Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 73

Kings and Princes

Hi. Do we have a policy on how to identify the scions of the erstwhile princely states in India. I made a change at this article but it would be good to have a clear policy in place (likely to be many others). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We sort of did. The 26th amendment of India's Constitution enacted in 1971 gave the rationale for the official policy. After 1971, the erstwhile rulers are nothing more than ordinary citizens. They are not Maharajas, Nawabs, Kunwars, Rajas, Choudhury (title, not the last name), Taluqdar, or the myriad other titles invented to signify privilege. As you may recall, in 2012, or thereabouts, I had created a bank of sources, for use in "princely" articles. An example is Reference [2] in Jyotiraditya Scindia, October 2012. If you compare it with the current version of the article, you will notice that the "House of Scindia" linked to "Scindia Dynasty" makes a conspicuous appearance in the lead. Also, there is an unreliably sourced chart "Ancestors of J. Scindia" at the end. All these vague insinuations of privilege need to be removed from Wikipedia. They not only violate WP policy, they directly violate the Preamble to the Constitution of India, specifically, "EQUALITY of status and of opportunity." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, despite many available sources, this for one, and this for another, the rape and forced cremation of a Dalit child in Delhi in early August 2021 does not have a WP page. It speaks poorly all around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Policy? What policy? If there is a specific one relating to Indian princes, it definitely is not listed anywhere on Wikipedia. Putting together a bunch of secondary sources on the 26th Amendment and posting them around in multiple articles on your own accord neither constitute an official policy nor make the legal interpretations of those sources factually accurate. On that note, I dispute the notion that royal titles of the erstwhile rulers were abolished by the 26th Amendment. First, besides the part about the Privy Purse being abolished, the text of the Amendment itself only says that anyone who used to be recognized as rulers of a princely state ceased to be recognized as such. However, the word "titles" itself is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the Amendment. Second, the Kerala High Court ruled in 2012 that referring to Uthradom Thirunal Marthanda Varma as "His Highness Maharajah of Travancore" in an official advertisement of government function is not unconstitutional. The High Court of Kerala in a judgement on Mujeeba Rahman vs the State Of Kerala stated that, though by the 26th amendment of the Constitution, Article 363 was repealed whereby the rights and privileges of the rulers of Indian States were taken away, still the name and title of the rulers remained as such and unaffected in so far as names and titles were not contemplated as rights or privileges under the repealed Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution. So the titles were not abolished by the Government; only their right to receive Privy Purse were cancelled and status as rulers withdrawn. Third, there is the fact that there have been a number of decisions and cases of the Supreme Court of India, where the court itself has continued to use the styles and titles enjoyed by the princes, the nobility and members of their families. Some prominent examples are:

• "Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji, Maharaja of Alwar vs. The Union of India & Anr." (1978)
• "H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs. C.I.T." (1994)
• "The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vs. H.H. Maharani Usha Devi" (1998)
• "Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur Chamli Jan" (2000)
• "Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors." (2001)
• "Union of India & Another vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan" (2005)
• Nawab Aftab Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) (High Court of Rajasthan)

It is hard to imagine that the highest court in the country would have accepted the use of these titles had they been contrary to law. Since this is Wikipedia, we should be referring to the scions of princely states according to how the reliable sources refer to them. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Clearly, we can't call someone "Maharaja of Jaipur" when there is no kingdom of Jaipur and no actual Maharaja, regardless of what courts or other governmental bodies say. What we need is some consensus on how to balance the fact that someone is the titular descendant of a former maharaja with the fact that there is no kingdom and they aren't actually a maharaja. My attempt at Padmanabh Singh attempts to do that but more input, so that we are consistent across articles, would be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that, but the effort can be made. Extensive experience in several European countries that are now republics shows that these abolished titles can be highly persistent. In Italy I think it is actually illegal to use them, but everybody does. In Germany I think former princely titles are referred to obliquely (head of the house of ... etc), but titles of nobility still very often used. We should follow what sources do, though they may differ. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no question that the titles were abolished, and not just the privileges (the usual argument made by pretenders). I can produce at least a dozen scholarly sources, both secondary and tertiary, which state unequivocally, that the titles were abolished in 1971 (along with the privy purses and the privileges). I can't find a single scholarly source stating that the titles were not abolished. The consensus is that lop-sided.

I can't stop a wealthy pretender from calling a wide-eyed cub reporter of modest background to his son's "crowning," and not watch the chips fall in the local news the next day where they may. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

PS Johnbod is correct. The effort can be made; perhaps, it should be made along the lines of MOS:INDICSCRIPT, which began as an RfC, I think. He is also correct about the European ex-royals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

PPS @RegentsPark: They are not titular descendants in any legal sense. The kingdoms went in 1947; the titles went in 1971 (along with the speciality license plates, "Patiala 1," and the duty-free imports etc). The problem is that they own large tracts of lands and many palaces. It is those over which they attempt to claim their Maharaja-hood. They probably also throw a few crumbs every now and then at the villages they use to own, so the villagers are happy to perpetuate the usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. Since they are not really kings, it would be incorrect to say "Padmanabh Singh is the Maharaja of Jaipur". However, if I understand Johnbod correctly, there is a sort of claim to the "throne" (some are even fighting over the title). Perhaps we should come up with some sort of wording that makes the non-Maharaja nature clear while also preserving the lineage (e.g., "Singh would have been the Maharaja of Jaipur had royal titles and privileges not been abolished" or something like that). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That I believe is a very encyclopedically dangerous route to take. I can produce scholarly sources that state clearly they are Mr and Mrs Singh and nothing more. If you allow "would have" everyone in India (given Louis Dumont) will be claiming a kingdom. The caste self-uplifters will be working wonders with language. We can say something like, "S/he is the grand-daughter/son (if notable and reliably sourced) of the last Maharaja of X." They are not custodians of a Family, Dynasty, or Hous; they have no status at present, other than as Mr and Mrs Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The present day scions are notable not because of their titles but because of their involvement as sportspersons, actors or politicians. So that should be their main description. Apart from that I would suggest some sort of wording like “He is the descendant of X of the former princely state Y.”defcon5 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. They are sportwomen, hotel magnates, etc as Mr and Mrs Singh. The problem is that they are constitutionally mandated to be Mr and Mrs Singh by the 26th amendment. Even if they have a frivolous case or two in the courts, the Constitution cannot be overturned by a court. It needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament. No Indian government (of the right or left) will ever revisit that issue even if they had the majority. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, and it is un-encyclopaedic to censor recognition of this in articles (while it may not be much of an argument for notability by itself), not least because they have presumably inherited any palaces etc. Why exactly is Wikipedia bound by what the Indian constitution may or may not say? Some form of words of the type RegentsPark suggests, should be agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we are not bound by the Constitution. If something happens and the RS picks them up, we will pick it up, not because the Constitution says so (although in most cases, a change in Constitution (in general, not limited to this conversation) is always picked up immediately). An apathetic sentence like "great/grand- son/daughter of the last X of Y" or an equivalent relation if sourced properly would be the most encyclopaedic. I would say it goes into the early/personal life section where the details about the family, and the origin, is discussed. For namesake descendants, or those whose notability doesn't come from it, lead mention would be undue, as usual. What about: if the local people invite them to the community events with a prejudice of them being the descendants (or at least some still dress up as such), and only if those become notable to the biography, could it be sourced? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement there. I had mentioned the Constitution of India in the context only of RP's point about some "royal" claimants attempting to pursue the matter in the courts. See my argument about the sources below. I mean the evidence in the sources is devastatingly unanimous. As for the local people inviting them to a community event @RegentsPark: had himself written an eloquently finessed description. Hold on, I will dig it up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is RP's description from the early life section of the Saif Ali Khan page; sorry my Bollywood IQ is 0, so it took a while to find it:

Khan was born on 16 August 1970 in New Delhi, India to Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, a former captain of the Indian national cricket team, and his wife Sharmila Tagore, a film actress. From 1952 to 1971, Pataudi held the title of Nawab of Pataudi, but following his death a pagri ceremony was held in the village of Pataudi, Haryana to crown Khan as the tenth Nawab of Pataudi.Footnote: Official recognition of titles was ended by the Government of India in 1971 but Khan attended the ceremony to please the sentiments of the villagers, who wanted him to continue the family tradition.

In my view, the footnote should be a full sentence in the main body; otherwise, it can give a confusing message. Also, it should be "crown Khan as the 'tenth Nawab of Pataudi' ." Without making that clear, we will be again giving a confusing message. Clearly he is not the Nawab his father was until 1971, nor his father the Nawab his grandfather was until 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Clarified further. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, @Johnbod: I did not see your post, or did not pay attention to it. You say, "There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, and it is un-encyclopaedic to censor recognition of this in articles (while it may not be much of an argument for notability by itself), not least because they have presumably inherited any palaces etc."

Well, without meaning to sound presumptuous, here's what happened in India. In 1947, the Indian princes lost their kingdoms. That means they lost most everything that wasn't their personal private property. Villages they owned and received rental income from all disappeared. Large tracts of agricultural lands they owned that they "farmed out" to tenant farmers were all gone. In return for their losses, the Government of India gave them an annual remuneration called a "privy purse." They also received benefits and privileges, such as car license plates, duty-free imports, and so forth. Lastly, they retained the right to be officially called the Maharajah or Nawab of X, and for their successions to be recognized by the Government. (I'm sure there were other benefits, but I don't know all the details).

Well, in 1971, not only did the privy purses stop being paid annually but the privileges were removed. More importantly, the title and the succession to the title were derecognized. In other words, after 1971, when a Maharaja died, he died as an ordinary citizen, and there was no question of any succession. The private property he owned, including palaces (which most likely had been converted to hotels) were to be passed on in the various proportions of ownership detailed in his will—as they would for any private citizen who owned hotels or houses. If he died intestate, they were to be inherited entirely by his widow per Indian law. If she predeceased him, the property was to be shared equally by all his offspring, male and female.

It is very clear in India: there are no princes (let alone "Kings" which in any case the British never called them; Maharaja, Raja, Nawab were all translated as "princes;" there was only one King and he sat in London.), no thrones, no titles, no titular princes, no pretenders, no second-order claimants, no courtiers, ... there is nothing. But as you wisely say about the French and Germans ex-royalty, that doesn't stop various people from according these ex-royals the status of a prince. They bow low like Puss in Boots and bring offerings of dead rabbits and partridge. The press gobbles it up and the event becomes notable. So, we can report it, but we can't assert a defunct right. We have to state somewhere that Puss In Boots is a children's story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that, but it doesn't have much bearing on my point, or RP's. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I see the point. You said, "There is a clear difference between the heir/pretender/whatever to the main title, and sundry other descendants, ..." I am suggesting there is not. There might be in terms of reportage in celebrity magazines, but we can't twist the words of the law in reporting the gossip. See my revision of Padmanabh Singh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example of what we should not be doing. The short lead of his grandfather Bhawani Singh is another comical instance of misplaced republican fervour - nothing about what he did in a long life, but great detail about why he stopped being a Maharaja. I realize many Indian bios go much too far the other way. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree about Bhawani Singh. It should have a few sentences in the lead about his military career. It is not misplaced republican fervor though. He was not a ruling Maharaja like his father Man Singh II. He was a nominal Maharaja—without realms—for one year. I will add some sentences to that lead.

But what should we be doing with young Padmanabh? He is a polo player and a globe-trotting young man of wealth? Please tell me how you would have edited it. The Indian polo team has one offspring of ex-royals and one army man; the rest are civilians. None except young P. has a WP page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your latest edits have made it still worse; it now begins: "Padmanabh Singh (born 2 July 1998) is an Indian polo player. He has been a member of Guards Polo Club in the UK." - this, according to its article, the polo club with the largest membership in Europe. I'm sure most bio articles that we have on members don't even mention that fact, still less as 2nd sentence in the lead! I'm not going to expend mental energy thinking of the many ways we have of giving him a proper lead, since you are only going to rubbish and revert them, as you invariably do. Stop bullying RegentsPark & he can do it - he's on the right path. Remember that we can't have a completely different set of standards for handling India compared to the rest of the world. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's just stick to the res Johnbod. This is a useful discussion and no one is being bullied. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, I am not writing the biography of the young man, only the lead as a summary of the main body. It is not my job to check the individual links. Nor am I bullying RP, I've known him long enough to not do that. The flaunting of patrilineality in India, a federal republic, which Britain is not, is obviously problematic. I don't mean that RP is doing that; the royal wannabes are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

PS I've edited Bhawani Singh's lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that is obviously something of an improvement, so thanks. I think "titular ruler" is best avoided - it's surely not a common term, it wasn't at all clear to me what it meant, and the article is little help. Is Elizabeth II a titular ruler? She seems to meet the definition in the article. When did maharajas become "titular", and who says so? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

As for "titular ruler," it has been used in India from the early 19th century onward from the time the Mughals became rulers of a few square miles around Delhi, but retained the title of Emperors of Hindustan, and the British parked a Regent in Old Delhi. RP and I had worked on the article on the Regents, but I can't find it now. (Note also, OED, Third Edition March 2019; not old): "titular adj, nominal, esp. as opposed to real or actual. Usually, but not always, with the implication that no powers or functions attach to the title." After 1947 (or 48) the Maharajas/Nawabs, who were nominally sovereign in the Raj to being with, lost all power to govern. They only had the pension, the privileges, and the titles. "Extinguishable glamor," as Naipaul put it, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Here it is List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–57. It had begun in the time of Company rule. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the titular ruler of Hindustan. I haven't checked, but I'm sure many sources exist. Indirect rule by the British, as you know, continued during the Raj, with a British agent, resident, or regent stationed in the princely state's capital. But the Indian princes had some limited sovereignty until 1947, when they lost it all. Nothing remained but the title (after a small period of adjustment, that is). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's sources on princely titles

The logic, in my view, is straightforward. WP rules and guidelines require us to pay attention to secondary sources, especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP for reliability and to WP:TERTIARY for due weight. This is not rocket science. It seems fairly clear that the titles were abolished, beyond RP's important logical fallacy that is: If X state does not exist how can Y be the Maharaja (ruler) of X? The reliable trade non-fiction suggests the same. Please don't add or subtract anything from my sources. There is a discussion section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources published by academic publishers

