Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 234: Line 234:
::To be fair, the [[Azad Kashmir]] page says only "is a nominally self-governing jurisdiction administered by Pakistan" They are already on board with "administered." Consistency, of course, is the nub of the proposal. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 15:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
::To be fair, the [[Azad Kashmir]] page says only "is a nominally self-governing jurisdiction administered by Pakistan" They are already on board with "administered." Consistency, of course, is the nub of the proposal. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 15:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
:::You've my support to fix this lead boldly as you see fit. --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 15:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
:::You've my support to fix this lead boldly as you see fit. --[[User:Saqib|Saqib]] ([[User talk:Saqib|talk]]) 15:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
{{undent}} I am very much in favor of standardization. Perhaps...
<blockquote> ____________ is a region administered by India/Pakistan/China as a state/union territory/{{highlight|nominally}} self-governing entity, and constituting in a general way the northern/western/southern/southeastern/eastern portion of the larger [[Kashmir]] region. All regions of Kashmir except its east have been the subject of dispute between India and Pakistan since the [[Partition of India]] in 1947; administration of its east has been disputed between India and China since 1959. </blockquote>&nbsp;♦&nbsp;[[User:Lingzhi2|Lingzhi2]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Lingzhi2|(talk)]] 15:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:51, 15 August 2019

WikiProject iconIndia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(69 more...)

Proposed deletions

(10 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(3 more...)

Miscellany for deletion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(6 more...)

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

(9 more...)

Articles to be merged

(49 more...)

Articles to be split

(14 more...)

Articles for creation

(32 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot
Shortcuts

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Pallava dynasty

I have added new info on Pallava dynasty's page with an apt citation. A user is determined to remove them somehow, just because he thinks that it's redundant. Kindly look into it.

Thanks, User:Destroyer27 (User talk: Destroyer27) 1:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Caste of V G Siddhartha (CCD founder)

Please take a look at Talk:V._G._Siddhartha#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_3_August_2019, Folks are trying to mention his caste that some other editor had removed from the article. Although I did not remove this, I responded to this request. the IP has now come up with an HT article that mentions his caste, can this be added or should we seek for a primary source from the subject himself claiming it. like we do for BLPs. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Religion--DBigXrayᗙ 14:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This article is currently featured on Mainpage as Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD:_V._G._Siddhartha --DBigXrayᗙ 14:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed my thoughts over there. To other members of the community, where can one find the actual guideline that says that caste must be self-identified? It seems like something that should be found at MOS:BIO, especially considering caste issues are subject to discretionary sanctions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine adding, because even Sir would be happy as it would define him 'The son of soil, son of coffee'. Its definitely pointless arguing further, every community has to get the credit of the people that it has produced..

There is ambiguity in the caste brother. If you give the full name then you have to specify.. Or else readers might assume the other ' Hegde's ' Please understand.. Its actually misleading readers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.82.214 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please start signing your posts by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~ This is a requirement and it will append a signature and time stamp so that readers will know who posted what. Your opinion about it being "fine" to add is irrelevant, because we have a long-standing practice of only adding caste information if it is self-identified. Rather than wasting time arguing fruitlessly about this, why don't you try to find that self-identification? That way we can move forward. We're also not here to give "credit" to communities. This is an encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Will Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for_India-related topics/Archive 49#Mentioning caste of Individuals be of any help? This is probably the consensus people are looking for. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you for finding that. I would imagine there have been many discussions on this subject. I just would prefer that we codify this somewhere, because it's a pretty common area of editing, and of dispute, and there are ArbCom ramifications. My instinct is to open a discussion at MOS:BIO to propose the addition of brief language that instructs users on what the prevailing community preference is on this. So I'll do an informal RfC below to take the temperature of the community before moving forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Welcome sir. The Archive 49 seems to be full of caste related discussions. Probably need to codify it in MOS:INDIA as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: thanks a lot for taking the lead in fixing this once and for all. I agree with your speculation. I can only imagine how many edit wars would have occurred since this is not codified. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir pages

We need to spend some time to decide how to organise the Kashmir pages. I am assuming that

  • it is a near certainty that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill will be enacted by the Parliament, and
  • it is a near certainty that the whole business will be challenged in the Supreme Court.

