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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I entirely disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Awaiting merge - Peera Garhi Chowk article

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

Talk:Historical_Vaikundar#Requested_move_22_October_2023

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

Retroactive application of reliability

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

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

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

Overlook on an article

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categorization

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

Parmatma Ek Sevak

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

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

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

Talk:Shambuka#Scholarly_take_on_"interpolation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bihag

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

Kundalpur, Madhya Pradesh

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

Predecessor of Eastern Bengal and Assam

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

Bajirao I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on some aggressive editing/AfD

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

Disambiguation of links to Koli language

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

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

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

Proposal for Kashmir-related articles' reference list

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim Rangrez and Rangrez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bhajan Lal Sharma new Rajasthan CM repeatedly vandalized

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

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

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

Incorrect information on Tons River page

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

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

Divya Dwivedi has an RfC

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

Change in page "Road signs in India"

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

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

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

Page move discussion

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

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

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

Very fan-ish language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo archive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Physics Wallah

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

Request for review

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

Request for comments

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

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

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

Please review and approve the draft article

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

Polygamy in India

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

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

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

Any additional sources for Navleen Kumar?

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

Invite to the Unsourced

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive

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

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

Extra eyes on Ram Mandir

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

Greater Punjab Movement, India

Please review the Greater Punjab Movement, India.

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

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

Bias Brahmin

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

Proposed deletion of Periyasekkadu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article reassessment for Paresh Mokashi

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

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

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

Kundalpur, Madhya Pradesh

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

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

Split proposal

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

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

Population updates for Infoboxes of Indian states

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

Split - India at the CWC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article reassessment for Prithu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox style for city related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Rohilla AFD

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

Taj Mahal

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

Organizing of Wiki Loves Campaign

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

Script related discussion

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

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

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

Professional Tax

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback requested at Talk:Ahomisation

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Court fire

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

+ in the names of electoral alliances

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

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

See:

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

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

Discussion at RSN that requires input

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

On Gadarias, Kurubas, Dhangars, etc.

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

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

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