1947–1949 Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 273. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. The crucial document was the Instrument of Accession by which rulers ceded to the legislatures of India or Pakistan control over defence, external affairs, and communications. In return for these concessions, the princes were to be guaranteed a privy purse in perpetuity and certain financial and symbolic privileges such as exemption from customs duties, the use of their titles, the right to fly their state flags on their cars, and to have police protection. ... By December 1947 Patel began to pressure the princes into signing Merger Agreements that integrated their states into adjacent British Indian provinces, soon to be called states or new units of erstwhile princely states, most notably Rajasthan, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and Matsya Union (Alwar, Bharatpur, Dholpur and Karaulli). Copland, Ian, The princes of India in the endgame of empire, 1917–1947, Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society, Cambridge University Press, p. 1, Between 1947 and 1949 all 600-odd ruling princes in India were pensioned off and their ancestral domains—the so-called 'princely states'—were submerged in the bodypolitic of the Indian union. Nowadays the few former rulers still alive are just ordinary citizens, while the ex-states survive—if at all—only in attenuated shape as components of larger administrative units. As a practical system of governance monarchy in India has been consigned to the dustbin of history. 1971 Constitutional Amendment aftermath Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted. Aldrich, Robert; McCreery, Cindy (2020), "Monarchies, decolonisation and post-colonial Asia", in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (ed.), Monarchies and decolonisation in Asia, Studies in Imperialism Book 188, Manchester University Press, p. 25, The Indian princes kept their titles and privileges (and privy purses) until 1971, when they were abolished under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, ... Masselos, Jim (2020), "Decolonised rulers: rajas, maharajas and others in post-colonial India", in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (ed.), Monarchies and decolonisation in Asia, Studies in Imperialism Book 188, Manchester University Press, p. 84, It seemed as if an end had come to the long lines of India's hereditary rulers with the final stage in the decolonisation of the subcontinent brought about by Indian agency, and a democratically elected government at that. Technically, the princes were shorn of their surviving privileges and were no longer to use their regal honorifics and titles. They were henceforth commoners, to be addressed as plain Mr or Mrs Singh in a society whose dominant political rhetoric was now to be egalitarian in character. The privy purse legislation implicitly or even explicitly opposed the value systems that had been represented and utilised over the centuries by India's royals and that had provided the base on which their kingdoms rested. Aldrich, Robert; McCreery, Cindy (2016), "European sovereigns and their empires 'beyond the seas'", in Robert Aldrich, Cindy McCreery (ed.), Crowns and colonies: European monarchies and overseas empires, Studies in Imperialism Book 142, Manchester University Press, p. 43, Although Prime Minister Indira Gandhi deprived the India princes of their official titles and privy purses in 1971, the maharajas and other princes, such as the traditional Maharana of Udaipur, who now styles himself as the 'Custodian' of the House of Mewar in Rajasthan, retain wealth, influence and celebrity; in 2015, a twenty-three-year-old economics graduate was thus installed as the most recent Maharajah of Mysore. Aldrich, Robert (2018), Banished potentates: Dethroning and exiling indigenous monarchs under British and French colonial rule, 1815–1955, Studies in Imperialism Book 154, Manchester University Press, p. 274, Conclusion: ... The princely states of South Asia were incorporated into India and Pakistan in the late 1940s, though not always with the enthusiasm of the maharajas; in 1971, the Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, did away with their privy purses and withdrew recognition of their princely titles. Jhala, Angma Dey, Royal Patronage, Power and Aesthetics in Princely India, Routledge, p. 86, ... creation of Bangladesh in 1971. In that same year, Nehru's daughter Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, after a long legal battle, introduced the twenty-sixth Amendment to the constitution, which abolished the princes' constitutionally guaranteed Privy Purse and the use of titles and regal privileges, which they had been guaranteed at the time of accession and integration. Fuller, C. J. (2004), The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India, Princeton University Press, p. 106, After independence, all the states (with the partial exception of Kashmir) were constitutionally incorporated into either India or Pakistan, although in India nearly three hundred former kings kept their titles and privy purses until 1971 Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995), Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8, The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognize them as princes and their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished. Cheesman, David (1997). Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865-1901. London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5. Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their titles." (page 10). Shepherd, Nick (2020) [2001], "Comments on Part II: Far from Home", in Barbara Bender, Margot Winer (ed.), Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place, Routledge, p. 352, A crucial piece of contextualizing information is that as a result of the 1971 Deregulation of Princes Act the former rulers of India lost both titles and privy purses. Princely India and Western Tourists Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 76, Rajput States as Royal India for Middle-Class Tourists: In the aftermath of World War II, independent India became the destination of new types and numbers of tourists. Much of the increase in foreign tourists is probably a result of the growing accessibility of air travel to more groups in society. Airplanes also shifted travel patterns within India: Bombay remains a major port of entry, but Western air travelers increasingly disembark in Delhi, thereby bypassing both Calcutta and Madras. Meanwhile, Madras becomes a point of entry for Tamilians and other travelers from Singapore and Southeast Asia. Since air travel enabled them to reach India more quickly, tourists could now come for shorter tours. India had to be packaged into discreet, comprehensive units. Three main foci emerged: Mughal India as seen in Delhi and Agra; Hindu India, viewed in Benaras and Khajuraho; and princely India, concentrated on the Rajput trio of Jaipur, Udaipur, and Jodhpur with more recent extensions to Bikaner and Jaisalmer. Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 76, Since 1950 the princely states of Rajasthan have been defined as the quintessential princely states. In India in Luxury: A Practical Guide for the Discerning Traveller, Louise Nicholson opened her chapter on Rajasthan by proclaiming, "Rajasthan is classic fantasy India at its best." Hyderabad, Mysore, and Baroda have been eliminated from the category of princely state. Now tourists do not come to India seeking examples of modernization in the Third World; they do not want to tour the petrochemical complexes of Baroda-Vadodra or the electronic industry of Bangalore (Mysore). They seek culture and nature tourism, and the Rajput princes and the state government have been ready to provide it. Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 76–77, In 1958 Maharaja Man Singh II of Jaipur became the first prince to convert a palace into a hotel, citing reasons such as his financial inability to maintain it as a residence, his lack of need for such facilities now that he was no longer rajpramukh or governor of Rajasthan, and the balancing need for a good hotel in Jaipur. It is fitting that his selection was the Rambagh Palace, constructed about 1850 as a guest house for European visitors, enlarged three decades later by Swinton Jacob, then in the 1930s extensively remodeled as a residence for Man Singh and eventually for his third wife, the glamorous, Western-educated Gayatri Devi of Cooch Behar. Rambagh Palace reverted to its original role as a lodging for Europeans—now tourists rather than travelers or British officials. Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 77, The slower rate of economic development in Rajasthan increased the sense of its distinctiveness from modern India, and the sparse distribution of its population partially mitigated the stereotypes of Indian poverty. Tourists sought historical fantasy, and Rajput princes have been packaged to satisfy this quest. Maxine Weisgrau, Carol Henderson, ed. (2016) [2007], Raj Rhapsodies: Tourism, Heritage and the Seduction of History, Routledge, Jhala notes that the rulers were able to sustain some courtly functions during the early post-Independence period. Later, the growth of tourism, and the earnings associated with it, provided the context within which the former ruling families repositioned many practices related to their courts, and adapted themselves to the new circumstances. Today in Jodhpur region (formerly Marwar), the Maharaja and his family have created distinctive forms of hospitality tourism that simultaneously engage diverse constituencies and meanings based on concepts of heritage. Jhala argues that, with tourism, the ex-royals reconstitute royalty and tradition simultaneously as touristic spectacle and as symbolic capital for the enactment of political rituals involving kin, courtly, honorific, and 'host-guest' relationships. Karatchkova, Elena (2016) [2007], "Ghost Towns and Bustling Cities: Constructing a Master Narrative in Nineteenth-Century Jaipur", Raj Rhapsodies: Tourism, Heritage, and the Seductions of History, p. 30, The contemporary master narrative for Jaipur and Amber is 'royalty'. This theme is ubiquitous in tourist publications, such as Majestic Jaipur (Wheeler 1998). Royal personalities are emphasized, as in Jaipur: The Royal City. One article on tourist attractions of Jaipur features a full-page photograph of Maharaja Bhawani Singh, in full regalia, with his wife and daughter, all identified as 'the present royal family' Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. In a more mundane mode, in the 2003 List of the fifty most powerful people in India published in India Today, Gaj Singh (b. 1948) of Jodhpur is number 45 'Because he's the king of royalty. Because none else in the blue-blooded pantheon straddles the feudal and the modern with such aplomb', 'Because he once had Finance Minister Jaswant Singh as private secretary. Because he's tourism's regal face'. The last accolade refers to the romantic allure of princely culture for international and domestic tourists. Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. The princes of India offer fantasy for post-modern consumption. Faced with escalating maintenance costs and declining sources of income, princely entrepreneurs transformed palaces into hotels where tourists could experience an idealised, pampered lifestyle of royalty during a democratic era. In 1954 Karan Singh of Jammu and Kashmir leased his main palace in Srinagar to the Oberoi chain; it seems appropriate that he became minister for tourism and civil aviation in 1967 in Indira Gandhi's government. In 1958 the Rambagh Palace Hotel opened in Jaipur followed by the much photographed Lake Palace Hotel in Udaipur in the early 1960s, Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. In recent decades nobles and merchants in the former princely states have joined princes in opening palaces, havelis, forts and hunting lodges, from Mysore city in the south to the foothills of the Himalayas, to tourists. Rajasthan has the largest concentration of such establishments, many of which stage programs of Indian folk dance and music to entertain tourists. Palaces-on-wheels, which originally were renovated railway cars commissioned by the princes and now are replications of such luxurious cars, connect major sites.

Tertiary sources

Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), An atlas and survey of South Asian history, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9, Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses. Merriam-Webster, Inc (1997), Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary, Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Indian States: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520). Nick Heath-Brown, ed. (2015), "India", The Statesman's Yearbook 2016: The Politics, Cultures and Economies of the World, Volume I, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 603, In 1971 Mrs Gandhi's government abolished the titles, pensions and privileges guaranteed to the Indian princes at independence as compensation for merging their states into India

Trade non-fiction

Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008), India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, HarperCollins, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9, Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.' Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), India: A Wounded Civilization, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–38, ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0, retrieved 6 November 2011, The princes of India – their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time. Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialize only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles." Ward, Philip (September 1989), Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide, Pelican Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognized," their privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page 91)

Discussion

• I think it is fairly clear that that the titles no longer exist and that we can't label someone "Maharaja of xyz". The question, in my mind, is whether we should include text on their lineage (assuming reliable sources do that) and, if yes, should it be in the lead. For example, a search on Padmanabh Singh shows that the Indian press routinely refer to him as "Maharaja" so the lineage is an important part of his biography. I'd lean toward something like what's in this Forbes profile. An example [1]. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. I think we could say, "He is a descendant of the former ruling family of Jaipur State." But he is not a "titular King" a la Forbes. His grandfather was the titular ruler of Jaipur State from 1970 to 1971. I will shortly propose something for all royals, titular royals, and descendants of titular royals in India. Please hold on. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• There is also a problem with your edit which states that he would have been King had princely titles not been abolished in 1971. Much Indian royalty like royalty in many lands was governed by strict patrilineality, to the point that in patriarchal societies such as Rajputana rulers who had only daughters adopted sons to perpetuate the family. But India is a republic in which legal heirs are what a will dictates, or in its absence, what the law of the land does, which is gender-neutral. Saying that he "would have" perpetuates an outdated order of succession. Padmanabh Singh's sister is only a year younger. Had she been the first-born, she would not have been called the "Maharani of Jaipur." In that instance, we'd have to say, "Padmanabh Singh would have been King had princely titles not been abolished in 1971 and patrilineal succession continued to be favored," which becomes too complicated. Many in India might favor the patriline, but WP cannot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Okay. Let's follow the academic sources and assume for a moment that princely titles were indeed abolished by the 26th Amendment. In that case, then all the claimants to royal titles such as Maharaja, Nawab, etc. are by definition pretenders to their respective defunct thrones and so, we should treat them on WP like we treat the pretenders from other parts of the world such as Europe. Examples include Karl von Habsburg, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Prince Carlos, Duke of Parma, and Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia to name a few. Let's not say Padmanabh Singh is "titular Maharaja of Jaipur" or that he would have been Maharaja had titles not been abolished. Instead, let's say that he is the "current head of the erstwhile ruling family of Jaipur" or "pretender to the defunct throne of Jaipur" or both since he actively claims the title by having the press call him a Maharaja. Also, whom a former royal house considers to be its head is up to the family to decide and not bound by Indian laws and Singh became the head of his family by being symbolically crowned a Maharaja. Also, since he is a pretender, we have to include the succession boxes Template:S-pre and Template:S-tul that are specifically for pretenders at the bottom of the page. If reliable sources call someone a Maharaja when those titles have been abolished (something that does not even happen with European claimants), then that person is a pretender and this is the best way to acknowledge that. StellarHalo (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pretenders have never existed in the context of princely states of the British Raj. The former Indian princes had signed treaties of subsidiary alliances and were ratified as rulers by the British Raj, at whose pleasure they existed. (When the welcome ran out, as it did briefly with Mysore in the second half of the 19th century, the British did not hesitate to govern themselves.) After independence, the princes were allowed to use their titles at the pleasure of the successor state of the Raj, the Government of India. Singh's great-grandfather, for example, was the last ruling Maharaja of the princely state of Jaipur during the British Raj. His grandfather was the last persona able to use the title "Maharaja of Jaipur" in independent India.

A privately chose "head" of descendants of the former princes of Jaipur is like a privately chosen "head" of descendants of Thomas Jefferson. The first doesn't ipso facto receive ratification by the government of the day in India to use the title Maharaja, anymore than does the second permission in the US to call himself president. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I never said the privately chosen head of the erstwhile royal family has the legal right to use an abolished princely title. I was merely suggesting that we acknowledge the fact that Padmanabh Singh and his likes are the heads of their own respective erstwhile royal families and claim royal titles in the same way we do for the articles of the European pretenders I listed above. StellarHalo (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

But the Europeans are claimants to a throne. No descendant of a ruler of an Indian princely state is, as an ancestor signed the Instrument of Accession in 1947. Well, the only two that might have were the old Nizam of Hyderabad from 1948 until his death, and the Nawab of Junagarh, for they were deposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Just because their ancestors agreed to disband their princely states willingly as opposed to being deposed by force, does not mean that descendants of rulers cannot claim a defunct throne. The specific circumstances of their monarchies being abolished are not relevant. In fact these people actively claim a throne simply by claiming to have royal titles such as Maharaja while their European counterparts don't even call themselves king. Some of them even have their own coronation ceremonies. StellarHalo (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is the scholarly literature about their pursuit of royal titles, or even informal claims to them? (I mean in books published by academic publishers similar to ones in my list above.) On the other hand, if you are talking about (the sociology of) how they are styling themselves to benefit from the fascination princely culture holds among tourists, or some voters, that is a different matter. There may be limited scholarly literature on that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: clearly I was wrong to assume that the present scions are only notable as per WP for being sportspersons or business magnates and not because of their titles. Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar is notable for being the Maharaja of Mysore. A similar case is Shahu II of Kolhapur. defcon5 (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

:) And @DEFCON5: he calls himself "Maharaja," not Wodeyar? (See Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)) Sahu II does not have any sources either! There were 500 rulers, so we should expect 500 "ancestry.com"-style pages, but less reliable. As I said, they are descendants of former rulers, not heads of a former ruling family—which stopped being a ruling family in 1947, as RP has observed. Young Padmanabh Singh's mother, Diya Kumari, who is the daughter of the last individual to use the title "Maharaja of Jaipur" is very much alive. How did the Maharaja/rani-hood skip a generation? If succession means, inheriting a large part of the assets, then who has inherited them? Diya Kumari or Padmanabh? Similarly, Jyotiraditya Scindia is being promoted as the head of the former ruling family of Gwalior, but he has an older sister, Chitrangada Singh. We can't report everything the media reports. Clearly, we need a policy here such as MOS:INDICSCRIPTS. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree with you. I think we need a policy to deal with this issue. We must be clear on one thing that the descendants of Indian princely states are different from European pretenders because there in no monarchy in India so they are not seeking any control of their former states. They just want to use the titles because who wouldn’t want to be called a king.

Some of these ex royals want to be head of family because that gives extra incentives within their family aka patriarchy and that’s how property is inherited in those families. Most of these property disputes end up in Supreme Court of India. Some of these families still hold coronation ceremonies. These are widely publicised in Indian media.

Someone of the point that I would like you to include are: There are three category of people were are dealing with

Group 1: rulers of princely states before Independence of India

Group 2: titular rulers from Independence to 1971

Group 3: post 1971 scions

I don’t think we have any problem with Group 1

For Group 2 the best lead I think is of Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi

“Mansur Ali Khan was the son of Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi, the last ruler of the princely state of Pataudi during the British Raj. Upon the death of his father in 1952, and under terms agreed to during the political integration of India, Pataudi succeeded to a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title "Nawab of Pataudi," which lasted until 1971, whereupon all were abolished by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.”

For Group 3 .. I would suggest “X belongs to the Y family that once ruled the Z princely state.” Or “A is the son of B, the last Maharaja of C”

If someone from group 3 holds coronation ceremony we will also mention the abolishment of such titles ie the 26th Amendment.

If a newspaper insists on calling him the “king of Mysore, or King of India or Thalaiva or King Khan” we can mention that “He is referred to in the media as the "Baadshah of Bollywood", "King of Bollywood" and "King Khan", ”. like we already do in articles like SRK defcon5 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There's one thing I see to improve in the Pataudi's article. Extend the royalty info in the body. The privy purse and its explanation was all set in the lead, which imo is a bit undue when it's not explained in the body, and all the citations were set in the lead and not the body which probably be the opposite. Also, the career in cricket was not described in the lead, which again imo is a bit undue, most probably because his notability arose from cricket[?]. (This is just related to his article.)