What will happen inside Kashmir is anybody's guess. But it is likely to be a long-drawn out affair.

A key question then is whether to change Jammu and Kashmir page to its new status if and when it happens, or to keep it as a historical page until the matters are fully resolved and make a new page on Jammu and Kashmir (union territory).

There are way too many references to "state of Jammu and Kashmir" all over Wikipedia. Some of them can be changed to Indian-administered Kashmir (which now redirects to a section in Kashmir). But I suspect that not all of them can be. It would be convenient to keep the current page as a historical page.

Views? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a task force to handle the change. A lot need to be changed. Can we start a list of articles to be updated/changed? New articles may be required. I favour new article on J&K Union Territory and current J&K as a former state as we did with several former states like Bombay State. I favour new article because geographical and political change will change everything in the article. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A new article for the union territory is certainly better per Nizil; it also keeps the page history together. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this could potentially be a temporary move and if so we should keep J&K article together and just change its status. I favor keeping the old article and just updating its status. The aim of this move I think was to repeal Article 370, and the bifurcation was just something else, so there is the possibility that the state could be brought back together just without 370 in place. C1MM (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am increasingly convinced that we'd be better off with developing the new Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) article, while leaving the current Jammu and Kashmir more or less unchanged aside from tense updates, and a few additional sentences/paragraphs covering the new developments. I think so because:
  1. The new J&K UT will have a significantly different area, geography, population, demographics, economy etc. By trying to retcon all these changes into the current J&K article we risk mixing up facts about the two entities (especially since available secondary sources will almost surely do so too over the next few years), and losing all the current information about the state (which as Nizil hints, would remain of historical/encyclopedic importance) down the article history memory hole.
  2. As Kautilya says, there are likely to be legal challenges, news developments etc related to the formation of the UT over the next few years, which can be adequately covered at Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) with less risk of them being considered undue, as they would be at Jammu and Kashmir itself.
What about Ladakh? Currently I am less convinced that we need a separate Ladakh (union territory) article since that subject area is less complex/controversial but am open to persuasion. Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Ladakh page can stay as is. It has always been a distinctive region within the state, and the page has been written in that way. It needs only minor edits to reflect the change of status. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second this. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Ladakh should be updated to reflect changes. -Nizil (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about creating an article, Jammu and Kashmir (state) for the 1952-2019 entity, similar to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) for the 1846–1952 entity? The article Kashmir already exists to cover aspects of the region that rise above the political geography of the day. "Jammu and Kashmir" as an article right now is about the Indian state which will soon no longer exist. 체셔🐈 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO that would be complicated. We would have to cut-paste move a lot of relevant content from the current article to the proposed article. Besides, the current state and the proposed union territory are vastly different. They are going to have different geography, administrative units, demographics, etc. The other solution (ie. creating a separate article for the union territory) is less messy and saves time. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is convenient for Wikipedia editors in terms of workload may differ from Wikipedia's policies regarding what titles should represent. At some point there will probably be a move discussion to clarify the question, "what are users looking for when they enter 'Jammu and Kashmir' into the search bar"? The territory that will form the new union territory of J&K is, honestly, the focus of the vast majority of Reliable Sources' commentary, political drama, and so forth about J&K-the-state. Very rarely are people looking for information on Ladakh when they search for J&K today, and this split into two union territories will accelerate that trend. There are so many edit requests from people right now who want to bring the Wikipedia article in line with this reality, and resisting/reverting them until some undetermined time when the confusion will have ended, is a waste of our time IMO. 