Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.

Click here to add a new section

Wikipedia Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

INCOTM Results for June 2012

Hi all,

The nominations for Indian collaboration of the month WikiProject are now closed. As per the nominations and voting that took place on the nominations page,

• Mary Kom has been selected as the article for collaboration of the month.
• Indian Cuisine has been selected as the article for taking upto GA/FA status.

Please join us in shaping up these two articles over the course of June 2012.

Happy editing, happy collaborating! :)

Signing so it gets archived in due course. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

National Highway Numbers

We can use this map created by User:Planemad for reference.

.

Hi all, not many people may know about this, but National Highways in India were renumbered in 2010. Several highways have already started using the new numbers. This is leading to a lot of confusion and I think it is high time we all did something about it. So here are my suggestions:

• Go thru the list of renumbered highways and start creating stub articles for those which don't exist.
• Remove the map from the article, unless the highway route has NOT changed. Eg NH 68 is now 79 with no changes
• Remove images from the article.
• Back up sourced statements and put them in sections where they may be relevant. Eg: IN NH 67, the road upgrading section: One section can go to NH 181, one to 81 and one to 83.

Each of us can take up one set. I am willing to take up 44, 48, 544, 77, 75, 79, 32, 38, 81, 181, 948, 83, 132 [new numbers].

Right now, NH 544, alone has an article based on new numbering. Once we reach consensus, I'm willing to go ahead and start my share, and let others go ahead with a section they like.

The intro sections can be '''National Highway n''' is a National Highway in the state(s) of abc in India.<ref name="gnumber">{{Cite web|title=Renumberd list of National Highways|url=http://dorth.gov.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/finaldoc6143316640.pdf|date=2010-04-28|accessdate=2012-07-20|format=pdf|work=[[Gazette of India]]|publisher=[[Government of India]]|location=New Delhi|language=Hindi, English}}</ref>

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we start this type of article first ? List_of_National_Highways_in_India_by_highway_number -- naveenpf (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So, in that gazette publication, the serial number on the left-most column is the previous Highway numbering, and the number mentioned in the next column is the new numbering, am I correct?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@Naveen, yes, we need an overhaul of the list by number first, followed by the list by state. @Dwaipayan, no the Gazette list doesn't mention old numbers at all. The first column is the serial number. The reason why the order may seem odd is because the list lists main highways and their spurs together. Eg: 48, 148, 248, 348, 49, 149, 249, etc. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Like --naveenpf (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So should we start with the list in Sandbox? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:INR/New Highway --naveenpf (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Am onto it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why self-identification for caste verification of a person?

To mention the caste of a notable Indian person, users are being asked to give a source which says that the notable person self-identifies of belonging to a certain caste. Why so? I mean we people in India identify caste of a person by his/her surname? Even if surname is not necessary, then a credible source should be enough.

But mandatory self-identification is too much. Should we expect that a newspaper reporter should ask a notable person while taking his interview; "Sir what is your caste ?"!!!

Due to this trend of asking self-identification proof, it has become almost impossible to mention caste of a notable person or include his name in a List of XYZ caste people. Whats the need of self-identification when other credible sources are available ?

Like take the example of Dharmendra. Being an Indian, I know that he is a Jat. Its a well known fact known to almost all Indians. His surname is Deol, which is a Jat clan. He is a member of Jat Mahasabha also. Even if all this stuff is not enough for wikipedia, then we have credible sources like this one. But still, I was denied to include the name of Dharmendra in the List of Jats.

This is not the only list, but almost every list related to caste of notable people is a victim of this "self-identification drama". See List of Rajputs, List of Kayasthas etc. Users are being asked to give self-identification proofs.

Another strange thing abut the present trend is that only living persons are required to self-identify. Why not the dead ones? Why is it so that newspapers and google books as sources of caste/ethnicity are ok for dead people but not enough for living people?

Caste is an important part of Indian society which is hereditary. A person can't be from a XYZ caste on his choice. His caste is what his forefather's caste. On the basis of caste, martial engagements take place. Politicians win or lose elections on the basis of caste. It has been claimed by some ignorant users that caste is illegal as per Indian constitution. Anyone claiming so is an ignorant as caste has got official status in Indian constitution. OBCs and SCs get reservation according to caste system. In caste-based census, each and every Indian citizen was asked his/her caste. Such an important thing, like caste can't be denied in wikipedia articles.