In general, I think we should find a suitable balance as to what we put in the lead giving due weights, determining how much notability the subject gained/gains from the royalty. — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@DEFCON5: and @DaxServer: Very well put. I pretty much agree with you. I have been myself toying with "Group N" schemata by editing some pages, e.g. Group 1 Jiwajirao Scindia, Man Singh II, and Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi (who I might note in passing seems to be wearing a field hockey jersey, unless I've misread the symbols of course.), Group 2 (Madhavrao Scindia, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Bhawani Singh), and Group 3 (Jyotiraditya Scindia, Chitrangada Singh Saif Ali Khan, and Diya Kumari and Padmanabh Singh). And yes the lead of the Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi article is not a summary of the article body. For now, I'm trying to whip the language of the lead into some kind of NPOV form in respect of the royalty issue, flitting from article to article like a bee on caffeine. I beg your indulgence on those pages for some time more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Also, the notability of articles like Shivraj Singh of Jodhpur, Shivranjani Rajye, Chitrangada Singh, Pragmulji III and several others need to be reconsidered. They are notable for being son or daughter of X and Y. defcon5 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are all excellent points, but I'm reluctant to get into issues of notability right now, which are the same for people who are not descendants of royals. They could be descendants of industrialists, Bollywood stars, and so forth. It is the same with the Bharat Ratna articles. There are issues there to be sure, but they are unrelated to the decolonization of the Raj. I think it is best to keep the focus on the princes for now, i.e. on the problems arising from the new ways of styling their roles. In my experience, these proposals take a long time and much effort to implement. The broader their scope the harder it becomes. Once a proposal receives affirmation, though, it can be extended to related contexts with much less effort. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

StellarHalo is correct to say that "we should treat them on WP like we treat the pretenders from other parts of the world such as Europe". But defcon5 & Fowler are mistaken in thinking that any active degree of pretending is necessary to be a "pretender", or of claiming to be a "claimant"; most of the European examples listed above made no actual claims at all, and many often said so, like the grandest of them all, Otto von Habsburg. English lacks a good term for the heir to a royal "claim" who is completely accepting of his position in a republic. The important thing to note is that all those examples give in the lead the sort of information (however phrased) that Fowler et al are trying to suppress in the Indian cases. This just won't do. If a person is the head of the family that were formerly rulers of a significant princely state (one could count the guns in the salute) then this should be mentioned. Minor families and minor relations I'm less concerned about. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod: The European pretenders are claimants to thrones of monarchies. The 562 rulers of Indian princely states, big or small, existed at the pleasure and under the protection of the British Raj. They had no sovereignty in foreign affairs, defense, or communication, and only a limited one in internal affairs. When the princes traveled abroad, they used the British Indian passport. They were creations of the British, part of a strategy of indirectly governing the less profitable regions of the Indian empire. Please find some scholarly references published in the 21st-century which refer to the descendants of former Indian princes as "pretenders" or "claimants" to anything. Please also see my reply to SH above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As usual, you sail clear past my points, and repeat irrelevant stuff you've already said many times. In fact none of these are points of difference with European "pretenders" - the German princes had had no political power since 1870 or earlier, much further back than the maharajas, and few of their states had ever been independent sovereign states. In fact I think the average Indian royal does a good deal more "pretending" than the average Euro one, without asserting a claim with any seriousness. As I've now said several times, I don't support that vocabulary anyway. For the heads of the important princely families, there is no doubt that they are notable, usually mostly notable, for that, and we should not suppress that information, but treat them as the Euros are treated. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what terms WP uses for the Europeans. In WP:SCHOLARSHIP there is no precedent whatsoever for any descendant of a former Indian princely state to be called a "pretender," "claimant to a throne," "claimant to a title," or any equivalent formulation. They might be styling themselves as Maharajas, Rajas, Nawabs, Custodians the House of X, Head of the House of Y, etc or the celebrity media might be in their lieu, with an eye to the tourists who are eternally drawn by the allure of princely India. That I've stated is an entirely different thing, with a small scholarly literature, which I will taken into mind when I finish the proposal tomorrow AM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Imo, these titles are affectations and words like "claimant" and "pretender" don't apply here. However, and I think that's what Johnbod, defcon5 and others are getting at above, the fact that someone is direct progeny of an actual maharaja, and assuming that news outlets make a big deal of this, then that is a part of their notability and we need to say something about that. For example, we could say, in the lead, "Singh is the titular descendant of Maharaja xyz, the last ruler of the princely state of Jaipur". We don't call him a Maharaja, we make it clear that the last Maharaja has come and gone. The body can then explain the abolishment of privy purses, titles etc., material that is probably overkill in the lead. The point is less what is the legal position of these people and more one of how they are viewed in the world. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I have said several times. I don't think it is necessary to go into too much detail on the abolition of the titles - presumably there is a link we can use for that. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark: Defcon5 and I don't really disagree. His point above about Chitrangada Singh, for example, if I have understood him correctly, is not that she is notable because she is the grand-daughter of the last ruler Gwalior but that as it is the only thing she is notable for, her notability should be reconsidered, and her page AfD'd (perhaps). Note he uses "reconsider."

As for your point about mentioning the relationship in the lead, I have already done that in each of the group 3 subjects (ie grandchildren of the last rulers). But young Padmanabh is the great-grandchild, i.e. in a putative group 4, which we have not considered as the relationship is tenuous. Man Singh II had died nearly 30 years before Padmanabh was born.

If someone is a great-great-great-great-nephew of the last Maharaja of X and his cousins who trace a more direct lineage are all females, and if the media makes a big deal of his Maharaja-hood, do we give him WP notability? I'm suggesting Group 3 is where forms of notability that are derived from cultural ways of interpreting descent should stop. If tomorrow young Padmanabh manages to become polo's Jahangir Khan, sure we'll mention in passing that he is the great-grandson of Man Singh II. But in my view beyond Group 3, they'll need to be notable for something other than heredity and gender. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod has much more faith in Wikipedia links than I do. My principle, borne out for example in the leads of all the first-level Kashmir-related pages (Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Gilgit-Baltistan, Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Aksai Chin, and Jammu and Kashmir (state)) and some caste-related ones, is to present WP:SCHOLARSHIP (for reliability) and WP:TERTIARY (for due) in one citation containing a list of references. It might seem like overkill to some, but it works. The Kashmir-related pages have become quiet after the consensus achieved here in my proposal of August 2019. Something similar is what I will propose here later today.

Johnbod also says something about the top gun-salute states, but the small states of Rajasthan were never the top ones. I'm guessing Jaipur is 17 or 15 gun salutes not 21 like the big five (Kashmir, Baroda, Gwalior, Hyderabad, and Mysore). There is another even more important aspect here. How far back in history do we go? Surely, Awadh, annexed by Dalhousie in 1856, was way more important than any in the big five. Although Muslim dynasties don't really follow patrilineality as zealously as the Rajputana Hindu ones, I'm sure we can find a descendent of the last Nawab of Oudh. If the local media in Lucknow, for example, has begun to call her or him, the Begum or Nawab of Awadh, do we add that to her or his WP page? In other words, why are we favoring the ones whose ancestors keeled over and said, "How low?" when the British said, "Bend?" Why are we favoring the ones whose ancestors hid in a closet during the Indian rebellion of 1857? Not a single one of the princely states uttered a peep. Yet this was the decisive event of both Company and Raj history.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

PS @RegentsPark: Speaking of Awadh and great-grandchildren, I have just created Kaukab Quder Meerza (my version permalink). It shows how low-key the descent should be phrased for "Group 4, the great-grandchildren." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

PPS Also copying the others who have thus far participated in the discussion: @StellarHalo:, @DEFCON5:, @Johnbod:, @DaxServer: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Needless to say, we have a list of salutes - Jaipur was indeed 17. I think an Oudh descendent has married the head of one of the big dynasties in recent years, so they are still in the game. In wiki-theology, notability depends entirely on passing the WP:GNG. All and any "local" guidelines, such as for sport, are only indications of presumed notability under the GNG, so if a prince or princess gets sufficient suitable coverage, they are in, whether their ancestors hid in cupboards (surely the sensible move, frankly; even the Afghans could see that) or not. If the princes were suspicious of what their fate would be under an independent Indian state, well history shows they were right to be so. The Rani of Jhansi doesn't presumably have any surviving descendents. I don't think "we" are favouring anyone (though clearly there is some disfavouring going on), we just deal with what our editorship throws up, and can reference. Trying to blame interest in these figures on the West ("tourists" etc) won't work - we all know the Indian public is far more interested in them. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in issues of notability. Please see my reply here to DEFCON5. Notability, as I say in the reply, is unrelated to the Raj. I'm interested only in language that describes a person's relation to the ruler of a princely state that is supported both in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:TERTIARY. Nor am I interested in rationales for the rulers of the large princely states and most others sitting out the Indian rebellion of 1857. (Had they all chosen to join, it is not clear at all that the British would have survived in India, at least in the near term.) When we make a big to-do about one group, we discriminate against others. But that is not my main concern, which as I say above is to establish a common language for describing all descendants if they are notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Do please stop these tiresome outdents all the time! Needless to say, it was you who introduced 1857, which is indeed entirely off-topic! Quite why academic scholarship should be concerned with these figures escapes me, but a diligent search may turn up some useful ways of putting things; likewise a search of the Indian press. One of your approved examples above, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, seems pretty poor to me. I found the "royal" mention very confusingly phrased, even knowing the general background; heaven knows what a (say) Brazilian reader new to the subject would make of it. But I await your promised draft with interest. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I did introduce 1857, but I did not offer a rationale for why it was in the interest of the princes to sit it out. The Indian press? Of course not. They are a part of the "sell" to tourists both foreign (mostly) and Indian (the ones who can afford the nightly rate at the palaces). Do we source the lead of the 2020 Delhi riots to the Indian press? Of course not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That was a story that received considerable international coverage, even if much of it was based on the more neutral parts of the Indian media. Whether we were correct to mostly prefer outside sources is a question - perhaps we were. But there are very many areas of Indian life where this international coverage does not exist, & we source directly to Indian media. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna and Padma awards

This is a sidetrack but it is somehow releated to the use of titles in India. The government of India clearly states that Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not titles and cannot be used as prefix or suffix to names. See here But a lot of Wikipedia articles use them as honorifics and titles. Eg. Sumitra Guha, Nandalal Bose,Teejan Bai, Nanaji Deshmukh. If any policy regarding titles is formed, this should also be included. defcon5 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Agree Also, all the instances where Bharat Ratna or Padma Awards are used as prefixes/suffixes should be removed asap. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree This is long overdue; the prefixes must be removed ASAP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree They are not needed either as titles or post-nominals. And it is not just the Indian awards. I have just disabused Ratan Tata and Amartya Sen of British post-nominals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion to Remove caste from all Wikipedia articles dedicated to Indians celebs such as Politicians, Authors, Sportsmen, Filmstars etc.

There is a misconception among Indian Hindus that a person born in a so-called "High Caste" is different from the rest. Let us take an example of the modern-day Brahmin & Kshatriya caste or community.

A person who never read, nor touched a single Hindu scripture in his entire life, will still be labelled a Brahmin! just because he is born in a family of self-proclaimed "High birth, Upper Caste". I urge Hindus to read their scriptures to get the definition of a Brahmin before labelling anyone whomsoever in open. Next, we have our modern-day Kshatriya castes & communities, a person who never hold a sword nor indulged in any kind of battle or warfares in his entire life are still labelled Kshatriya. They boast of their identity of Warrior class lineage.

These delusional beliefs make them believe Somehow they are indifferent from the rest. Frankly, speaking this 15th-century insanity may be promoted & defended by a bunch of illiterate rural Indian villagers who are known to be the chief architects of Indian casteism & racism & the Indian politicians who are well known to fuel this age-old insanity to satisfy the ego of their vote-banks.

The Kingship-Monarchy and Brahminical caste-hierarchy were abolished centuries ago by the Hammer of Law & after the advent of the Indian constitution such Racism & Casteism prevalent among Hindus has been controlled to some extent in rural areas still the majority of uneducated villagers boasting in their occupations of their forefather's believed themselves to be something "Born twice, Born thrice", High Birth as high as the Sky, indifferent from the rest prefer to call themselves Upper castes only to justify their delusions.

If someone belongs to the Hindu religion, then automatically he will be attached to a particular caste according to his surname which I found not only to be dogmatic but also draconian & absurd.

Even in this 21st century Indian Hindus still believes they are attached to a particular caste & community even if that person never did any stuff unlike his forefathers to suit their occupation according to their caste & clan. Hindu religion might be the origin of Indian-casteism (a.k.a the last fort of Caste-hierarchy on earth). These Rural Casteist beliefs should not be propagated, not in this way. Such absurdity may be prevalent among self-proclaimed "high birth Hindus" living in a delusion & rural Indian villagers believing the majority of the Indian residents are somehow inferior since they are born in a particular so-called "Upper Caste". It does remind me of the Nazi Racial Supremacy. This is where it strikes me.

So, therefore, I urge to remove all castes attached to Indians over Wikipedia. ChongPong|Talk, 2:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ChongPong (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChongPong: This isn't going to happen. I appreciate your suggestion, which I interpret as coming from a position of egalitarianism and compassion, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all we do here is summarize the content of published, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources (primarily English-language sources). We avoid trying to right great wrongs in society, and we merely summarize things the way they are reported: good, bad, unequal, or unfair. That is to say, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and Wikipedia follows published sources, we are never the first to institute new standards. So, your proposal above, well-meaning as it is, is directed at the wrong audience. Even if what you propose is an excellent idea, we cannot follow your recommendation here; instead, you should send a copy to every newspaper, magazine, and author about Indian topics, and persuade them to follow your recommendation. If you are successful in causing change in published material, then after some time, Wikipedia will follow suit; but not before. Alternatively, you could try to institute a policy change in the Manual of style to establish the regime you wish to see, but that is a difficult path. Mathglot (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: cross-posted at WP:RD/H#What is the reason & purpose for attaching "Indian Caste Identity" over Wikipedia articles?. Mathglot (talk)

2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election#Surveys and polls

Hello, i noticed there are lots of unreliable sources on 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election#Surveys and polls, like NK Digital Magazine, Sudarshan News, Ekhon Biswa Bangla Sangbad etc. It would be great if someone clean the section. Thanks --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Belagaavi Airport#Requested move 25 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Belagaavi Airport#Requested move 25 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 12:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Muthukumara Samy Temple, Vennandur

Input is needed at this AFD. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider helping out at IRC help?

You may be aware that we operate a live help desk via IRC. On a typical day more than 75% of the queries we get are India related. I would be very grateful if experienced editors who have familiarity with Indian languages and cultures would join us. If you are interested, please just come to IRC chat and tell the existing editors that you would like to help out. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Times of India

The problems with The Times of India are now well-recognised. I notice gremlins randomly adding WP:REFSPAM for The Times of India. I suggest that we add {{unreliable-source?|reason=[[WP:TOI]]}} tag to all citations to the Times of India and delete them wherever possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I've started a discussion at RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Circular references from The Times of India, perhaps you could make your point over there as well? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

What I am recommending is already covered by the WP:RSP entry. No further discussion needed. Editors need to see that The Times of India is already regarded as an unreliable source, and they can't keep citing it willy nilly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Indian news, when are we blacklisting Republic TV? (1) TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Besides the memes being hilarious, the last RSN discussion is in November 2020. Do you want to start an RfC in RSN, and ask if it should be deprecated and/or blacklisted? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably ther is no point. I haven't seen anybody cite the Republic as a source in a long long time. It looks like even the right wing knows it is useless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, I see it being cited on film related articles [on my watchlist] regularly. And I see others removing them citing WP:REPUBLICTV, I guess it's going somewhere. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I can start an RfC on RSN if no one objects here. It's currently cited on over 1,800 articles, see republicworld.com   which includes articles such as Bharatiya Janata Party, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Mamata Banerjee and many other high importance contentious topics. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do so. Usage in high-profile articles make it significantly important for the RfC — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I have started the RfC now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Tayi Arajakate, can you kindly check the usage of Times Now and Zee News across en-wiki articles? I cannot make the tool work. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, did, Times Now's usage is similar at over 1,900 articles  , Zee News is much more at 4500+ articles, see zeenews.india.com   and zeenews.com  . Note there's some overlap in results between the two addresses of Zee News. I also checked the archives at RSN and while there are some mentions here and there from years ago, there has been no significant discussion on either of them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Back to TOI, I more or less agree with adding the unreliable source tag. If there's support then a WP:BOTREQ could be made to add them en masse. If not then we could add them as we go, like I did. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Headbomb, who may be able to tell whether a bot like that can be used or not. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Technically, nothing prevents a bot from doing that. The main issue is doing that for a source that's not across-the-board bad, because that's WP:CONTEXTBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

TOI: One toned down alternative would be tagging it with {{Better source needed}}, example. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In the above link, the first TOI source was simply supporting the the film's existence, its director and producer. That's pretty much WP:PRIMARY information and changing the source wouldn't make any difference. And for instances like film reviews, neither tagging nor removing the source is going to be helpful. For this reason, I'd oppose using a bot. Editors are supposed to use their own judgement depending on WP:RSCONTEXT and decide whether the cited source meets the requirement ot not. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In that case a bot is out of the window. I've seen a lot of TOI articles where they simply confirm the existence, dates, awards, details and other announcements - surrounding a film. In the context of films, it might be okay to use for souring those simple facts? Or do we still want to use other sources. Higher quality sources might not publish all the minute soap opera details like TOI does. After all, WP:ICTFFAQ#TOI considers it reliable within the film project scope, with an exception of BLP details. So, I guess we're back to square 1.

