many users, and edited extensively since then (see history). Mar4d (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please suggest/vote for INCOTM - February 2012

An article needs to be selected by the community for WP:INCOTM for February. Till now the choices are neither new nor encouraging. Please feel free to add suggestions and also vote. Last date - 1st February 2012.

• A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
  • user:Hmundol
  • Tinu Cherian
  • Theo10011 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC) (How can I say no to the 11th president of India?)
  • Gkjohn (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 05:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Srikeit
  • -- Karthik Nadar
  • --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Vallabhbhai Patel
  • Around The Globe
• Bangalore–Mysore Infrastructure Corridor
  • Rsrikanth05
  • naveenpf (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Indian Institute of Planning and Management
  • Rsrikanth05
• Dance in India
  • AshLin (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Theo10011 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Somehow, this seems the best in this lot. Will pitch in for this article. prashanthns (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • User:Noopur28 I am glad this was picked. Noopur28 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nitika.t —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC).
  • Netha Hussain (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sudhanwa_j —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC).
  • Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • -- Karthik Nadar

Other suggestions

• Chennai -- article is currently in FARC. Community involvement may salvage it.
  • --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Segregated this suggestion from the main list. COTM is for developing of normal articles while GA/FAOTM is for developing articles to GA/FA standard. Once Gandhi becomes GA, then we can consider Kolkata/Chennai or others from the FARC review. However, I dont want to bind the community to this if they feel that FARC articles should be the COTM of the month, so be it. Personally I prefer that one GA/FA and one fresh article to be developed under the community effort. However, all editor are requested please to please pitch in with a few friendly edits at Chennai, Kolkata, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and others. AshLin (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Mumbai - A former featured article, currently a good article. -- Karthik Nadar 10:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Northeast India and Seven Sister States

Been thinking — should these articles be merged? Telco (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems okay. SSS is a subset of NEI and the remainder isnt much. Also is inline with other articles; North India, East India, South India and West India. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But then the lead for NEI should clearly state what SSS comprise of. That term should not be lost. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:India will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in India's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)