I request the members who have knowledge about Indian society to give their views over this and try to reach a consensus over the issue. JC Ramek (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Not again! Please read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists and the links therein. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, in the case of Dharmendra, if you have a reliable source that says he is a member of the Jat Mahasabha then that would likely count as self-identification. As for your comment regarding dead people, well, I would quite happily see the concept extended to include them also but the fact is that the basis of the consensus relates to the constraints of WP:BLP. Indeed, I'd be happy to see these unencyclopedic lists removed in their entirety. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It was you who suggested in an early discussion that self-identification shud be mandatory only for living people not for dead ones. Can you please give logic for this ? JC Ramek (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I really do not believe that I said that it "shud be mandatory only for living people", I am not repeating what I did say, You have been provided with the information and links to the voluminous discussions here from the recent past. I suggest that you drop it. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The main point here is why living people should self-identify for verification? Don't you think that it becomes impossible to mention caste/ethnicity of a person due to this barrier? JC Ramek (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This has all been discussed here previously, on more than one occasion this year. You can see from those discussions what it is that people think.

My opinion? Well, it is almost always as trivial a cultural nexus as would be, say, List of supporters of Dallas Cowboys. I really couldn't care less what caste someone may belong to and see no reason why anyone else should except possibly the individual and perhaps their family. If they want to accept an apartheid-type system then they can say so. Since the entire concept is allegedly anti-constitutional and socially damaging, I am constantly surprised that so many people - usually inexperienced contributors - do make such a fuss about it here. The only logical explanation is some weird form of social "one-upmanship" along the lines of "my dad's better than your dad"/"my sports team is better than yours". Nonetheless, and disregarding my own views, WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS mean that you are not going to get your way here any time soon. So drop it. Please. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No one here is asking about whether you like the caste system or not. The point is that its an important part of Indian society. And this self-identification barrier is completely logical and non-constructive. JC Ramek (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And as I said, regardless of my opinion there is WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP. WP:IDHT is also raising its head with your continued refusal to accept the first two. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See Sitush, this is the issue of proxy'ing a limited consensus as a policy to manage issues in an entire project. If we could manage to collaborate to modify the concerned policy, that 'd be far far better. AshLey ^Msg 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I wondered when you would join in, Ashley. You are another who has IDHT issues regarding this, per past discussions. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, IDH the consesus because it was just a limited and non-comprehensive one. That's why, I went for a policy modification in the WP:VPP. Desparately, none from this forum extended support for such a move. Unfortunately, your (not personal) favouring of such proxying would trap more and more new editors; it's a potential spiral of conflicts, blocks and ban. AshLey ^Msg 14:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This present trend of asking for self-identification for verification of ethnicity/caste is nothing but a joke. A few users were convinced with this trend and it was taken as a consensus. However, this trend proved to be a non-constructive one. Why self-identification when already credible sources are available? Wikipedia policy about biographies of a person is that there should be a credible source for ethnicity(caste). Mandatory self-identification comes nowhere in the picture. JC Ramek (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Because WP:BLP trumps every other rule. We need the person to verify that 1) they are from that caste and that, more fundamentally, 2) they accept the notion of caste and accept their designated place within it. This is no more than an extension of the policy we have with regards to religion and ethnicity...and caste is nothing more than a particular form of ethnicity, as modified by the history of India and surrounding areas. Or, to put it in more colloquial terms, I'd be extremely angry if a Wikipedia article on me (assuming I were ever notable enough to have one) said, "An American of Russian ancestry." Some people believe that identity has no connection to caste, gotra, clan, or any other notion. More importantly, reliable sources tend not to care, either, especially not tertiary sources like encyclopedias (which, if you've forgotten, is what Wikipedia is). So please note that not only is adding a caste without 1) self-identification and 2) evidence it's relevant to the person's notability against consensus, it's a very likely interpretation that it's against one of our core policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"To mention the caste of a notable Indian person, users are being asked to give a source which says that the notable person self-identifies of belonging to a certain caste. Why so? Why so? Because that is Wikipedia policy, as arrived at by consensus, after much debate. And because 'caste' is nothing more than an arbitrary social construct - and a rather ridiculous one at that. There is no more reason why a twenty-first century encyclopaedia should consider statements by third parties regarding someone's 'caste' than there is to consider their opinions as how ugly the person is, whether they display bad taste in their choice of clothing, or whether they need to shower more often. If you want an encyclopaedia of obsolete and bigoted stereotypical classifications, start your own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the same twenty-first century, the government of India is conducting caste-based census which makes mandatory for everyone to reply what is his/her caste.