My new suggestion would be going thru the citation usage in important articles (the list started with India, Narendra Modi, ...) and verify the citation, tag them with unreliable source or the better source needed tags, unless it verifies an uncontroversial statements. If one is not sure they can just tag it, with either of the two, and put an edit summary explaining as such? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Times of India is a reliable source and there was no consensus to depreciate it in WP:RSN discussions.Even the The Hindu copied wrong information from Wikipedia. We should go article by article we cannot depreciate The Hindu for doing it actually The Hindu is considered most reliable.Times of India and The Hindu are one and two newspapers in India.Both are Newspaper of record182.65.253.165 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirects for Ammendments

I've created redirects for 4th, 9th, 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th Amendments to List of amendments of the Constitution of India, and stopped after realizing there were many amendments without articles in that list. Does it make sense to create the redirects for them? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Samantha Ruth Prabhu

The article was moved right after she got married, now it has been moved back citing impending divorce. I have no clue about all this, but interested people may want to look into getting this (and the sub articles) titled correctly. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Indian States have official flags?

I have noticed the use of flagicons with West Bengal in the infobox of articles like Paschim Medinipur district, Darjeeling district and all other articles about the districts of West Bengal. Does West Bengal or any other Indian states have official flags? Can someone knowledgeable on the topic shed some light on this. Thanks DEFCON5 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No Indian state has an officially recognized flag at the moment but many of them have their own seals which may be used as flag icons per MOS:FLAG ("the bulk of these recommendations are also applicable to official seals, coats of arms, and other representations which serve similar purposes to flag images.") -- Ab207 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

They all have their own seals, some are them are based on the national seal with minor modifications while others are more distinct, the West Bengal emblem used in those two articles appears to be one of the latter. On a sidenote, Karnataka and Jammu and Kashmir have unofficial flags which shouldn't be used in this manner, the latter was used in an official capacity till 2019 and can be used in historical contexts. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2021 Update

My abject apologies due to continued ill health, I could not give due attention to this drive.

Update: As of this moment, we have completed 45.9% of the articles needing assessment; more than 5000 articles have been assessed this month. Since there is still a way to go, the drive is being extended for another month till 31 October 2021. We hope that by then, we would have finished the backlog and bring it down to zero. :D

Kudos to @MPGuy2824:, @Titodutta:, @Venkat TL: and @Vis M: for their solid contributions.

Requesting all participants to update their tallies.

We would appreciate more volunteer help to share the load. Please join in. :D

Thank you very much for being patient with me, Sincerely, Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I've updated everyone's numbers using a common quarry. It counts only distinct page ids per assessor, and starts from 1 Sep instead of 29 Aug. So, some of your numbers might have reduced. Please inform if you see an error in the query.

• Shout out to @Soumitrahazra: who hadn't added their numbers. They've assessed over 1000 articles. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Does your script count pages assessed manually without using Rater tool? Venkat TL (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so (query clause: comment_text LIKE '%India% %Rater%'). If we are following an honor code for manual assessments, maybe you can add a +X to your total from the query. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That is just extra work to look for manual assessments. I will update my total count manually. @MPGuy2824, @Titodutta, @AshLin, I think instead of looking for the word Rater, the query should count the talk pages with presence of the word assess in the edit summary. This is what was said on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Assessment/Tag_&_Assess_2021 page. All the assessments manual or semi automated have this feature. Can you please tweak the Query script, for this? Venkat TL (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sourav Das (Bengali famous actor)

Input is needed at this AFD. All opinions welcome. Please note that the current title of article has been modified from Sourav Das (Bengali famous actor) → Sourav Das (actor) 2402:3A80:6C5:AC0D:CDC3:CF89:B6E7:8C65 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed 18-month moratorium on move discussions for Allahabad

There is a discussion currently taking place at Talk:Allahabad on whether an 18-month moratorium should be imposed on requested moves in light of the failure of the most recent attempt. You are welcome to participate in the discussion there. Rublov (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The requested moves are to Prayagraj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Help on Bangalore Karaga

I have removed 44kb of unsourced, essay-style material from Bangalore Karaga, most of it dating back to 2009. The stuff I removed may or may not be true, but it was all uncited. We need more sources to rebuild the article, and I'd appreciate it if anyone chipped in, or just left some sources on the article in the comment, or on its talk page, or on my talk page. Stuff from books can be emailed to me if you don't have the time to add it to the article yourself. free barnstars for people who help! W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{t | c} 05:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

discussion

ok Jksimonboliver (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Indic scripts down in article body

Does the WP:NOINDICSCRIPTS apply to the article body? The policy clearly talks about the infobox and the lead, but does not restrict from usage within the body. See my removal of the included scripts and talk. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC) (updated 20:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC))

• This is absurd, it's the English Wikipedia, just because we don't have a rule that says we can't have hidden text that includes swear words in articles, doesn't mean that we do it. —SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  While there is no rule against indic scripts in the body, there are two other policy rules that apply. WP:CONSENSUS, so the editor should get consensus for their inclusion if reverted. And, WP:RS, they need to provide a reliable source that verifies that the indic script representation is accurate. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  One alternative that we all do is adding the IPAs. Most of them are not cited and basically become OR. Some are disputed and edit warred. The rarest of them, the high-importance articles, are resolved by citing RS, as RS exists mostly because they are high-importance. I don't know how we resolve those disputes for everything else. (I generally don't edit them, as I don't know much at the moment.) How do we approach them, broadly construed? — DaxServer (talk to me) 20:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

One problem with Indic scripts is that they're not sourced. Provide a reliable source for such a script and you've done something I don't know that I've ever seen done and something that isn't forbidden by guidelines, at least for the article body. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

If you do not include the Indic script, then it is practically worthless. Almost all WikiProject Pakistan articles allow this, with all local languages. I tried this for Uttarakhand and Dehradun, it did not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratham12Chawdhry (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Proving the "worthiness" of scripts is not a purpose of Wikipedia. You can add them to Wikidata if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

1971 Pakistan-Bangladesh-India

Opinions are welcome at Talk:Pakistan/Archive 21#1971_war. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

State flags

@Mx. Clarks: (contributions) has been adding "proposed flags" to various state articles (e.g., [2]). Could someone confirm that these flags are the actual state flags. Tha "proposed" qualifier attached to the flag names makes me a trifle uneasy. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried searching for any news articles, but couldn't find any. I did a reverse image search for Telangana and was able to find two Imgur galleries [3] and [4] with matching Telangana and Odisha flags. Reverse search for other flags might reveal other galleries. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

One can dig into this reddit thread (reverse image matched Bihar) — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Goa is a combination of two flags in the thread — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Lakshadweep reddit — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Puducherry reddit. I probably will stop now. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. From the reddit thread, this looks like a competition of sorts and apparently Indian states do not have official state flags. Mx. Clarks has been uploading images of these flage and the [5] descriptions give the impression that these are imaginative renderings. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Any idea about all the emblems Mx. Clarke has added?--RegentsPark (comment) 20:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the same as Defcon5, there are no proposals to change or add any new ones, emblems and flags alike. I see that they are all already reverted. — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Mx. Clarks has conveniently used minor edits to add flags to a lot of Indian articles. Some of these images are with captions like “unofficial”. These have to be removed. Currently no state have official flag. 2 states had proposed their flag but are not adopted. DEFCON5 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer and DEFCON5: The user has uploaded a whole bunch of flags on commons which is always a mess to clean up. Does anyone know how to go about deleting all those files from commons? Otherwise we'll have drive by flag fetish editors repeatedly adding them to state articles.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark You can use VisualFileChange.js on Commons to mass tag for deletion. I can tag them if you want, but which criteria should I tag with? Derivative works? Do you know more? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

When you remove deprecated sources from the article, you also need to remove or fix the content sourced to them. If that is too much work, at least replace them by {{citation neeed}} tags. Otherwise all their disgusting POV will remain for ever, and it will even appear as if it is coming from high-quality sources. See this edit for example.

If you don't have time for anything, then you might just leave a note on the talk page saying the source is deprecated and it should be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RM: Faizabad division → Ayodhya division

An editor has requested for Faizabad division to be moved to Ayodhya division. Since you had some involvement with Faizabad division, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mangalore

Could someone bring an end to the ongoing slow edit-war at Mangalore? — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Census of India is a primary source

It goes without saying that the Census of India is a primary source. But there seems to be a tendency among editors (both newbies and long-term editors) to pick up spreadsheets from the census web site and tabulate them.

At a minimum, we should be using the District Census Handbooks, which make at least some effor to interpret the data and sometimes visibly give up. For example, the 2011 census handbooks don't report the 2011 language data. They only report 2001 language data. Even then, I see subtle variations in how the data is described. For example, the Pithoragarh district census handbook says: "Distribution of different mother tongues according to population with percentage as returned in 2001". The Tawang district census handbook says instead: "Number of persons who returned the language in...". We need to use language that reflects the uncertainties instead of writing dubiously factual statements like "X% of people speak Y language". If the Y language is not something recognized by linguists, we need to be even more careful.

Similarly, we should be saying X people are classifed as Scheduled tribes in the Census, instead of saying X people are "tribes". We would need secondary sources to make the second type of statements.

Let us start getting disciplined now, before the caste census nigtmares hit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't really see the "nightmare" manifesting anytime soon. Agree as to rest. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of India

Could someone verify the lead at List of prime ministers of India, which is a Featured List? — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Thanks for noticing. The article which is nothing but the lead is in very poor shape, full of vague but popular POV. It needs to be FLR'd and delisted. How it managed to become an FL is a mystery. It could be that no one pays attention to these articles. I've fixed a few things, one of which was that Bose was a prime minister of "India" during the war. But they forgot to mention that Nehru was the interim PM from 1946 to 1947. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Father of India; converting a redirect to a disambiguation page

Father of India redirects to Mahatma Gandhi. I propose that Father of India is converted into a disambiguation page which includes (for example):

• Mahatma Gandhi
• Sardar Patel
• BR Ambedkar
• Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
• Subhas Chandra Bose

The correct location for this would be Talk:Father of India, please see and comment. DTM (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose no basis given for the proposal. Venkat TL (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Venkat TL, How about redirecting Father of India to Father of the Nation, India has no formal father as per constitution. DTM (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose as it is commonly used by the media. See "Gandhi Jayanti 2021: Inspirational quotes by 'Father of the Nation' Mahatma Gandhi". Firstpost. 2 October 2021. Venkat TL (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the dab page. Take Ambedkar, for example. He was the head of the drafting committee of India's constitution; he didn't write the constitution: it was discussed sentence by sentence by the Constituent Assembly. But, ... as is well-known, large parts of the Constitution of India, some say more than two-thirds, are copied verbatim from the Government of India Act, 1935. The preamble and the directive principles are largely inspired by the Constitution of Ireland and the Constitution of the United States. Compare the two preambles: Ireland and India; Ireland's is not secular, of course, but many ideas there are similar, especially the last sentence. Ambedkar was a sharp man no doubt, and a profound leader of the Dalits, but generally such lists either become all-inclusive (a phone book) or represent POV. Perhaps a page called "Founders of modern India" (note "fathers" is not gender-neutral) could be created starting with Alan Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji, ..., Tilak, Gokhale, Annie Besant, ... Gandhi, CR Das, the two Nehrus, C. Rajagopalachari, Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Maulana Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Sarojini Naidu, Amrit Kaur, ... and others such as CV Raman, Tagore, JC Basu, ... or simply delete the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a strong rationale here; the primary usage of the term is for Gandhi, by a very large margin. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mother of India; redirect to Mother Teresa needs more thought

Mother of India directs to Mother Teresa however the phrase 'Mother of India' isn't even used in the article. Mother of India needs to be redirected with some more thought as well. DTM (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Venkat TL, what do you think about this? DTM (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mother of India should be deleted as per current redirect with no references. DTM (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Quite interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bharat Mata seems the obvious redirect. I'll change it. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, ... India is the mother in Bharat Mata, or Mother India, or Mother India (book) or Bande Mataram ... and the Mother of Mother, in the views of many historians, might be this lady or this one ...
• India is also Hindustan, which is masculine—its maleness heard far and wide in the Indian Army's most popular marching song.
• ..., still, yours is probably a better choice than MT, who in any case has been promoted to Saint Teresa of Calcutta by the Vatican, ...
• ... I would have preferred Mother India (disambiguation), with pride of visualization given to a a Muslim lady. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• PS In any case, I've rewritten the Bharat Mata lead, made is more comprehensive and accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Indian media coverage of the China clash

Sushant Singh, a respected editor of the Indian Express on security affairs, who either quit or got axed in the midst of the China border clashes last year, wrote a commentary on the recent PLA video releases of captured Indian soldiers. I recommend everybody read the piece to understand the deplorable state of Indian media and how not to use it in Wiipedia. Here is a sample:

The Hindu was the only national daily that prominently reported the [soldiers'] release on its front page on June 19, and almost every other newspaper, television channel and web portal remained silent till then. Prior to that, journalists asking the Army for information on soldiers taken captive were stonewalled and asked to abstain from reporting. The journalists complied, most out of habit and a few others presumed this concession was to prevent harm to Indian soldiers in captivity. I wrote about the media coverage of the Ladakh crisis in The Caravan in December 2020.

He also linked a Wikipage section, Santosh Babu#Death, which, I see, uses substandard sources quite extensively. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Got this in my Twitter feed. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the links, but China in the best of times is a much more closed society than India. For that reason alone I would cut much slack to the Indians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue here is not China vs India but whether the Indian news media is a reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean a China-India clash is not the best context to judge reliability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox picture in Education in India

The picture showing the children of well-heeled parents is not only unrepresentative of a country in which the vast majority of children go to modest state-supported schools, but has also been uploaded by a banned editor. Could someone do the needful? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A good point. The image appears to be out of place as one lands of the page for some reason I cannot account for at the moment. I have replaced it with a placeholder image depicting Indian schoolchildren with the prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru until a more suitable image can be found. Kindly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.155.222 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, students of The Doon School are representatives of Indian education. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I put the old image back - it's been there for ages< & is certainly better than the Doon School decades ago. All the images in the article need regular checking. That sculpture should go for a start. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be this school, or, well, it is also on its page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Scoopwhoop.com

Any ideas about this "news and entertainment" website? In particular, is hindi.scoopwhoop.com reliable for historical material?--RegentsPark (comment) 12:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a Buzzfeed-esque site, their quality varies wildly, it ranges from rather serious documentaries to whatever this is. So really depends on what you are talking about. Though in general, I wouldn't rely on any news site for historical material. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, if someone who can read Hindi can take a look at Draft:Alan Singh, that would be very helpful.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Certain that Tod got this from some bardic chronicle, if at all. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't find a reference to an Alan Singh in Tod (there is an Alan Deva but not associated with Amber or a "Chanda dynasty"). The only possible references are the ones in Hindi. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Newcomer requesting help with article

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Club. I created a sandbox page to revise it but would like specific feedback , instead of general feedback. Can you please help? Here is a revised draft I rewrote, after the first one was declined but with general feedback and not specific feedback on the sections. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Bengal_Club

Thank you

Anderson1970 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Anderson1970 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anderson1970: The draft, in its current form, is overtly promotional and full of useless information (a NY jazz quartet played there - so what?). My suggestion is to cut it down to about 10% of its current size, include only the bare facts (remove, for example, all the glowing quotations). A bare facts version (It is a social club, bare minimum of the history - particularly the exclusion of Indians, remove notable visitors, notable members, notable events, great cuisine, keep in the literary references, keep only 2-3 pics) should have no problem getting accepted. You can then work incrementally on adding other stuff and other editors can react to those additions. Also, if you have a conflict of interest, if, for example, you're connected to the club, you need to make that known. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir#Requested move 20 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir#Requested move 20 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 15:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bapu#Requested move 2 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bapu#Requested move 2 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 17:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vizol Koso#Requested move 5 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vizol Koso#Requested move 5 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 23:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

New article for monastery split from Telhara, Nalanda district

Hi, given that the historical monastery receives more news and academic attention than the locality itself, is it okay if I create a new article for the monastery? Some advice needed if it’s okay to proceed. Thanks.KashKarti (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Atmanirbhar Bharat#Requested move 22 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Atmanirbhar Bharat#Requested move 22 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 13:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Smile Foundation

Hello, everyone,

I was going through expiring drafts today and came upon this draft that I think might be for a notable organization in India. It needs some clean up work but if the content is accurate, it sounds like a sizeable group doing social work in the country. I was hoping someone with content building skills could look it over. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede. Venkat TL (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pawayan#Requested move 9 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pawayan#Requested move 9 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 14:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Bengali Hindus in Assam

There is a sudden explosion of new content on this page [6]. Can knowledgeable people monitor it and check it for accuracy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Virat Kohli

Could some knowledgeable in Virat Kohli / Cricket involve with the article and improve its stability. It was setup for a third GA nomination and yet failed (delisted in the past). I believe there is a content dispute going on right now. Thanks! — DaxServer (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Kachwaha

The Kachwaha dynasty was established by Dulherai after the end of Raja Alan Singh Chanda, the ruler of Chanda dynasty. Therefore, in the history of Kachwaha dynasty, include the history of Raja Alan Singh Chanda, the ruler of Chanda dynasty. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Opinion on a book at Yudhishthira

• Chatterjee, Mallar (2017). Yudhisthira: The Unfallen Pandava. Readomania.