체셔🐈 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@チェシャねこ: I understand the spirit behind your proposal. But I don't think we need to create a new Jammu and Kashmir (state) article. Instead, once all the dust has settled (in a few months/years), we can consider moving the current Jammu and Kashmir article to such a title with a parenthetical qualifier, and usurping the plain title for the union territory. However, such a move discussion will depend on establishing that the union territory is the primary topic for the title, which we cannot do at present without relying on a crystal ball. Even otherwise, I would recommend postponing any debate about ideal article titles and for now focusing on getting the content, sources, maps and links right. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of maps, isn't it time to post a request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for separate union territory maps for J&K and Ladakh, like the ones in Delhi and Puducherry? DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That request can use File:Jammu & Kashmir Distrikte.svg as a base, where districts 1-20 represent the J&K UT, with districts 21 and 22 representing the Ladakh UT. 체셔🐈 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One possible solution is a redirect. Jammu and Kashmir redirect should be created which can be appropriately redirected as per need: to State article or to UT article. Or it can be made disambiguation page listing Princely State, State and UT because all three are separate entities with different geography.-Nizil (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that we should not discuss page titles at this time (echoing Abecedare). They can be changed easily. The key question is what pages should be present.
    • If the Supreme Court stays the proposed reorganisation, the question becomes moot. No changes need to be made until the Supreme Court decides.
    • In the event that the proposed union territory comes into being, my position is clearly that it should be covered in a separate page. Changing the present Jammu and Kashmir page to become a page on the union territory is not viable. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has existed for 70 odd years, and is the subject of numerous wars, conflicts and diplomatic battles, covered in hundreds of books, thousands of research articles and tens of thousands of news articles. There is no basis to the suggestion that it should be removed or altered.
    • Having said that, I also suggest that the new page should be minimal. It only needs to cover the events that occur inside the union territory after it comes into being. No need for a big History section, Geography section and what not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jumping into this conversation but wanted to have another voice here. Given the PIL yet to be listed for hearing before the SC, I am of the opinion that there should be an article on the Reorganisation Bill (which currently exists) and proposed changes with regards to the reorganisation of the State should for now be dealt with under a section in the existing article on the state of J&K. We cannot be sure of how the changes with regards to the proposed UTs roll out. Newly created articles on J&K and Ladakh UTs will end up being filled with information which none of us can be sure of, as we have little confirmed information, given the modality of the government. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I am of the opinion we do not need a separate article for Ladakh. The geographic region corresponds exactly with the proposed UT, so only some changes in #Administration will be necessary. DeluxeVegan (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That could be done, but if the same is done the article should have a detailed section on its pre-UT history as a part of the J&K state. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I would say that the J&K state article should stand as it is (state until 2019; as done with the princely state article). Further, the Ladakh article should be the Ladakh UT article (with no requirement whatsoever I see to change the article name). Lastly, a separate J&K UT article. Changes should be made in all other documents on districts and divisions of J&K accordingly. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Fowler&fowler: @Abecedare:, @Kautilya3: Since this is a highly contentious area, in which I can readily see people have been attempting to finesse their POVs in various ways, please note that whatever is the form of the Indian reorganization, it does not obviate the mention of the disputed nature of the region. The the first few sentences of all these pages should invariantly read:

    ----- is a state/union territory of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, and a part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since 1947.[1][2] The Line of Control separates ------ from the Pakistani-administered territories of Azad Kashmir and/or Gilgit-Baltistan in the west and north respectively. ------ lies to the north of the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab and to the east/west the state/Union Territory of -------."

    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations are to Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia of the UN and International Agreements. Please note that the lexical subterfuge "it shares borders with the Indian states of ..." is POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler: Yes, that needs to be neutral. The intro could be tweaked as:

Jammu and Kashmir is a union territory of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. It includes a part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China.[1][2] The Line of Control separates the Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir from the Pakistani-administered territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan in the west and north respectively. Jammu and Kashmir lies to the north of the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab and to the west the union territory of Ladakh."

I suppose the Aksai Chin dispute started post the Indo-Sino war in the 1960s, not in 1947. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamravidhir: "It includes a part of?" Not sure I understand. It should be: "it is a part of " Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler:Rightly noted. POV issue. The UT is a part of the larger disputed region. --Tamravidhir (talk!)

Also, in my view it should be one longer sentence, not two, as the statehood is disputed as well." (Webster's Unabridged, the premier dictionary of American English says,

"Jammu and Kash·mir geographical entry \ˈkash-ˌmir, ˈkazh-, kash-ˈ, kazh-ˈ\ or Kashmir, disputed territory in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent; claimed as a constituent state (summer capital Srinagar, winter capital Jammu area 53,665 square miles, or 138,992 square kilometers; population 12,541,302) and partly administered by India, but also claimed and partly controlled by Pakistan ")

It is true that Britannica does separate the two, but Britannica does not have to deal with drive bys who will add their favorite nuggets between the two sentences in order to drive the dispute to the back of the bus. PS Also, while we are at it, although this is a minor point, instead of "Use Indian English," it might be better to say, "Use Commonwealth English" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Indian English is fine just as Pakistani English is on AJK and GB due to their specific relevance. Also we shouldn't make unilateral lead changes here without addressing the same in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan in similar vein to the ones suggested here. Gotitbro (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: I have changed all three to Commonwealth English, which includes both Indian and Pakistani English. I have done so on the grounds that these are all three disputed regions and it is best to use the language that precedes the dispute. Please keep an eye on all three regions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: While I don't think that was necessary it is in the end an inconsequential change. My main point was about the leads of the AJK and GB articles which should be similar to the one we have for the JK article right now. If you can do that would be nice. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: Wikipedia guidelines require only that the text be in consonance with reliable sources, especially in this instance, the WP:TERTIARY sources, to ensure due weight. The long standing lead sentences of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which we have used as a general template, say for Gilgit Baltistan: "geographic region of Gilgit-Baltistan, in the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. ...contains the loftiest peaks of the Karakoram Range—K2 (Mount Godwin Austen; at 28,251 feet [8,611 metres] the second highest mountain in the world), Gasherbrum I (26,470 feet [8,068 metres]), and Broad Peak I (26,401 feet [8,047 metres])." and for Azad Kashmir: "area of the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Azad (“Free”) Kashmir, established in 1947 after the partition of India, is neither a province nor an agency of Pakistan but has a government of its own that is regarded by Pakistan as “independent,” even though it is protected by and economically and administratively linked to Pakistan." This is more or less what the Wikipedia pages say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: Hi, all. Just read this news article from The Dawn. We need to be cautious of any misinformation being propagated through Wikipedia articles. Hence, reiterating the responsibility Wikipedia has in disseminating information, which, given this discussion, we have stood for. --Tamravidhir (talk)

List of WikiProject Jammu & Kashmir articles

List of articles (Total 1686) under WikiProject J&K which will need updates probably. Once the dust settles, we should focus on updating them.-Nizil (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand of the opinion that they should moulded duly with respect to the emerging UT. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then the Jammu and Kashmir article needs additional updates if the proposal goes through. A temporary draftspace article may be feasible to better plan the page. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the annexation of Jammu and Kashmir by India