@ Qwyrxian

"Because WP:BLP trumps every other rule. We need the person to verify that 1) they are from that caste and that, more fundamentally, 2) they accept the notion of caste and accept their designated place within it."

Now why to reject the credible sources when those people haven't rejected the notion of caste ? And even if rejected, then why to hide their ethnicity? Take example of Ajmal Kasab, who is a well-known terrorist. Even if he dissociates himself of those terrorism charges, those still need a mention in his biography.

Why taking the example of Amitabh Bachhan, who is said to have dissociated himself from caste system? Why not taking the example of 99% Indians who still accept the caste system (Please note that caste discrimination is a different thing). Inter-caste marriage is still a rarity in Hindu society. Marriages are arranged as per their caste. JC Ramek (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Its really unfortunate that some people, who don't have any knowledge about India and Hindu society are making policies on wikipedia, infact 'consensus' not policy. It has been already been tried by a member to include this 'mandatory self-identification for caste/ethnicity' on the policy page through discussion, but that member couldn't succeed. May be he couldn't succeed because mandatory self-identification for ethnicity/caste is too non-constructive and most administrators do understand this.  JC Ramek  15:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like our policies, feel free to create your own website. —SpacemanSpiff 16:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

One correction: this is not 'Policy' yet. Its just a trend as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread. The reason it couldn't become a policy is that its highly non-constructive. Policy page says "Only Credible sources required". However in case of Hindus, it has become "self-identification required"!

What I understand from all this is that Sitush belongs to a non-Hindu community. So he just hate articles on Hindu castes to be glorified by names of famous people like Dharmendra or Vijender Singh. Even if it is a well-established fact (as per credible sources) that they are Jats, but still we can't mention that.

However, this self-identification drama is only meant for Hindu castes, not for non-Indian communities like Pathan, which is also an ethnicity/caste.  JC Ramek  09:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@JC Ramek, its a waste of time arguing with policies of Wikipedia and especially with Admins. Not because they know better but because they don't listen and don't want any practical change and only do things as they wish. Also note that they don't necessarily apply these all-very-important policies everywhere. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi JC Ramek, You have a difference of opinion and of course have every right to say it louder. If your voice is not heard here, you could even try at different levels of dispute resolution to establish your side. However, you have resorted to some sort of personal attack in the above post and my gentle advice is to keep a cool mind in WP discussions. I hope, you would consider it as a friendly advice. With regards AshLey ^Msg 11:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Vasant Dhoble

I started this article a couple of weeks back, but haven't expanded it since. If anybody's interested, give it a shot; the man is hot in the news, and I imagine a lot of people are looking him up. Who better than Wikipedia to give an NPOV study of a person who is so very divisive?—indopug (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger

There are two articles about the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency, here, and here. Both have pretty much the same info, so can they merged or something? -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You have linked twice to one article, unless there is something wrong with my eyesight. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops my bad. Here ya go. Anurag2k12 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, why isn't anyone answering. Anurag2k12 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably because you have not indicated what the two articles are. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The scope of Naxalite–Maoist_insurgency#History and Timeline of the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is different and therefore they cannot be merged. History section in Naxalite-Maoist insurgency article only highlights the general trend of insurgency, whereas the Timeline article is meant to be a detailed account of all acts of violence perpetrated by the maoists. Merging the two will make history section in the former too long and will render the article unreadable. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Geez, it turns out that you edited your original query after I had mentioned the error, Anurag2k12. No wonder things were confused. Please do not do this in future. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't reply earlier for the same reason. I only noticed that the links had been changed after your comment. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll not do that confusing thingy again. Anurag2k12 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. It is fine to make minor adjustments - spelling, punctuation etc - but it is not usually a great idea to (effectively) completely change your message. It makes the reply look really weird & can have some bizarre consequences as has happened in this instance. Far better to say "Ooops my bad, I meant [link here]." And, boy, I rank fairly high in the list of people who make errors in their own messages & so you are speaking with an expert idiot (?)! - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That cracked me up. I hope Anurag2k12 also sees the humour in it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure I do. :P Anurag2k12 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone here know about proposed ArbCom motion for discretionary sanctions on India-related pages?