The description says "The Unfallen Pandava is an imaginary autobiography of Yudhishthira" and thus I've removed it as a ref from the page [7]. Is the book reliable in the context, and should I restore it back? — DaxServer (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Good removal. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mathematics in India#Requested move 18 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mathematics in India#Requested move 18 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 12:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinions requested - secularism

Opinions requested regarding secularism in the modern Republic of India at Talk:Religion_in_India#About_secularism of the Religion in India talk page. Thanks in advance. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{t | c} 18:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests needs work from an expert in History to fix the bias and weight issues. Venkat TL (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thiyya

Malayalam .language of Kerala, where the caste is from,Thiyya wikipedia already exits for years :

https://ml.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%80%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%BC

File:Malayala Manorama news report on Kerala state government's order to record 'Thiyya community' as such and not a subcaste of Ezhava.jpg

Malayala Manorama news report on Kerala state government's order to record 'Thiyya community' as such and not a subcaste of Ezhava

File:Kerala state government's order to record thiyya community as such and not as a sub caste of Ezhava.jpg

Kerala state government's order to record thiyya community as such and not as a sub caste of Ezhava

In 2020 July, Kerala state government has issued an order to record Thiyya as Thiyya and not as a part of Ezhava nor its subcaste. In India, converting or writing one caste as another is a criminal offense.

Link to order kerala government's order from their official site :

https://education.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/govt.order_3072020.pdf

See the Kerala state government order and the followed news report given on right.

I hope Wikipedia also abides by the Indian Kerala government's official government order on the Thiyya caste.

So I request you to remove the redirect of Thiyya Wikipedia from Ezhava Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.173.249 (talk)

Pls deal with the repeated political-POV attempts to push Ayyavazhi

In the article titled Hinduism and other religions, I had removed the section on Ayyavazhi. Inclusion of Ayyavazhi in the article as a separate religion is a WP:POV agenda. It is neither recognised under as Indian law as separate religion and nor accepted widely as such. It is rather politically motivated vote bank" driven agenda of "select few" motivated interests. It is legally recognised in the Indian Constituion as a subset of Hinduism. I am sure that the regular editors here, who are watching wiki India Project, must be aware of discussions elsewhere on this topic. I have not been part of those discussions. Hence, calling up on all those editors those who have been involved in this discussion and know about the past consensus on this topic (whatever that may be). Please implement that earlier consensus on this article mentioned above.

Earlier today, I had removed the "Ayyavazhi" related text from the above-mentioned article with the edit comment "Ayyavazhi is not a recognised religion, just political movement of select few. it is classified as part of hinduism in indian constitution. Wikipedia is not a place to push for WP:POV politcal agenda. I have removed this sections", seehere] (my edit there is time and IP stamped as "18:20, 2 August 2021‎ 58.182.176.169". My edit was reverted by the user LauritzT, which I undid after leaving a message here on this notice board. I also left a message on the article's talk page so that future editors on that article can be guided by the India Project's decision if ever there is edit dispute on this topic again. Whichever way you guys decide, based on the past discussions on this topics, is fine by me. I am concerned that people might try to sneak in POLITICAL POV agenda on less watched articles.

I will not be involved in this further. I call upon India Project experts, who know the topics and have knowledge of prior decisions/decision on this matter, to please take care of this issue to its logical conclusion, i.e. whatever is your decision please ensure it gets applied to the article mentioned above.

Thanks you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rohit Thakur (politician) § Requested move 2 November 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rohit Thakur (politician) § Requested move 2 November 2021. Venkat TL (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pseudo-secularism#Requested move 25 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pseudo-secularism#Requested move 25 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 21:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Akhtar Hameed Khan Featured article review

I have nominated Akhtar Hameed Khan 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No response to semi-protected edit request

I made a semi-protected edit request here on 30 October 2021 but nobody has responded. Please do what I have requested there, that is, link the word, "unbelievers" to the Kafir article. Please also link the first occurence of the word, "non-Muslim" in the Dhimmi article, to the Kafir article, that is, for the first sentence of the article, "Dhimmī (Arabic: ذمي‎ ḏimmī, IPA: [ˈðimmiː], collectively أهل الذمة ahl aḏ-ḏimmah/dhimmah "the people of the covenant") or Mu'ahid is a historical term for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection", add a link for the word non-Muslims like this: non-Muslims. 116.75.72.217 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests sometimes take time to be responded to. Please be patient. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84, can you please do the needful (I saw that you edited one of those articles recently)?- 223.186.75.23 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Venkat TL, can you take a look at both those sentences and add the link as asked?-

DaxServer, can you do the needful?-

Karsan Chanda, can you add the links in those 2 articles?-

Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, can you add the links in those 2 articles?-

Draft:Alan Singh

(Rajput Treachery and Mina Foster-father) The story of (THE MINAS: Seeking a Place in History) the subject in the book (The Social and the Symbolic: Volume II) is that of Alan Singh Chanda. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Add this story to Alan Singh Chanda page? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please help me. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: As I note in this edit, that source is of no use in the Draft:Alan Singh article and is also of no use in asserting any sort of dynastic rule by the Meenas. Quite the contrary actually, since the source says that the Meenas, through their mythology, are inventing a past that did not actually exist. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

FL - List of presidents of India

There are indeed quite a changes to the Featured List - promoted version vs now. Could someone review the changes? (@Fowler&fowler if you'd like to :) ) — DaxServer (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Unfortunately, I don't know too much about them after Zakir Hussain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

We can organise an editathon, to destub articles and improve to GA status. Also, reviving the newsletter, revamping the Wikiproject design etc.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

Please can a speaker of the relevant language (probably Hindi) look at the newspaper cuttings on this school's website. Do these cuttings indicate that the school is sufficiently notable to justify a Wikipedia article?

• http://www.arspublicschool.com/Media-Gallery

Please add any comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, not at all justify the notability  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

I have nominated Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India 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. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mughal Museum#Requested move 1 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mughal Museum#Requested move 1 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 20:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Oriental studies § Proposed merge of Asian studies with Oriental studies

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriental studies § Proposed merge of Asian studies with Oriental studies. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Location question

Kamal Ahmed (music director) says this person was born in Gurgaon (present Haryana). A source says Gorgaun or Gor Gaun UP (which I believe is United Provinces in 1937). I have found a Gurgaon in Uttar Pradesh, which is not in WP anywhere that I can find. Is this article currently wrong by linking to Gurgaon? MB 13:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Might need page protection?

37.6.3.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) deleted a large amount of content from various pages including your userbox templates. Should some of this be semi-protected? Adakiko (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Adakiko, He is blocked after I reported him to WP:AIV. Thanks for reverting. I dont think anything needs to be protected. Venkat TL (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Prospective tree chart that needs to be wikified

How can this tree chart be wikified so that it can be used in articles such as Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019)? DTM (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft constitution (Constituent Assembly of India)

26 October 1947, Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir princely state to the Union of India

Prime Ministers (Dewans) of Jammu and Kashmir princely state (1947-1965)

Article 306

Constitution of India

Article 370

The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950

The Constitution of India (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Second Amendment Order 1952 (C.O. 48)

Sadr-e-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir

Article 35A

47 Presidential orders were issued between 11 February 1956 and 19 February 1994

Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir adopted 17 November 1956

Governor of Jammu and Kashmir

Chief Ministers of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (1965-2019)

5 August 2019

Article 35A stands abolished

The Constitution (Application to J&K) Order, 2019 (C.O. 272)

C.O. 272 supersedes C.O. 48

Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir rendered infructuous

Rajya Sabha passes J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019

6 August 2019

As of August 2021, there have been 105 amendments of the Constitution of India since it was first enacted in 1950.

Declaration under Article 370(3) of the Constitution (C.O. 273)

Lok Sabha passes J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019

Presidential assent for J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 on 9 August 2019

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Union Territory of Ladakh

Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir

Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh

Chief Minister of union territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Reorganisation Orders: Five orders deal with the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and three with the union territory of Ladakh

Fowler&fowler, in the edit summary where you removed this template, you wrote that the "template seems to be implying causal relationships that might not exist; removing. Please post at WT:INDIA and gain consensus". Please give one example of what you referring to. Accordingly I can make changes and add references where needed. DTM (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I implied that, but I meant advertise on WT:INDIA about a discussion in progress on the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization talk page. The problem is that what you have there is a bunch of disconnected timelines, as people have already pointed out on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Observances related to Kashmir; suggestions needed

What do we do about these articles?

• Observances in Kashmir, Jammu
  • 19 January— Jammu and Kashmir Exodus Day
  • 5 February— Kashmir Solidarity Day
    • New York marks Kashmir-American Day
  • 13 July— Kashmir Martyrs' Day
    • A black day for some Kashmir related organizations
  • 22 October— Jammu and Kashmir Black Day (Invasion Day)
  • 24 October— Azad Kashmir Day
  • 26 October— Jammu and Kashmir Accession Day
  • Other black days also observed by specific groups

(Disclosure- I have created two- Jammu and Kashmir Exodus Day & Jammu and Kashmir Black Day; and have made small edits in all of them to and made large sweeping edits to Kashmir Martyrs' Day; you should see the state of Kashmir Martyrs' Day before the copyedits started link)

Tagging you Fowler&fowler following your comments. While each of these may have POV, I've tried to balance it out by creating the above tree list; the articles between themselves intend to balance each other out and address POV. However, in this attempt I think POV within each article hasn't been adequately addressed, irrespective of the size of the articles at this stage. POV will be addressed. However just now I want to ask-

• Can we create a page List of observances related to Kashmir?

It starts off with the line- The Government of Pakistan and the Government of India observe various days related to the Kashmir conflict. There are a number of unofficial observances as well. - and then just list the days. There are more days such as 14 September, Martyrdom Day when Tika Lal Taploo was killed (link). DTM (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Awards

I think someone more familiar with India-related topics should see if the awards won by Umar Alisha are significant enough to remove the proposed deletion tag. SL93 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta. Venkat TL (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Indian monarchs

Could someone please take a look at this list and see if we have mythological kings mixed up with historically verifiable ones? For example, Yudhishthira is listed as a Kuru king while the article Yudhishthira is vague about his actual existence. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you can bet we do! Nor are the legendary listings very complete, it seemed to me. But it's not all that easy to draw a clear line between the two groups. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to add to the lead to warn the reader. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Nehru – Hagia Sophia – First publishing ?

In an article Jawaharlal Nehru refers to mosqueing of Hagia Sophia. The article seems to be written some months after 1935, has been republished as editorial selection for 2 part reprint by Mridula Mukherjee in w:National Herald India :

• Nehru’s Word: A tale of two mosques (17 Oct 2021) &
• Nehru’s Word: The Story of Hagia Sophia (24 Oct 2021)

Requesting help in finding out, when it was first published ,Books or news–media name and the name of publication?

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Any Malayalam language Wikipedians around?

Greetings,

Since past few months as online social media activity among Malayalam atheist Ex-Muslims increased, some of their online activism is spilling over in some of en Wikipedia articles. No doubt their initial enthusiasm is in good faith but successfully writing and navigating among English Wikipedia's numerous rules is a different ball game.

If sooner atheist Ex-Muslims are not trained and mentored for working on en Wikipedia lot many of their effort can get wasted, since some of them are not using references expected to en Wikipedia standard, for example User:Atheist kerala used blog postings as ref. So if any Malayalam language Wikipedians around then please guide mentor and help users like User:Atheist kerala may be by informing Which Malayalam media with reliable editorial board can be used and translated for referencing on Wikipedia, how focusing first in draft namespace with articles like Draft:Ex-Muslims of Kerala may benefit and helping update that article draft etc.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

2020 Uttarakhand forest fires needs updated

The 2020 Uttarakhand forest fires needs some updating as it is notable enough for inclusion at Weather of 2020. I do not know Indian sources, so I cannot easily update the article. Just wanted to alert the WikiProject about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll work on expanding it. Naushervan (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Siege of Malakand FAR

I have nominated Siege of Malakand 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Need immediate attention

Please some admin or senior editors close the AfD at Cyclone Jawad and move Draft:Cyclone Jawad to mainspace as its ready. 2402:3A80:6FD:B303:55D:9023:51BF:FF3E (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhu-vidya

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhu-vidya. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbhadhan (astrology)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbhadhan (astrology). Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hindu festival dates

Looking through the various wikipages pertaining to Hindu festivals, I find that there is no standard way of presenting the Hindu calendar dates in the holiday infobox. This leads to a set of problems / inconsistencies:

1. The months of all festivals that fall in krishna paksha are incomplete (Krishna Janmashtami, Karva Chauth, Naraka Chaturdashi, Maha Shivaratri). These dates must mention two months (to account for amanta and purnimanta tradition) which the wikipages never do.
2. Even in the case of festivals that fall in Shukla paksha, many of the dates are imprecise or plain wrong (Naga Panchami does not say which paksha the festival occurs in; Rama Navami says "ninth day of Chaitra" which is correct only in the amanta tradition, in the purnimanta tradition this will become 14th day; the term "day" should more correctly be qualified as "lunar day" etc.).
3. There is no consistency across festivals (See table below for a sample).

Inconsistency in specifying Hindu festival dates

Festival	Date field in infobox
Gudi Padwa	Chaitra Shuddha Pratipada
Rama Navami	Ninth day of Chaitra (Chaitra Shukla Paksha Navami)
Akshaya Tritiya	late April-early May
Guru Purnima	Ashadha Purnima (Shukla paksha, Bright lunar fortnight Full Moon) (June–July)
Naga Panchami	Fifth day (Panchami) of the month of Shravana month of the Lunar calendar
Raksha Bandhan	Purnima (full moon) of Shrawan
Krishna Janmashtami	<No date specified>
Ganesh Chaturthi	Bhadrapada (August–September)
Vijaya Dashami	Ashvin (September or October)
Karva Chauth	<No date specified>
Naraka Chaturdashi	Kartik Krishna Chaturdashi
Lakshmi Puja	Kartik Amavasya
Bali Padyami	<No date specified>
Bhai Dooj	Kartika Shukla Dwitiya
Vasant Panchami	<No date specified>
Maha Shivaratri	<No date specified>
Holi	Per Hindu calendar

I felt this could do with some standardization. Hence, I have written a template {{Hindu festival date}} which presents the Hindu calendar date using Sanskrit terms (encoded in IAST). Wikilinks defined on the individual terms lead to more explanations of those terms. I have also defined these dates in the wikidata item for each festival (the template picks it up from there). I have used this template in the above festivals' wikipages. Now they are all consistent in specifying the date field in the infobox.