International reactions to the annexation of Jammu and Kashmir by India - I think this page make sense and warranted but not sure about the title. Title can be renamed and page can be expanded. --Saqib (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a POV title, but not far off the mark. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, you renamed it to "Indian revocation of special status to Jammu and Kashmir". But this page is going to list the international reactions, so let it be something along the lines of "International reactions to the Indian revocation of special status to Jammu and Kashmir". Maybe? --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, let it be a page on the whole affair. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I still feels this page should contain the term "reactions" because the page summaries reactions and responses. --Saqib (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, beware of WP:NOTNEWS. I get fed up of seeing lists of cherry-picked reactions. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All responses are properly cited via RS. Feel free to click edit button and improve if you feel there's something wrong. --Saqib (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being cited to reliable sources does not obviate cherry-picking. Creating lists when prose would do the job is rarely a good idea. But I have zero interest in getting involved with article sections like that, which just ends up being nationalist pov magnets. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree the page is tilting towards becoming a biased one. I invite others to join in and add something to maintain the balance. --Saqib (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Revocation of Article 370' is not technically correct because that would have involved a constitutional amendment, which wasn't done. A so-called 'Article 370' now exists, but it is unrecognizable. The title is in line with what the major international newspapers used. I agree that "Indian" can be removed.
On the more substantive point of Saqib, the plan is to slowly fill in all the details of the episode, including the clamp down, the Presidential order, its legalities (or illegalities), the Parliamentary debates etc. Then we will have the next several months or years turmoil to cover. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I agree that Indian should be removed. If I were searching for this topic, I'd be very likely to type something like "India's revocation of ___" or "Indian revocation of ___". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second Cyphoidbomb. Indian shouldn't be removed IMO as well. --Saqib (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't how we title things, though. It's excessive detail. See WP:PRECISE. The search term issue is easily handled via redirects. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO something like "Revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India" makes more sense. On the current one I have same view as of Vanamonde that only India can revoke as it is part of Indian Constitution, so "Indian Revocation" is bit confusing. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view the most accurate and NPOV title would be "Revocation of the Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir by India." I would prefer "Special Status" to have beginning capital letters. India or Indian in the beginning would make the article more about India, whereas it really is more about the status. "India" is needed, but only insofar as it references the status, for the benefit of those who do not know what Special Status is, and most Wikipedians likely do not. "Constitution" is not needed in the title because (from my reading of Kautilya3's comments) it is not clear that the constitution has been amended, and in any case, the revocation is more notable than its constitutionality. Also its best to avoid possessives in the title. I have not been following this news much, but these are my views. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this title, Fowler. I thought of it without putting "the", and it didn't sound right.
And, no, there was no constitutional amendment. To extend parts of the Indian constitution to J&K, you only need the concurrence of J&K government. But there is no government in J&K at the moment. It is under President's rule. So the Centre can claim to be the acting government of J&K and give its assent to itself. Almost everybody knows anything about anything, knows that it unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will shoot it down. But it will take about a year for that to happen, and meanwhile the BJP can crush the Kashmiris. Or they hope that the Kashmiris will stop complaining once their land prices shoot up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see everyone talking about "revocation". But that's not all that happened. The bifurcation of the territory was also important. In fact, that's what the people of Ladakh (esp the Buddhists of Ladakh) are talking about. They're even calling it "independence". And pro-India Farooq Abdullah has cast the division in emotional terms. So the title should be more like ""Indian change to Jammu and Kashmir's status".VR talk 13:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second User:Fowler&fowler here. The title "Revocation of the Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir by India" seems to me the most appropriate and suitable. Though, in my opinion, the 's' in 'special' and 'status' should not be capitalised. The reorganisation of the state happened because the revocation paved way for the same, which could be covered briefly and duly in this article. Irrespective, a separate article on the reorganisation Act exists. Lastly, will take the utmost opportunity of this moment to deeply regret and condemn the tenth night of blockade in J&K. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

I have placed a request (Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Kashmir maps) for maps for both proposed union territories consistent with other states and UTs of India. Regardless of what happens (ie. the proposal may not work out), such a map would be of encyclopedic value. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should use this more -- naveenpf (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Map
India

The Hindu copying misinformation from WP

In December 2011, an anonymous user added at B. D. Jatti that he was born to a "Lingayat Banajiga" family. In April 2012, with this edit, the claim was shifted from the lead to the body by a different user. And on 9 September 2012, the same "Lingayat Banajiga" fact appeared in this article of The Hindu.

Here is the relevant quote from the April 2012 version of the WP article:

Born in a Kannadiga Lingayat Banajiga family at Savalgi in Jamkhandi Taluk of Bijapur district, Jatti entered politics as a Municipality member at Jamakhandi in 1940 and later became its President. He was eventually elected to the Jamakhandi State Legislature.

And here is the relevant quote from The Hindu article:

Born on September 10, 1912 in a Lingayat Banajiga family at Savalgi in Jamkhandi taluk of Bijapur district, Jatti entered politics in 1940 and was eventually elected to the Jamakhandi State Legislature.

The content not only seems to be copied from WP but also factually wrong, as can be seen from the following quote from a scholarly source:[3]

Nijalingappa had mainly to deal with a dispute between two sizeable factions. Both were dominated by Lingayats, but to maximise their leverage, both drew upon legislators from other castes and all regions of the state. Nijalingappa, who belonged to the Banajiga sub-group among Lingayats, himself headed one of these factions, and the other was led by B. D. Jatti, who was a Panchamsali, another Lingayat sub-group.