If so, I missed the memo. The proposed ArbCom motion can be found here for those who wish to read and/or comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First I've heard of this. I suppose arbitrators, wise people that they are, don't feel the need for wider community input. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox District IN

Template:Infobox District IN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for contributors of the animal rights article

I am wondering if someone here would be interested in adding Indian perspectives into the article animal rights. I think current under representation of India in the article is unacceptable because vegetarianism had such a along history in India.SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The animal rights article focuses overwhelmingly on animal rights in modern and contemporary times. Other than adding a sentence in Moral status of animals in ancient world and possibly adding another one on the influence of Arya Samaj on vegetarianism in 19th-20th century India, I don't see what else can be done. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the article "focuses overwhelmingly on animal rights in modern and contemporary times" of some group of people, this is actually the problem I am trying to improve. I am aware that

• per capita consumption of meat and use lab animals are very low in india, its about 1/20 compare with USA. It indicates good animal rights.
• vegetarian population in Indian is high. It indicates good animal rights.
• I think Indian traditional medicine does not do animal experimentation like western medicine. It indicates good animal rights.
• Hinduism philosophy of human animal relationship is unlike Abrahamic religions. Hinduism think animals have souls.
• There must be influential Indian figures/academics promoting some forms of animal rights ideology. They do not have to call the position animal rights, as long they promote compassion and respect for animals. Their theories should be included too. I am aware Gandhi had some comments.
• two articles of Indian’s recent ban of vivisection in education: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-21/flora-fauna/31378798_1_animal-rights-group-andrew-rowan

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-17/india/31355109_1_cpcsea-control-and-supervision-cruelty

One of the major reason I am asking for help is some editors of the articles seemed to have biased view on international materials. There have been case of repetitively rejecting sources of different view points using "voting" and "consensus" procedure. I don't think this is very good for the article's NPOV,so I am looking for people with open mind and awareness of cultural diversities to improve the article. SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see you are involved in a long dispute in the animal rights article. The discussion spanned a range of topics, but India wasn't one of them. Correct me if I am wrong, but you haven't tried inserting content related to India yet. So how do you already know that the editors are narrow minded and will revert the content? I hope you are not canvassing here, to find support for your ongoing dispute. That said, I don't think inserting content related to India, in the two sections I mentioned in previous post, should be any issue. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a worldwide view tag on animal rights. But one active editor removed it without convincing arguments. You can see the talk page. I am seeking attention from different perspectives. You cannot have a reasonable consensus when voters are not familiar with the topic. This is what I am trying to do. Also I do not think its all my responsibility to improve the NPOV of the content. I am trying to find some people who is familiar with India. They would be able to contribute more content than those I mentioned. SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Indian need to have an independent section or subsection. Instead of being inserted into some current sections. SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest new, I added the worldwide view tag on animal rights, it was removed by the same editor despite of objections on the talk page. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_rights#Globalization_of_article_view SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC) This is the recent tag removal history of the editor. It is the second time she removed the tag as far as I am aware. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_rights&diff=504812007&oldid=504721345 SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

The India-Pakistan case is supplemented as follows:

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

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 18:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

• Commented. --regentspark (comment) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• As have I. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• And the last two pie coin I have. —SpacemanSpiff 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Would someone who has been involved please summarize those long lectures in a small para? Not all arguments, but at least what the argument is for and what the result is. This discussion seems to be going on since 2007. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that no one from the project has been involved. Arbcom decided to do this, without informing us or soliciting any opinions, all because someone took a clarification request regarding the current hot-bed issue of the Kashmir conflict. So in result, Arbcom decided to place anything connected to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan under discretionary sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean articles related to India and Pakistan, India and Afghanistan & Pakistan and Afghanistan and not just all WP INDIA articles; right? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Zero stub drive on WP:INDIA/PP

Any thoughts on Zero stub drive on WP:INDIA/PP -- naveenpf (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The drive is related to expansion of stub articles?? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a good proposal. Indeed the list is interesting, too. Sunny Leone is in between Rajneesh and Gandhi.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting list indeed. #6-10 in the list are Sunny Leone, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Salman Khan, Katrina Kaif and Shahrukh Khan. Guess the odd one out here. I'd say its probably Katrina Kaif, she is the only one who hasn't gone topless yet. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is RDB rated as A-class? We don't have A-class ratings for our project. It should be GA for WP India unless I'm missing something. Sad that it gets less than 4% the views of Rowdy Rathore. —SpacemanSpiff 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to Naveenpf) I am afraid this is a very bad idea. You are suggesting that we use a "page view statistics" page (a popularity page) as a guide in deciding which articles to work on, or, more bluntly, that we pander to popular taste. Popularity in the real world is not an index of encyclopedic notability. There are indeed many articles on a myriad India-related topics that need to be improved. Consider, for example, the Category: Boys' schools in India; most schools there are in stub form, including, for example, Alfred High School, Rajkot, Mahatma Gandhi's alma mater. Improvement drives should focus on subject areas. That way you have something tangible, and in one place, whose subsequent improvement is plainly to be seen and assessed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it to be such a bad idea; if a currently-popular page is a stub, that means a lot of people are seeing a page without much info and maybe feeling a bit disappointed about WP as a go-to source. Yes, we should avoid undue recentism, and the academic pursuit of knowledge is not a popularity contest, but if a film/singer/cricketer is Notable, there are substantive things to be said about it, and lots of people are googling it up, why not provide some quality info? On a minor sidenote, a sweep to check the Popular list for mis-labeled stubs might reduce the daunt of the task; just a spot check shows that some of the "stubs" have outdated ratings and are now clearly Start or "C" class at worst. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Minister of Power (India)