Question: Is my approach correct? I feel it is correct, but what is the opinion of other editors? Do take a look at the pages of the festivals mentioned above and state your opinion here.

Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, but I prefer your {{Hindu calendar date}}. Wikidata has issues with oversight and vandalism. But here, a sort of opaque linking of page name and wd item is what bothers me. Template fetches P837 of wd item which matches page name, if I understand this correctly; so if page gets renamed (or more likely wikidata entry is vandalised), this would break, right? Hemanthah (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

2020 Assam gas and oil leak - improving

I'm looking for help with improving the quality of the 2020 Assam gas and oil leak article, especially with copy editing, adding images, and updating. There's substantial content there and I think we can bring it to Good Article status with a little effort. Please do chip in if you can. Thanks. - Naushervan (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to this book?

Hi. I wanted to verify an edit from 2012 related to Jawaharlal Nehru. Does anyone have access to this book:

• Ian Copland (1997). The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947. Cambridge University Press.

Specifically page number 258 and the lines:
In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India. In January 1947, Nehru said that independent India would not accept the Divine Right of Kings, and in May 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state.
DTM (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Verified - see p. 237. However, the quote has been cherrypicked from multiple factoids about Nehru and I do not believe it to be a fair representation of the subject's complex views on princely states, as portrayed by Copland et al.TrangaBellam (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. DTM (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Lakhimpur Kheri violence RfC needs input

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence#RfC about this incident being termed a 'mass shooting'

This is primarily a two-editor "pissing match" that has now turned into an RfC, with presently very low input, so it's turning into the same two-editor pissing match again. This needs to be settled, by uninvolved editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish the only user pissing on that page is you. I suggest you use the Template:Please see and avoid making such ridiculous comments about Rockcodder or me. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL Thanks for coming to my defence, but no thanks. SMcCandlish is right in this case. Rockcodder (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You should only speak for yourself. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is precisely why SMcCandlish is right. Rockcodder (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, as you have said that Candlish is right. Can you stop pissing over the talk page. I have already asked you to #Please stop Venkat TL (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions

Does anyone have a topic or idea for a Wikipedia Signpost article?
Some background: I have six published The Signpost articles, the last being "The reach of protest images on Wikipedia" (25 April 2021). While I do have some ideas in mind for another, I was curious if I could find something else to write about. DTM (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Farmer protest victory is an international news. You can cover the wikipedia articles on it. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Mohan Shrivastava up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Mohan Shrivastava (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Indian polititican. Question of notability. Inherent language problems. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Jat clans of Rajasthan

Almost every single article in Category:Jat clans of Rajasthan is completely unsourced, and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out whether any of these clans are notable or even exist. Would anyone here be interested in taking a look at some of these to see if they can be fixed or should be nominated for deletion? Lennart97 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe merge them into a single list? The sourcing problem is still there but as a list, I think notability is better defined. As they are, I think many would be deleted in an AFD discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply. That could definitely be an option. Looking at the wider Category:Jat clans of India, there are quite a few beyond Rajasthan that suffer from the same problems. Maybe just add a list to Jat people? I don't think it would be disproportionately long given the limited number of clans and the very limited amount of information per clan. Lennart97 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the only one. THere are many such walled gardens, just look under Category:Brahmin communities of India for another. —SpacemanSpiff 06:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The abundance of this type of articles is definitely a wider problem. As for the Jats, I've added a list of all Jat clans that we have articles on to the main Jat people article, and redirected all the unsourced stubs there. Their existence should still be verified by at least one source each, of course, but at least this way we have them all together. Lennart97 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

When and how was the Kachwaha dynasty established?

When and how was the Kachwaha dynasty established? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bipin Rawat § Rawat's caste

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bipin Rawat § Rawat's caste. Venkat TL (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Now escalated to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#General Bipin Rawat's caste--Venkat TL (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Marathi Speaker needed

I am aiming to understand the footnote referred in p. 68 (pdf page 97) of this book. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are wondering at how I ended up with this niche source: Gordon, S. (1993). Shivaji (1630–80) and the Maratha polity. In The Marathas 1600–1818 (The New Cambridge History of India). Footnote 44; p. 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this the text: "या पत्रांत आलेला रजपूत शब्द मराठा या अथौ आहॆ असे ठाण्याचॆ संशॊधक रा वी ल भावे य़ांचॆ मत आहे"? I don't know Marathi, but drawing on some Sanskrit knowledge ... possibly: "In the opinion of Thane researcher RVL Bhave, word Rajput has come in the place of (or instead of?) Maratha, at the end of this letter." Hemanthah (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That is close to what I understood using my knowledge of Sanskrit (and Devnagari script). But how does this make sense? The body goes, मग आपण पादशाहाचे रजेवरुतु स्वार होउनु बलदारी नजदीक आलो पुटे हि मजली दरमजली तामगौड-तर्फेस जात आहो [footnote] इत्यादि.TrangaBellam (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Jonathansammy and User:Akshaypatill - Can either of you help out? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam Hemanthah's interpretation is correct. It means, according to RVL Bhave, in the letter, the word Rajput is used to refer to Marathas. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the footnote only. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam I skimmed through the letter. The footnote is odd and makes no sense. There must be some kind of mistake. May be they have wrongly placed the footnote. Rajput is used only one time in the letter.(skimmed). If the footnote is misplaced and meant to be over that 'Rajput', the RVL Bhave is suggesting that Shahaji meant Maratha when he wrote Rajput. That's what I think. Does this make sense? Akshaypatill (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the footnote is in the 3rd line of that page, above "अज करूनु" of the line ending with "लिहिले हॊते" (which means written, so seems relevant as well). Devanagari 1 blends with diacritics and the footnote isn't prominent. Page 71 in the pdf, for example, has a lot of footnotes starting with numbers other than 1 and hence stand out more (and footnote 1 is placed on अज there as well allowing some comparison to this page) Hemanthah (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, thanks for your help! Can you locate the Rajput for me - away from my PC? I am trying to flesh out "endnote r" at Bhonsle. Nice observation, Hemanthah: I will check out the CRL scan, if things are any better. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Rajput is at the beginning of 8th line, previous page. "रजपुत लॊक अजी अलग" so on. I was wrong above, sorry. The foot note is above आहॊ as you said. Hemanthah (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam I could help if you tell specifically what are you looking for. The stuff Gordon has cited is explicitly written on page 65 (PDF Page-94) in the first paragraph, though Gordon has cited page 67. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It is also on page 67. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If it's any help, I've put the four relevant pages through Google OCR and put it up here. Hemanthah (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Sorry, I could not download the Marathi article by R L Bhave. Shivaji before his coronation was able to get genealogy that showed that his family was related to the Rajput Sisodia clan but whether the whole Maratha army was considered synonymous with Rajput army is a bit of a stretch.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.

Requesting your visit to following drafts pertaining to South Asia and help expand the same if any of these interests you.

• Draft:Aurat (word)
• Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai
• Draft:Aroosa Alam
• Draft:Muslim and Islamic Feminism in India
• User:Bookku/Muslim women in India
• Draft:Ex-Muslims of Kerala* Not created by me but supported for expansion.
• Still to be initiated.
  • Draft:My Choice (2015) a March 2015 short film, featuring Deepika Padukone
  • Draft:Sexual politics in south Asia
  • Draft:Urdu feminist literature

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review for Darjeeling

I have nominated Darjeeling 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Prasāda#Requested move 11 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prasāda#Requested move 11 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Jangladesh

Is this even real? The only source for the name is an offline book that is likely hard to check and probably not WP:RS. Also, a lot of this material is reproduced in Jat_states_in_Rajasthan (which also contains a ton of dubious material). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

W. Bengal & Bengali language

Greetings

Any one here with W. Bengal & Bengali language background ? This is some thing going 51 years back into W. Bengal history.

1) Second stint of former Chief Minster Ajoy Mukherjee was supposed to be some thing up to mid march 1970 when he resigned but info box in the article seems to show 5th Chief Minister of West Bengal In office 25 February 1969 – 30 July 1970. Can some one help looking into 30 July 1970 is correct or needs correction?

2) This time magazine article Dt. Monday, Mar. 30, 1970 says

"..Last week West Bengal's Chief Minister, Ajoy Mukherji,.., made an extraordinary broadcast detailing the sad condition of his state... "A disastrous situation has developed,..Violence is rampant, with riots, looting, arson, destruction of life and property, murder, and molestation of women." The next day Mukherji resigned.."

Rabindra Sarobar Stadium mass molestation case was way back in April 1969

and it's judicial inquiry report came in Dec 1969; In that speech Ajoy Mukherji was referring to same Rabindra Sarobar issue or was he referring to some other molestation cases?

Is there any subsequent memoir or interview of Ajoy Mukherji available detailing his aprehensions about women's rights and security in then West Bengal?

3) For similar women's rights issue I need help from some Bengali language knowing person in search and translation. There are political issues in the background but need a bit non political attitude while dealing with Women's rights issues. Can some one knowing Bangali language help?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you check the List of chief ministers of West Bengal? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for response, that list too gives gives 16 March to be his date of quitting the office. I came across one ref of Frontier weekly which discusses that he had announced resignation but had not resigned on the date news article was written So most probably is 16 March but getting confirmed would be better.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Srikanta Ghosh, S.K. Ghosh

Greetings,

On google books I came across a substantial body of titles relating to Law and Order in India by author name Srikanta Ghosh, S.K. Ghosh almost from 1951 to 2000.

From similarity of subject matter Srikanta Ghosh, S.K. Ghosh seem to be same person, but any one having access to Wikipedia library help confirm whether S.K. Ghosh and Srikanta Ghosh are same authors.

Secondly whether Srikanta Ghosh had any specific educational or career background in Law and Order?

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the subject and the author. They are the same person. The author used to be a director of the Law Research Institute in Calcutta and several of his books are published by the LRI itself. According to the books, he says he was also a former Inspector General with the Orissa Police (see, e.g. the first page here;https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ETStkm6TcwcC&pg=PR3&lr=&num=20&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2). While he is prolific, the quality of the books are not very significant (as evidenced by the very low rate of citations or subsequent usage of these texts in further research). You can see this review in the Journal of the Indian Law Institute (JILI) to get a sense of how they were received in academic circles. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950040. If I'm not wrong, this is a listing of him on the Odisha Police's Vigilance Department http://www.odishavigilance.gov.in/Odisha_Vigilance/history.aspx. If I'm right, he was in charge of anti-corruption and vigilance from 1961-64 so searching contemporary news sources might give you more information of any investigations he worked on. - Naushervan (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks @ User:Naushervan,

I got one more link https://www.odishapolice.gov.in/?q=node/3676 to which indicates S.K. Ghosh, IPS. as Ex-Police Chief for time 29.03.1964 to 21.03.1967. From there on he seems to have gone as Director Vigilance as cited in link given by you for period 23.09.67 19.05.69.

Info in the link given by you states that ".The organisation (Odisha State Vigilance) functioning under the General Administration Department of the Government of Odisha, headed by an officer of the rank of Director General & Inspector General of Police, as Director. So claim of he had been 'Inspector General of Police' seems realistic enough.

Though I see few citations for few of his books on Google scholar. So in case of Law we may avoid him as an expert, but in case of crime investigation if he might have had some expertise, I do not know. I I Usually Indian police officers were not specifically trained for doing academic writing so when we compare to other academic writing it may not come to our expectation. I have not read him in detail and you have so I will go by your words.

Thanks again for detail helpful info.

Warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:BHU § Requested move 22 December 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:BHU § Requested move 22 December 2021. User4edits (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A request of help to access an Indian source (physical book only)

Greetings!

Could any of the good people around here help me to access an Indian book, which I'd need as a source? I've filed a request also at WikiProject Resource Exchange, but I thought more eyeballs on this would be better. The book is only available in a physical copy, and it seems almost certain that one won't find it outside of India, so...

Anyway, your help would be highly appreciated! I look forward to hearing from you, and thanks a lot in advance! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book, but I do know that Calcutta University has a current, very active program to digitize their collections. Perhaps you could try writing to them, and asking if they have it? https://www.caluniv.ac.in/digital-lib-dev/ebook/ebook_catalog_landing.php (see the bottom of the page for contact details) - Naushervan (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Naushervan! I will sure do that! :-)

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:Koushal Kishor Mishra § Draft Suggestions before Re-Submissions

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Koushal Kishor Mishra § Draft Suggestions before Re-Submissions. Please let me know how this draft can be improved before re-submission, or is it good enough to submit User4edits (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Koli states and socks

Could someone have a look at List of Koli states and clans? This appears to almost entirely be the work of puppets of a single sockmaster. – Uanfala (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your advice on upGrad article

Please share your point of view about Draft:upGrad. It is a properly stated WP:COI about an Indian education company. upGrad is one of the five unicorn companies in India (companies with a capitalization over $1 billion). The draft was declined at the AfC with the comment from the reviewer that it doesn’t pass WP:NCORP. Specifically, the reviewer noted that none of the references are independent and reliable. I wonder if this has to do with an attitude to some particular Indian media. Could it be that coverage at some sources (Business Standard, The Economic Times, Mint and so on) are not in the list of reliable sources (WP:RSP)? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo It was declined 5 months ago when it looked a bit promotional. I haven't looked at the 30 sources but most say launch, merge, valuation, acquire in the headlines. That's the kind of coverage WP:CORPDEPTH terms trivial. You'd be better off listing a handful of sources that you think are the most significant instead of asking volunteers to evaluate 30 sources.

On BS, ET, Mint etc, a lot of articles there would clearly not pass the same way a lot of WSJ op-eds, Bloomberg website pages wouldn't pass. That's has nothing to do with attitude. Hemanthah (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hemanthah: fair point, thanks. I will work on the references, trying to optimize it. There were a lot of publications about the company recently that mention earlier facts. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft

Can any helpful editor search for some reliable sources for the development of the Draft:Sadashib (Fictional Character)?Michri michri (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Disamb for constituency articles with same name

Prathipadu (Assembly constituency) is in East Godavari district while Prathipadu (SC) (Assembly constituency) is in Guntur district. How do we disamb them removing the (SC) part from the latter article? — DaxServer (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Dont. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on this precedent from Gujarat and since it seems to be the only page in en-wiki with (SC) in title that's not a redirect, I'd prefer Prathipadu, East Godavari (AC) and Prathipadu, Guntur (AC). For arguments that it'd be 'making up a name', (1) aloofness of Indian bureaucrats leaves us no choice (2) that's how ECI refers to them in their docs - each appears under respective district's name anywhere they are mentioned (3) te-wiki has done the same. They also need to be Prattipadu, that's another issue though Hemantha (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hemantha's suggestion is acceptable to me. Venkat TL (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case, do we put the district suffix or leave like the how Kalol, Gandhinagar (Vidhan Sabha constituency) did? — DaxServer (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference between the two? As Hemantha said. "Place, District (Ac)" or "Place, District (VSc)" depending on what the the other constituencies of that state use, is acceptable to me. A final name Vsc vs Ac is being discussed for reaching a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics/Archive 4#Constituency titles. You might want to participate there. Venkat TL (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The second one: "Prathipadu, Guntur (Ac)" Guntur is both Guntur city and Guntur district while the first one is just East Godavari district. But upon further lookup, we don't disamb other articles with the district suffix, so that answers my question. Thanks for the notification, wasn't part of that WikiProject, lots of reading to do! — DaxServer (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, normally disambiguation is done by state names. In this case state is same, so district. Venkat TL (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone cleanup Template:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh as well. All constituency links should be to the new article titles. Also, not sure about keeping the (mostly redlinked) MLA links in the template. They aren't present in any other AC nav template. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed MLA names. Numbers also feel wrong, but I've left them. Could you clarify the 'new article tieles' sentence? What would be an example of wrong linking there? Hemantha (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

See the 'links to redirects' section in this -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've changed them. I missed one, perhaps that can be corrected when the above disamb is done. Hemantha (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the SC/ST info (and maybe numbering) in the template? — DaxServer (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not keen on numbers. I kept reservation info since karnataka template had it. Hemantha (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Has it been covered?