The main purpose of this post is to remove the "Banajiga" misinformation from B. D. Jatti, but I didn't do that directly, as most people consider The Hindu as a reliable source. So I want others' opinion regarding this. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Akhtar, Rais; Kirk, William, Jammu and Kashmir, State, India, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 7 August 2019 (subscription required) Quote: "Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947."
  2. ^ a b Jan·Osma鈔czyk, Edmund; Osmańczyk, Edmund Jan (2003), Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1191–, ISBN 978-0-415-93922-5 Quote: "Jammu and Kashmir: Territory in northwestern India, subject to a dispute between India and Pakistan. It has borders with Pakistan and China."
  3. ^ Raghavan, E; Manor, James (2009). Banerjee, Mukulika (ed.). Broadening and Deepening Democracy: Political Innovation in Karnataka (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 978-0415544542. Retrieved 6 August 2019.
Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. A very good catch and a worrying development because, generally speaking, we do not find mirroring of WP information by The Hindu. I'm wondering whether it is worth emailing the newspaper to see what they have to say about it. I've tried that with The Times of India in the past (which definitely takes a lot from us) and got nowhere but perhaps TH will take a more responsible attitude and issue internal guidance for their journalists and sub-editors. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OLY as honorific suffix

Recently, "OLY" as an honorific suffix is being added in the "Olympian" article infoboxes and leads (after the subject's name) e.g. [1]. I've come here for clarification since I do not know whether this guideline is applicable in this case. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fylindfotberserk, I don't think there is consensus for such additions. BTW, I have posted a relevant comment at WT:SPORTBIO, as people there might be familiar with this stuff. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page view stats of WT:SPORTBIO suggest that it's practically inactive. So that wasn't a good idea. :) NitinMlk (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NitinMlk: Thank you very much. I haven't seen any Olympian wiki article with this kind of honorific. Halil Mutlu, Pyrros Dimas, Behdad Salimi, Lasha Talakhadze, Li Xuerui, Carl Lewis, etc do not mention OLY in the infobox or the lead. I believe, keeping that kind of "honorific" in Indian only articles will be a biased thing to do. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an honorific anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was a relatively new initiative in 2017. But oddly, the text says "All Olympians can apply for the OLY post-nominal lettering at www.olympians.org - Get yours TODAY!" They have to sign up? That's stupid. Does the committee send them a package of cardboard letters? Anyway, like the issue with the Indian Society of Cinematographers (ISC), this seems like a contract that Olympians have with the Olympics organisation, not something that Wikipedia is blindly obliged to observe. @Tanmay Subhedar: If this is something you care about, I recommend bringing it up at WikiProject Biography to see how others feel about it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking collaboration/assistance

Greetings to all,

Putting out this message out there to seek collaboration and/or any assistance any of you could offer with regards to two pages: Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad and the Bengal Sultanate. Aiming to better the quality of the former to satisfy the criteria of possible future FA nomination and the later to the quality required for a possible GA nomination. I had worked on the former and helped promote it to a GA in 2012, but given schedule with regards to school and personal life I do not see being able to work on these two alone.

Alternatively copying and pasting this on other relevant WikiProject discussions. Looking forward to your response. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk!) 07:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: Hi, Tito. Thank you so much for the prompt response! I will surely look into it ASAP and get back to you. Thanks, once again. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Titodutta: Dropped a message here. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Indian floods

The start class article is created. Please update and expand. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poompuhar duplicates

Hello, there are at least two articles on the same subject at Poombuhar and Puhar, Nagapattinam. In my opinion, both should be merged to Poompuhar. The former is not a common spelling and the latter is not accurate. Thank you.49.207.184.211 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Karnataka floods

The start class article is created. Please update and expand. Regards,--Naveen N Kadalaveni (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly 13 years now, I have been watching with disappointment, and sometimes dismay, the back and forth over Kashmir, the thrusting and parrying of national POVs, all to no avail. What a waste of time and energy it has been!