This article needs urgent expansion. Infobox, and all other things and especially the change of ministers during the blackout. Can anyone do it? extra999 (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Should not be speedy deleted, an AfD is worth. It is an article of current and high importance, instead of being deleted should be expanded. extra999 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Language scripts guideline?

Is there a guideline in relation to how many language scripts one puts in an article? Also, does it say anything about the ordering of languages (particularly in cases if it is unclear which language is used more), assuming it is not merely alphabetical order? For example, Shiva has a sanskrit language script in the lead and a short etymology section; if there was little about etymology, which other language scripts should be used (and in which order)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPT. —SpacemanSpiff 11:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on South Indian Barnstar

Advice requested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#North-South_Propaganda_through_Barnstars--DBigXray 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'List of Jats' or 'List of notable Jats' ?

Recently I moved the article List of Jats to List of notable Jats. My move was reverted and I was asked to discuss it. So I am here. But I can't understand what is the need to discuss it.

The word 'notable' must be added to the title 'List of Jats'. On adding the word 'notable', the meaning of the article will be more appropriately denoted.

List of Jats- this title mean that the list is supposed to contain the names of all the millions of Jat people living in the world. However, it is not so. In reality, the list contains the names of only notable people from the Jat community. The introduction itself says "The following is a list of notable Jats."

This change (adding notable to the title) should be made to all other similar castelists also like List of Rajputs, List of Gurjars etc.  JC Ramek  05:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LISTNAME / WP:MOSLIST. If you want to change policy, this isn't the right place, you'll need to discuss at VPP or at the talk page of that MOS. —SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your perspective on this, but disagree on any name change. Since every biography article on WP is require to meet WP:Notability, and technically even names just added to lists are supposed to meet WP:N, it's pretty much implied that "notable" is an aspect of "List of X Community" articles. I can't think of any real advantage to adding "notable" to the title, and it would add bulk to the title of probably thousands of articles. Good point to bring up, but I don't agree that it merits changing the titles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Caste

I recently happened upon the Wikipedia article on Caste. Reading it you wouldn't know that caste had anything special to do with India. In the past, this sort of distancing of India from its evils, was engaged in by editors who work primarily on India-related topics. I don't know if this is still the case, but I'd be grateful if the editors associated with this project, many of whom have worked on caste-related issues, respond to the post I've made on the article talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dravidians as black people

An editor has added a gallery of images of Dravidians and other disparate populations to the black people article, arguing that they are all typically classified as "black people" based on their often-times dark skin coloration. I have argued that this is a fringe idea analogous to the Afrocentric "Africoid" concept and that the wikipage wasn't originally intended for this purpose. Input/feedback on this issue from members of this wikiproject would be appreciated. Soupforone (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Contacting some of the editors involved/who have expertise in this topic area might be a better option for you. Dougweller and Dbachmann are two such editors. If you think it's fringy, then WP:FTN might also be a good option. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll give it a shot. Soupforone (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rumi from a neutral point of view

Hello, I have a recommendation about the article Rumi.

Please read all the information, I wrote on Talk, and tell whether you agree or disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rumi#Let.27s_Remove_POV_with_a_Neutral_Point_of_View

You know the ethnicity of Rumi is unknown and debated. I hope you contribute to this matter. Alternatively, from a neutral point of view, I recommend to change the (POV) sentence to a (NPOV) sentence:

"a 13th-century Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic."

to "a 13th-century Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic of Persian literature. 81.213.117.125 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Burma → Myanmar requested-move notification

A requested move survey has been started (by Marcus Qwertyus (talk)) at Talk:Burma, which proposes to move:

• Burma → Myanmar

Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)