Gender based hate by Cyberstalking seems again in the news in South Asia. Has it been covered in any specific article or still to be covered?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Some detail was added by Xscontrib in Violence against Muslims in India. There was also the news about fake Harvard offers to women journalists, not sure where that would go. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark Employment scam? Venkat TL (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Better oversight needed by this project

Hello, everyone, I'm starting this discussion to inform that there needs to be better oversight by members of this project. Here on the English Wikipedia, there are dozens and maybe even hundreds of India-related articles that don't meet basic notability requirements. Bear in my mind, I'm not blaming the project for anything, however, there does not seem to be any involvement of this project in upholding the basic policies here on Wikipedia. I myself have nominated several articles, particularly on educational institutions in India, for deletion through PROD or to an Afd. Each one that was deleted all had failed to meet the GNG requirements. Even editors who are not members of this project, but are based in India have been creating articles on any given subject without knowing the requirements and don't improve their creations. These articles remain as stubs and/or orphans and have an extremely small chance of being expanded based on the limited information that exists.

Another factor is editors making wholesale changes such as moving articles without proper discussions on the right space such as article talk pages or the various discussion spaces like, Afd, Tfd, Ffd, Cfd, requested moves, etc... Now, these editors are new and learning their way and we should encourage informing them on how things work when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. This is where I think the responsibility of the project comes in. I alone can not go through every India-related article. But we should try to come up with a way to minimize the significant mess of non-notable articles and wholesale changes made by these editors.

This topic also includes categories and templates created by such users and are found to duplicate either existing categories and templates, or don't meet the necessity of having a category and template created.

I'm looking to hear back on how we can improve this issue. Feel free to ping me in response. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan, on the particular issue of school AfDs, do note that till 2017, they were indeed notable per policy. Their continued existence after that RfC can be questioned; but if you look at school delsort, that isn't unique to India. There are a lot of schools here so a lot of articles were created, but after policy change, they are being deleted.

I get your larger point, but instead of it being specific to this project, that kind of behavior is an outcome of how wikipedia is setup and has been observed site-wide since long ago. Quoting #20 from this list of observations on WP behavior, All the important articles are written already and so newer users will create pages on non-notable schools, films, actors and/or engage in conflict. Moreover, wikipedia disproportionately attracts passionate people, not experts, so notability grey areas are repeatedly tested. You can see this happen elsewhere too, NFOOT requirements were small enough that one in every six bio was a footballer's, but the RfC for stricter rules was blocked. Thousands more stubs were added semi-automatically from databases. The latest RfC isn't looking any better. Hemantha (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject India has 232,703 articles, including 101,810 low importance stubs. Your statement that "there are dozens and maybe even hundreds of India-related articles that don't meet basic notability requirements" is probably a huge understatement. Compared to other subject areas, this one has a considerable excess of enthusiastic creators of low quality articles, and a small and very over-worked group of experienced editors ready to devote large amounts of time to clean-up efforts. Finger-wagging doesn't help; getting involved in the work does. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not finger-waging, rather there needs to be better oversight in cooperation with this project. But as far as this project is concerned, I've only noticed this issue regarding India-related topics. There is a reason why I'm bringing this up here on the project's talk page. I've recently written an essay that talks about this, Not everything needs a template. And the number Johnbod provided emphasizes the issue. We have to come up with a way to sift through the articles, categories, and templates. I've started a subpage to map out all template categories and is in part to root this issue, but more about the broader issue of template creation. A category subpage to map non-template categories has yet to be created. Perhaps as part of the project, we should probably create an initiative to deal with this issue. And try to better inform new users from India who I have noticed creating these pages with very little effort made to improve them along the way. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Money is the solution The Wikimedia Foundation has a budget of more than US$1 billion for every five years. When they do fundraising, they do it in the name of lower and middle income countries, with India being prominent in their fundraising. India is 1/6 of the world's population and since Wikimedia is global, I think South Asia should be getting about 1/6 of the money raised. Instead I think that Indian editors get about US$30k a year, plus some extra money that the WMF gives to community groups in India who do not engage in Wikipedia community forums such as this one we are on now. If more money went to India, at least as much as went to other countries, then I think that content about India would be much more organized.

For various reasons there has been a lot of infighting in India about WMF money. At meta:Community Resources/Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021/Regional Committees the WMF promised that there would be a South Asian funding committee in August 2021, but I do not think that WMF actually started one. Also the WMF disestablished the meta:Wikimedia India chapter in 2019 promising to provide funding through other channels, but it never happened.

It is really hard to organize community with no resources. If money were scarce then I would understand. If WMF was transparent about where the money goes then maybe I would understand better, but so far as I know, they do not now and have never shared financial history of their funding to South Asia. Whatever happens, I think there will be no progress until some money for community organization goes to community groups in India. This is not just an English Wikipedia problem; this is a problem for Indian collaborations in all languages and for Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, and the rest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry, this relates to the topic how exactly? I'm not sure about its relevance. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: The problem is not lack of administration or process, but that for WikiProject India we do not have enough people from India who are able to participate. The bottleneck is in recruiting wiki editors, and India has proportionally fewer wiki editors as compared to almost any other project. Specific external forces put Indian editors at a disadvantage which does not exist for other topics. No amount of strategic planning or reallocation of the current labor pool will make up for the editor deficit which exists specifically for topics related to India. Changes which work and fix problems for other topics in Wikipedia will not work for India, because the editor landscape is so different and unusual here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I see. But even with that fact, I think it's best to gather a bunch of editors who are or aren't members of this project, myself included, to try to clamp down on non-notable subjects and other unnecessary mainspace creations. The project can be better organized and maintained without having to deal with more of this in the future. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Trakhan Dynasty

  You are invited to join the discussion about whether an (alleged) premodern dynasty of Gilgit deserves an individual page. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

New India, Alternate realities

The Bhakti movement heralded the freedom struggle in India. During the Bhakti Yuga, the saints and mahants of this country, from every part of the country whether it is Swami Vivekananda, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Ramana Maharishi, were concerned about its spiritual consciousness. It served as the precursor to the revolt of 1857.

Once again in the Amrit Kaal [present years], the spiritual consciousness is awakening in the country. This spiritual consciousness is working to become the foundation for the reconstruction of the nation.
— "Amrit Yatra of Golden India" (p. 19) in New India Samachar, Volume 2, Issue 13. January 1 2022. Press Information Bureau: Government of India

Srinath Raghavan's tweet caught my attention. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

^[Humor]

Certainly you have keen eye to find out a sleeping editor of a Government Publication. Those who did not born before 1857 can not influence 1857.

Just as a fun I tried to search how much we can stretch our imagination to link them to Mahatma Gandhi. Wikipedia page says Ramakrishna had visited home of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. So one can stretch imagination for is Swami Vivekananda, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to have influenced M.K. Gandhi. After all Gandhi too was a vaishnivite. :) You will need to need to find some south Indian political links to stretch imagination to Ramana Maharishi to M.K. Gandhi probably some one may be able to stretch that but how will you stretch back into time to 1857? May be they are referring to some different calendar.

Ramakrishna Mission > Swami Anand > Mahatma Gandhi

Ramakrishna > Keshub Chandra Sen > Mahadev Govind Ranade > Gopal Krishna Gokhale > Mahatma Gandhi

• Update on Ramana Maharishi

According to these Quora replies Rajagopalachari had not allowed M.K. Gandhi to meet Ramana Maharishi but Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan seems to have visited both of them and M.K.Gandhi's vehicle had passed from doors of Ramana Maharishi. ;)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Elections"

In standard English (as far as I know), the voting for candidates to a legislature is called an "election". In India, it is referred to as "elections" (plural), while the voting for each constituency might be called an "election".

Does our "Indian English" usage allow the plural version? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Zamindar - clean up

Zamindar was vandalised. Could someone aware of the topic do some verifications and clean up? Thanks! — DaxServer (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

RSN discussion on Srivastava Group

There is an ongoing proposal on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the blacklisting of websites of the Srivastava Group. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Srivastava Group. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Pongal (festival)

Could someone take a look at this article? A bunch of IPs are switching between Tamil festival and Hindu festival. Though I've semi-protected it, I'm not sure which one is correct. Thanks. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Both are incorrect. Pongal is celebrated in Kerala too (non-Tamil) and by non-Hindus as well. I do see an effort lately to tag things Hindu. Chaipau (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Justice for Persecution of Dalits

I suspect that some people are concealing the content about Persecution of Dalits. Some are aggressively redirecting it without deleting it.

Georgethedragonslayer decided to revert me for Righting great wrongs but the rule itself is not claiming that I broke the law.[8]

Azuredivay, a complete stranger, is trying to intimidate me. I haven't ever encountered him before.[9]

I'm appealing to the entire Indian group for assistance and justice. Friendly Eagle (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

How is persecution of Dalits different to and from Caste violence? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: greetings. It is different in the same way as Persecution of Hindus differs from Religious violence.Friendly Eagle (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

So, is it your claim that non-Dalits are subject to caste violence, to such extents, that they need their own article? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:Yes sir. there are thousands of source materials available on this topic.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

persecute (OED): To seek out and subject (a person, group, organization, etc.) to hostility or ill-treatment, esp. on grounds of religious faith, political belief, race, etc.; to torment; to oppress.

Anybody want to argue that Dalits don't face that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

My emphasis on non-Dalits. If Hindus were the only persecuted religion in earth and always at the receiving end of violence; we would have prolly redirected Persecution of Hindus to Religious violence or vice-versa. We do not, since all religions have faced (and face) different forms of violence etc.

In a similar manner, if you can show that non-Dalits are significant victims of caste-violence, I can be convinced that we need two pages on these topics. List of incidents of caste-related violence in India for anybody and everybody, who is a victim of caste-violence. And, Persecution of Dalits for documenting caste-violence specific to Dalits. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Persecution of Dalits, as it currently exists, is not a list article. It was redirected apparently because an IP decided that it was a "nonsense article".

Friendly Eagle, you have displayed an impressive list of scholarly sources here, but they need to be used in developing the article as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a special type of article called lists, which must remain lists? Ahem: didn't know that. In that case, the redirect is invalid; I was planning to rewrite the list as an article on caste-violence. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, WP:STANDALONE. Please feel free to make an article too, if you wish. But the persecution of Dalits is on a different scale, and not just limited to "caste violence". Even today, in most parts of India, Dalits have to live outside the village. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the dalits are not shudras, the 4th varna. The dalits are not considered to have emanated from Purusha, so do not fall within the varna system (which is different from caste). I agree with Kautilya3—this is whole another level. Chaipau (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not limited to "caste-violence" - Like? This is not my domain of interest but I guess scholars, by definition, term any violence directed at Dalits (for being Dalits + add intersectionality) as "caste-violence"? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• To answer your question above, TrangaBellam: I really don't think there's any debate among scholars that non-Dalits face caste-based persecution. Obviously not all non-Dalits do, but the many layers of stratification within the caste system mean that more than one stratum can experience (and perpetuate) discrimination. As such, persecution of Dalits is always going to remain a subset of caste-based persecution, and both articles are entirely justifiable. There is an unfortunate tendency for these articles to become lists, because very many editors are interested in highlighting every instance of persecution faced by a given community, and because very few editors have the time and the ability to write a reasonable prose summary of the whole topic; but that's a different problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Err - I messed up on something. Sure, shudras and vaishyas. Atleast. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the word "Persecution" is being improperly used as the title. The definition that we have used on Wikipedia for persecution, especially on Persecution of Hindus, implies systematic oppression. I think the article should be retitled to Discrimination against Dalits since "discrimination" that is what the sources mainly talk about including the ones provided by the OP above. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Discrimination" is what happens when you apply for a job and get turned out for no good reason. Persecution is what happens when you get beaten up for drinking water from a well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Still it needs to be systematic. It is illegal in India to beat up anybody for drinking from a well, thus the existing discrimination does not meet the definition of 'persecution'. This is why reliable sources call it 'discrimination' than 'persecution'. Akshaypatill (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a claim you're making; are you seriously arguing that reliable sources do not speak of systemic persecution against historically underprivileged caste groups, including Dalits? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

They mainly talk about discrimination and do not use the term "systematic persecution" as it is doubtful. 'Persecution' is valid for the subjects like Persecution of Falun Gong, Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc because it involved 'systematic' oppression. Dalits are treated equally by the constitution and laws of India.

The subject is largely attracted by the publication from HRW, which was "Hidden Apartheid Caste Discrimination against India's "Untouchables"".[18] It most commonly uses the term 'discrimination'.

"Dalit" is a political term and the actual term is Scheduled Castes,[19] and another term for the same is Untouchable,[20] for which we already have Untouchability. Britannica notes on "Untouchable": "The use of the term and the social disabilities associated with it were declared illegal in the constitutions adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India in 1949 and of Pakistan in 1953. Mahatma Gandhi called untouchables Harijans (“Children of the God Hari Vishnu,” or simply “Children of God”) and long worked for their emancipation. However, this name is now considered condescending and offensive. The term Dalit later came to be used, especially by politically active members, though that too occasionally has negative connotations. The official designation Scheduled Caste is the most common term now used in India."[21]

Now it makes me wonder why we need a Persecution of Dalits when we already have Caste-related violence in India, Untouchability, and Dalit#Discrimination talking about the same subject. A "Persecution of Dalits" does not come up with an original idea that hasn't been already covered in these articles or the specific caste pages. I see the violation of WP:POVFORK. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dalits are treated equally by the constitution and laws of India." This is an utter non-sequitur. Whether or not we have an article about the phenomenon depends on how much coverage there is of the topic. There is a vast literature on caste-based violence and persecution, a vast literature on Dalits (including, but not limited to, any caste relations); far too large to be accommodated in single articles. As such, Persecution of Dalits is a valid spinoff. Furthermore, whether the term originated as a political term or not is irrelevant. We name our articles based on WP:COMMONNAME, and high-quality reliable sources consistently prefer the term "Dalit"; Britannica isn't a weighty enough to overcome that usage. The arguments you are putting forward suggest you need to go read some of these sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Though all Dalits may belong to one or the other scheduled caste groups, not all groups in the list of scheduled castes are dalits. Chaipau (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Narayan Apte article?

English Wikipedia should probably have a standalone article on Narayan Apte as several other Wikipedias do (see Wikidata item Q1391266) and English Wikipedia once did. I can understand the logic of User:Winged Blades of Godric's decision to redirect our article, but the same rationale could be extended to apply to Nathuram Godse, if I'm not mistaken. Gandhi's assassination was a major event, so having multiple articles covering various people involved, etc. doesn't seem like an inherently bad idea; but more importantly (this is actually how this came to my attention), Googling the name "Narayan Apte" currently brings up a Fandom wiki as the top result, then German Wikipedia, and then our article on Narayan Hari Apte, which is pretty unsettling: while I'm sure the latter person was aware, during his lifetime, of the similarity of his name to that of one of the men who murdered the Father of India, I don't think he expected that decades after his own death something called Google would tie him with said murderer when something called Wikipedia no longer had a standalone something called a webpage about said murderer. We have a disambig headnote, but that doesn't show up in the Google preview, so I think we should probably include this in our determination of whether the Narayan Apte topic merits its own article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCRIME. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I meant WP:CRIME. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

But wouldn't that also apply to Nathuram Godse? The real reason we have an article on Godse is because we have enough information on him to write an encyclopedic biographical article with more information than could reasonably be incorporated into the the article on the assassination (WP:GNG). It seems that Apte's involvement with the assassination, too, attracted enough attention that we have enough information to write a biographical article, and WP:CRIME (which would not trump GNG even under normal circumstances) probably assumes that not having a separate sub-article won't lead to a conflation of an unrelated person with the criminal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Banaras Hindu University has an RFC

Banaras Hindu University, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. User4edits (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely unsourced article

Bengal Volunteers needs attention or AfD. -- Valjean (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I reached out to the creator of the article (@Dwaipayan) and unfortunately they are not able to recall any of the original sources used when the article was created. It appears that some of the sources may have been in the Bengali language. Perhaps someone who speaks Bengali can help out. If no sources can be found an AfD is inevitable. - Naushervan (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me take a look in some of the Adam Matthews archives. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I added some random references, to verify notability. Does not need to be AfD :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think your 'random references' need some checking. E.g. Srilata Chatterjee's book (your first source) does not refer to Bengal Volunteers as a distinct body, but rather as volunteers of the Congress party. I've left a comment on the talk page, I urge you check these references once more. - Naushervan (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course the sources need checking. My point was notability. As long as the notability is established, verification of individual facts are welcome. This reference actually may help understanding the relationship between different "volunteer" corps/organization with Congress (INC). BV was also a part of INC (Subhash Bose "formed" it on the occasion of INC session in Kolkata, mainly as a show off). Later, BV somewhat took a more revolutionary tone, under Satya Gupta. But those details have not been added in the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If the point is to establish notability, then the fact that the sources do not support the claims does not work in your favour. - Naushervan (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

this and this references should serve the purpose (claim of existence). Also, added a few Bengali references; don't currently have access to "Ami Subhash Bolchhi", which is a popular biography of Subhash Bose (in Bengali) and had some content about BV. Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dwaipayanc: This book (text version) available on archives seems to have some mention about it. See if it helps.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Maqpon Dynasty

  You are invited to join the discussion about whether a dynasty of Skardu deserves an individual page. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive WikiProject Ganjam

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ganjam is (was?) never active. I think we should consider archiving it, and perhaps redirect the non-existing talk page(s) here. It was created by Kukunmishra (talk · contribs), who last edited the wiki last year. The subpages Wikipedia:WikiProject Ganjam/Articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ganjam/Navigation are empty. Only the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ganjam/New articles is being updated by a bot. Perhaps the link to the bot update page could be added somewhere? If not, the config could be removed from the bot. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 10:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why archive? Just redirect to parent project. Odisha in this case. If the creator returns or others want to restart the can continue from where they left. The bot can be configured to use Odisha and stop tagging Ganjam. Venkat TL (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahh true. Same fate as Wikipedia:WikiProject Visakhapatnam — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What about the subpages? Do we also redirect them to WP Odisha main page? — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer, I suggest leaving them as it is. Tthe subpages are rarely linked from mainspace talk pages and users are not expected to reach them. Venkat TL (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Even the Odisha wiki-project is inactive; just redirect everything to WikiProject India? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think most of the state/ut, city sub-projects are inactive. @SpacemanSpiff once mentioned of removal of these groups from our WP banner to reduce clutter. Perhaps we notify the inactive workgroups and if there's no interest/response, we can redirect?