Yesterday and today, August 14 and 15, commemorate the decolonization of South Asia. It is also roughly the time that the Kashmir dispute began. What better way to mark that time than to agree on some phrasing with which to begin the Kashmir-related pages of significance. In coming up with such phrasing, I have been helped by the corresponding phrasing in the "Kashmir" page in Encyclopaedia Britannica. That page begins with:

Lead sentences of "Kashmir," in Britannica

Kashmir, region of the northwestern Indian subcontinent. It is bounded by the Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang to the northeast and the Tibet Autonomous Region to the east (both parts of China), by the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab to the south, by Pakistan to the west, and by Afghanistan to the northwest. The region, with a total area of some 85,800 square miles (222,200 square km), has been the subject of dispute between India and Pakistan since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The northern and western portions are administered by Pakistan and comprise three areas: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, and Baltistan, the last two being part of a territory called the Northern Areas. Administered by India are the southern and southeastern portions, which constitute the state of Jammu and Kashmir but are slated to be split into two union territories. The Indian- and Pakistani-administered portions are divided by a “line of control” agreed to in 1972, although neither country recognizes it as an international boundary. In addition, China became active in the eastern area of Kashmir in the 1950s and has controlled the northeastern part of Ladakh (the easternmost portion of the region) since 1962.

Note: The Britannica sentences mention "slated to be union territories," so they are up to date. Furthermore, three things are clear from Britannica's phrasing: (a) the region is disputed and (b) all its parts are "administered," and (c) the northern (Gilgit-Baltistan) and western (Azad Kashmir) regions are under Pakistani administration; the southern (Jammu and Kashmir) and southeastern (Ladakh) under Indian, and the eastern (Aksai Chin) under Chinese. Based on this, a major tertiary source, and of many other sources I have looked at, I would like to propose the following lead sentence:

____________ is a region administered by India/Pakistan/China as a state/union territory/self-governing entity (etc.), and constituting in a general way the northern/western/southern/southeastern/eastern portion of the larger Kashmir region which has been the subject of a dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947, and India and China since 1959.

The "general way" has been added to protect the sentences from nitpickers. If the pages Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir Ladakh, Kashmir valley, Jammu and Aksai Chin can have this as their lead sentence, I believe a big headache would disappear overnight. It is a mouthful, to be sure, but it is accurate. Purveyors of POV will be less inclined to thrust and parry when the article is wearing such NPOV armor. Pinging @Kautilya3, Saqib, Vanamonde93, El C, RegentsPark, Winged Blades of Godric, Sitush, MilborneOne, Chipmunkdavis, Abecedare, Drmies, Joshua Jonathan, Tamravidhir, DeluxeVegan, Gotitbro, Lingzhi2, Ceoil, SlimVirgin, Bbb23, Bishonen, Ms Sarah Welch, Moonraker, DuncanHill, Doug Weller, Philip Baird Shearer, Mar4d, Rjensen, HLGallon, Ragib, and Titodutta: and any others I might have missed. I am especially keen to hear from Saqib. If he on board (with the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan pages), it will be easier for the same consensus on the Indian-administered Kashmir pages. Please keep Walt Whitman in mind:

Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons of those who braced themselves against you and disputed the passage with you?

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC) PS In pinging the various people, I am not canvassing, just racking my brains to randomly pick people I can remember seeing on South Asia related pages, whether in consonance, dissonance, or happy oblivion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, my only contention was that the leads of the territories should be consistent with each other. Though I would like to point out that "self-governing entity" is quite POV. Gotitbro (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the Azad Kashmir page says only "is a nominally self-governing jurisdiction administered by Pakistan" They are already on board with "administered." Consistency, of course, is the nub of the proposal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've my support to fix this lead boldly as you see fit. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I am very much in favor of standardization. Perhaps...

____________ is a region administered by India/Pakistan/China as a state/union territory/nominally self-governing entity, and constituting in a general way the northern/western/southern/southeastern/eastern portion of the larger Kashmir region. All regions of Kashmir except its east have been the subject of dispute between India and Pakistan since the Partition of India in 1947; administration of its east has been disputed between India and China since 1959.

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=910949601"