@Venkat TL I've mentioned archiving since I saw there was a "Archived Projects" section in the navigation here: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Navigation — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions, but I would prefer to let them be. I regularly use WP Tamil Nadu to find articles for improvement. The table of articles assessed with quality is also helpful, so I would prefer they be left. I would prefer that the Talk pages of inactive projects be redirected to this page, after a month's notice. Venkat TL (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Since VenkatTL finds them to be useful, I don't have any opposition to the status-quo. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

upGrad article advice

Please give your advice on Draft:upGrad. It is a properly stated WP:COI about an Indian education company. The draft was declined at the AfC with the comment from the reviewer that it didn’t pass WP:NCORP. Do you think that this issue still exists after the rewrite? Any advice that you can give me on improving the article? Thanks! --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Chach

  You are invited to join the discussion about whether a battle deserves an individual page. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Strange coincidences

Two different countries, two different newspapers, and two different authors, but exactly the same content:

• Namita Singh Faculty members of California State University protest inclusion of caste in non-discriminatory policy, Independent, 24 January 2022.
• Sasani Vanraj, Faculty members of California State University protest inclusion of caste in non-discriminatory policy, USA Today, 24 January 2022.

Even the typos are identical:

“To our great disappoint, CFA did not consult any of us,” they said.

This is what I call Global Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Vanraj is a blogger from Gujarat, who also runs the shady "Times of Rajkot". He had plagiarized the article off Singh, who is indeed a journalist. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Even the picture! The typo is hilarious. I think it's not the USA Today, but something else unrelated to it. [Was shocked thinking it might be USA Today] They have a "Play And Earn" at the top of the page, which leads to spam/scam/phishing site. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 14:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Is not Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India a duplicate of Fundamental rights in India + Directive Principles? I suggest making the former about Fundamental Duties alone.

Not much acquainted with Indian Constitution, hope the proposal is sensible. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In my view, they are not duplicates at all. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties provide an overview of Parts III, IV, and IVA of the Constitution. These are generally grouped together because of commonalities in the drafting history (as is demonstrated by the extensive section on that in the article). The specific articles on FRs and *DPSP (not FD, sorry) provide subject-specific detail and also address developments in law (e.g. significant court cases). I encourage you to read the articles again - you will see there is not much duplication of content and adequate linking. However, in practical terms a separate article *for Fundamental Duties makes very little sense, because they are not legally enforceable, and so there is not much substantive to add in terms of their development and application to warrant a separate article. I understand that there is renewed interest in Fundamental Duties because the Prime Minister recently made a speech about them, but we should not let contemporary politics influence Wikipedia's objectivity. - Naushervan (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced by your reasoning.

That being said, what is this speech you are talking 'bout? I arrived here because I have been sweeping through shabby GAs on Indian topics (since long back; see u/p): Talk:Fundamental rights in India/GA1 being the latest. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You have made two separate claims. The first claim (that the two articles have overlap) is not substantiated. I have pointed that out. If you want to make a convincing case for merging the articles, I think the onus is on you to present more of an argument than the one sentence you've offered above. Seems a bit strange to argue that you are not convinced when you have not made the case in the first place. The second point you've said is for a separate article on Fundamental Duties. In my opinion (as a lawyer and someone who studies constitutional law) a separate article is unwarranted at the moment. I've stated that very clearly, along with my reasons why. If you think a separate article is needed, I think you'll have to actually present at least one reason for it if not more (right now you've only said you want a separate article - you've given no reason for it at all. In the absence of any arguments (let alone strong ones) in favor of both of your points, I think it's worth shelving this for now or revisiting it when you have more to offer. - Naushervan (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The second point you've said is for a separate article on Fundamental Duties. - I thought that Fundamental Duties might be something important in enough to deserve a page. I cannot care less if the entire page can be gutted and FDs redirected to 42nd Amendment.

You claim that

[Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties] are generally grouped together because of commonalities in the drafting history (as is demonstrated by the extensive section on that in the article)

However, we have nothing on the drafting of FDs in the section except a single line: The Fundamental Duties were later added to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. I consulted a few sources and none mentioned FDs to share a common drafting history with FRs and DPSP.

The section on FR and DSP are indeed executive summaries of their respective articles; in May 2021, an editor had already trimmed large chunks of content off the page for being duplicate of the page on FR. The section on criticism and analysis is, let's just say, weird.

I am in awareness that FRs and DPSP are intricately interlinked but that does not mean we have to have three articles: one on FR, one on DPSP, and yet another on FR + DPSP. That being said, it is better to move this discussion to talk-page; the purpose of posting at WT:INB is met with. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't see any single reason you have offered for why Fundamental Duties should be a separate page. Is there any content you want to add apart from the list of duties? You claim that you are unaware of the current political discussions around them, so what else would you add? What do you think a separate page would achieve that isn't already being achieved? Additionally, you still haven't made a strong case for deletion and merger. If anything, you've made a case for article improvement (which I agree with and am happy to take on). I suggest you take this to the specific articles' talk pages so that the major edits you've discussed can also be taken into consideration. - Naushervan (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to read what others are writing.

Pursuant to your reply, I changed my stance and wrote: I thought that Fundamental Duties might be something important enough to deserve a page. I cannot care less if the entire page [is] gutted and FDs redirected to 42nd Amendment. So, I do not want a separate page on FDs. My sole aim is to not have a page that will necessarily be a duplicate of our pages on FR and DPSP, when they will be well-written enough. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed - Images of 20th c Indian suffragists

I've been working on a series of biographies of Indian suffragists and writers for WP:WIRED and I hope that someone can help with sourcing and adding images to these articles (in addition to any other improvements that you can suggest). Most of these are from the 20th century (some 21st) and I'm not sure of where I might find the images. Would be very grateful for help. The pages are:

1. Kamala Satthianadhan(1880-1950) - writer
2. Hamida Salim (1922-2015) - writer, economist
3. Shantabai Dhanaji Dani (1919-2001) - writer, politician, social worker
4. Susila Anita Bonnerjee (died 25 September 1920) - doctor, educator, activist
5. Lakshmibai Rajwade (1887–1984)- doctor, feminist, family planning advocate
6. Sudhanshubala Hazra (19th c) - lawyer
7. Taraben Premchand - suffragist, AIWC member
8. Dorothy Jinarajadasa (1882 - 1963) - feminist, activist, writer
9. Sarala Roy (1861-1946) - educator, AIWC President, activist
10. Hannah Sen (1894–1957) - educator, AIWC President, politician
11. Regina Guha (died 1919) - educator, lawyer

For the two AIWC *members, there are images on the AIWC website, but I am not sure of the copyright status.

Thank you! - Naushervan (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NFCCP 1 and 8 has you covered, irrespective of copyright status. My institutional library has an extensive collection of microfilms of Indian newspapers; will check them on their date of death. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not gone ahead with using the AIWC images even though I probably could, partly because they are very low-res and unattributed. So I wrote to AIWC to ask if they have any more images in their archives. If they respond, I'll add them, but for now was hoping for other sources. Appreciate the help! - Naushervan (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Purshottam Lal

Hello, WikiProject,

Could someone review this newly created article for notability? I'm not familiar with the sources, my editing instinct was to tag it for deletion but I wanted to get a second opinion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Liz, the chief of an Indian Police org, is notable. See Indian_Police_Service#Pay_structure_of_Indian_Police_Service. The article may need clean up for promo tone. Venkat TL (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhatsApp snooping scandal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhatsApp snooping scandal. Venkat TL (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anbinnagaram

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

Wholly unsourced for 8.67 years

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion nomination and tagged it for citations. Venkat TL (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

International sock farm to glorify Karna

Based on the SPI results, there is a multinational sock farm attacking Indian mythological articles with statement "Karna is the main protagonist of Mahabharata" and variations of this statement. @DaxServer and @MelanieN have found a few recently. Please report such socks on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashthakurkamail.

Also does anyone know why someone is promoting Karna? Venkat TL (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I just filed an ANI for wider attention: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For the why, see Karni Sena (their Padmaavat protests were covered widely). Until recently, its lead read similar to some of the diffs above. Yashthakurkamail has been there as well, but to remove some glorification(?). hemantha (brief) 04:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Karni Sena and Karna are separate. @Venkat TL: The fight between Karna fans and Arjuns fans is an old one. Both groups have annoying, rabid members but the former is far worse. The popular image of Karna courtesy fictionalized TV serials contradicts Vyasa's Sanskrit text. Fans probably find it difficult to accept and take such steps to puff him up with more fiction.(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC))

Oh, then Karni Mata was also vandalized. I've removed it now. hemantha (brief) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(Panchalidraupadi and hemantha thank you for letting me know the possible reasons for this vandalism campaign. I had a suspicion that Indian TV serials were to blame. But I had no idea the problem had become so bad. Indian viewers fail to note the disclaimer in the beginning that everything is fiction in these serials. Venkat TL (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Problem is, these fans know the "names" of the critical edition of Mahabharata, various translators, etc. Might have been even read them in bits and pieces for confirmational bias. And now citing them with false info. For instance, in Jaya page, I saw a new anonymous edit of Karna being called Jaya. The citation provided by them is authentic but it actually states the opposite. It is Vibhatsu (another name for Arjuna) who is also called Jaya, not Karna.-(Panchalidraupadi (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC))

Panchalidraupadi, glad to know that we have you to spot the disruption that could have escaped from my eyes. A short note on the talk page and in edit summar during revert will help the admins and page watchers to spot vandalism and differentiate them with vandalism revert. I also suggest that you copy paste your comments you posted here on, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata. As I believe this is useful information that will help the admins on ANI to understand the background of this disruption. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Done. Thanks. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I found an interesting forum thread [22] from 2014, where people discussed how Mahabharata-related pages are in bad shape and that they are modified to reflect per TV series versions! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Jagadish Chandra Bose

Could someone verify if these Karna edits on Jagadish Chandra Bose constitute a copyvio [23] ? The sourcing from a GoI page is also really unreliable as well. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: I was part of that forum once. Yes it is true. In fact, that time the Wiki pages were edited as per TV serials. Regarding JC Bose, I am checking with an offline source if this article is true or not. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed

I am new here. I made a couple of requests here, here and here. I don't know if I made those requests correctly. Please take a look and do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:53AA:5467:E9D6:110A:3DBA:ABE (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

DaxServer, I observed that you have edited some of those talk pages, so can you please carry out those requests also? Some of the requests were made as early as 24th January and nobody has bothered to reply or carry out those requests!-2405:204:5097:B014:F83A:2702:C785:FDDE (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the request at Talk:India, I see that someone is already looking into the info. I don't know much about the Gini values, so I'd leave it for others. Regarding Love jihad, I am not involved in the content and will need to familiarise myself first, unfortunately it is not on my priority list and wouldn't be able to do anytime soon. War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) content is something that I'm categorically unaware of, either way I see that it is being handled. Thanks for pinging me. Best! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 18:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

DaxServer, the request I made here was, The Maratha Empire article says, "The Marathas are credited for ending Mughal Rule over most of the Indian subcontinent", so should that sentence not be added to this article?. How do I get someone to do the needful? Almost a whole week has passed since I started making these requests!-2405:204:5097:B014:F83A:2702:C785:FDDE (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think probably @RegentsPark or @TrangaBellam or @Kautilya3 could help with this. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: I've commented in the relevant section at Talk:India. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Indian film draft ready for submission

Draft:Raavan (2022 film) is ready for submission. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 18:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics § Election Results section of Constituency articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics § Election Results section of Constituency articles. Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)--Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

1969 Kolkata/ Calcutta CoPs; any Bengalis around here? requesting disambig help

Greeting,

EN Wikipedia articles Police Commissioner of Kolkata and Ranjit Kumar Gupta show that by 1967 Ranjit Kumar Gupta took over Police commissioner responsibilities from one P.K. Sen. Same time one contemporary news report of the Indian Express in April 1969 names P.K. Sen's statement as Commissioner of Police. Another source Telegraph India seem to indicate Gupta took over from Sen some time in 1969 . This another news (Economic and Political Weekly report gives specific date 10 July 1970 as date of R.K. Gupta taking over from Mr. Sen.

So can some one help out in finding out and disambiguate up to when P.K. Sen was functioning as CoP and when did R.K. Gupta took over from him?

If possible what was the name of Dy. CoP's name in April 1969? This question since initials P.K. Sen can be fairly common in W. Bengal so by any chance there were more than 1 P.K. Sen in Kolkata Police in 1960s/ 70s hence there is confusion or the confusion is just like that?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Alan Singh Chanda

Draft:Khogong king of Draft:Alan Singh. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Flags in Kashmir infoboxes

Flags – like or – are generally allowed (though not encouraged) in the infoboxes for populated places or administrative divisions: MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. However, for places in the disputed Kashmir region (whether administered by India or by Pakistan) it has been my understanding that the use of such flags is strongly discouraged. I'm planning to remove the flags from any articles that still use them. Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do. Flags, emblems, etc. are symbols of the administrations. The large five subdivisions are generally monitored for their presence, but the smaller ones are very likely not. So, thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Mahendar Prasad Singh

If anyone had a minute or two to review this short article, I would appreciate it. It looks like an article that needs strong sources that are probably easy to find if it is an accurate account of a historical figure. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 2 § Category:Neo-Nazism in India

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 2 § Category:Neo-Nazism in India. Venkat TL (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The admin mistakenly closed it in 2 days. This thread has been reopened. Need more eyes from this wikiproject members. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Changes in Discretionary Sanctions for India-Pakistan-Afghanistan

The Arbitration Committee is evaluating changing the relevant ACDS remedy:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

to

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to political or religious topics and closely related people in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including but not limited to castes.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: The motion did not pass and hence the wording was not modified. — DaxServer (t · c) 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Please see the following AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit Sharma (Delhi cricketer)

Looking for anyone with access to sources/coverage in Hindi, if they exist. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Finding articles about the establishment of the American Embassy School in Delhi from The Hindu or other key Indian newspapers

Hello! I'm trying to find sources to create a notable article about the American Embassy School in Delhi.

I am not aware of ways to access 1970s era or so archives of The Hindu which would talk about the establishment of the school. Considering its profile and ties with the American community I imagine such articles would exist.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)