Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SJanakiPSusheela (talk | contribs) at 05:58, 2 August 2023 (→Harapanahalli - Karnataka - requesting attention: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
Note icon
This page was last assessed in April 2023.
This page is a noticeboard 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

(80 more...)

Proposed deletions

(13 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(7 more...)

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

(5 more...)

Articles to be merged

(47 more...)

Articles to be split

(14 more...)

Articles for creation

(29 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot
Shortcuts

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups
There is no clear consensus for the change; several editors believe more context, a different venue, and/or better visibility is needed for what appears to be a contentious topic/change. --slakr\ talk / 01:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should be the introductory sentence of the capital cities of Kashmir region related first-level administrative subdivisions? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A uniform format for the introductory sentences of six articles (Gilgit, Jammu, Kargil, Leh, Muzaffarabad and Srinagar) is sought. The following are the proposed versions:

Version A:[note 1]

____________ is the (summer/winter/joint) capital of __________ (name of larger region), a portion of the disputed Kashmir region administered by India/Pakistan as a union territory/nominally self-governing entity and claimed by Pakistan/India.

Example: Muzaffarabad is the capital of Azad Kashmir, a portion of the disputed Kashmir region administered by Pakistan as a nominally self-governing entity and claimed by India.

Version B:[note 2]

X is the (summer/winter/joint) capital <and largest city> of the Indian/Pakistani-administered (subdivision-type) of Z. [(in note)Z is part of the larger Kashmir region which is the subject of a long-standing dispute among India, Pakistan and China. X lies in the part of the region administered by India/Pakistan and claimed by Pakistan/India.]

Example: Leh is the joint capital and largest city of the Indian-administered union territory of Ladakh. [(in note)Ladakh is part of the larger Kashmir region which is the subject of a long-standing dispute among India, Pakistan and China. Leh lies in the part of the region administered by India and claimed by Pakistan.]

Version C:[note 3]

Muzaffarabad/Gilgit/Srinagar/Jammu/Kargil/Leh is the capital/summer capital/winter capital/joint capital of Pakistani/Indian/Chinese-administered self-administrative territory/administrative territory/Union Territory of Azad Kashmir/Gilgit-Baltistan/Jammu and Kashmir/Ladakh/Aksai Chin in the disputed Kashmir region.

Example: Jammu is the winter capital of Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the disputed Kashmir region.

Survey

  • Version B for the following reasons:
•It takes into account WP:DUEWEIGHT as reflected in WP:TERTIARY sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica for the dispute wrt the cities.[1]
•It also reflects how these cities are generally described in wide-ranging recent scholarly sources.[2]
•This proposal includes all the required context of the dispute vis-a-vis the cities, in the explanatory note prominently placed at the end of the introductory sentence. It highlights that there are three parties to the conflict—India, Pakistan and China—but also makes it clear where the city lies and who claims it (none of these cities lie in China or are claimed by it).
•It also allows flexibility, the dispute/conflict/the larger region/non-administering countries can, ofcourse, be mentioned elsewhere in the lead and body wherever relevant and due.
•It takes into account regional differences of the various cities. For example, Ladakh—whose two capitals are affected by this uniform format—has long asserted an identity distinct from "Kashmir" (a term which is associated with the eponymous Kashmir valley).
—UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest not proceeding on this RFC as is (invited by the bot) There is apparently a complex contentious issue involved including debate history and a previous TFC. In order to give a thoughtful quality response to it as currently worded, someone arriving to participate in the RFC would need to do a very large amount of reading including of the debate and history. Such is not likely to happen. IMO one idea would be to add a substantial neutral summary of the background. Or, if the previous RFC was on the same topic and had substantial participation and nothing has significantly changed perhaps you should just follow what was decided then. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. I’ve added notes that point to the source of each version. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @North8000: should’ve pinged when I responded above. If you prefer the previous wording, it is version A. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B:
> It is crucial for us to prioritize the accurate and balanced representation of information by giving due consideration to reliable tertiary sources (@UnpetitproleX). While it is reasonable to address the Kashmir dispute within articles discussing broader regions such as union territories, it becomes inappropriate when we extend this focus to smaller divisions like districts, cities and villages (@Chipmunkdavis). Similarly, we should not label Taipei as disputed solely based on China's claim over Taiwan. The article on Taiwan itself does not mention any dispute in its introduction, especially considering the historical context of the nation's past civil war. As I had cited in the discussion,

While Pakistan seeks to internationalise the issue and pursue a solution at a multilateral level, India strongly resists external involvement in what it sees as an internal matter, and will only consider a bilateral solution. The ‘international community’ has come to accept India’s position on Kashmir, with the United Nations Security Council removing the Kashmir issue from its agenda in 1996.[3]

On the basis of international consensus, we cannot use Wikipedia and all Kashmir-related articles (@Fowler&fowler) as a promotion ground for Pakistan's campaign.[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayninja (talk • contribs) 04:33 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Suggest not proceeding with this RfC The previous RfC had the exceptional participation of Wikprojects India and Pakistan, including by half a dozen admins. This one has been undertaken in a hurry. Frankly @Abecedare: I'm perplexed that you would have even obliquely suggested it. It is malformed, as none of the three options refers to what is being is being debated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation: There are five large subregions of the disputed region of Kashmir. These are Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh administered by India; Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan, and Aksai Chin administered by China. The last one does not have a capital city.
    I note, @Abecedare:, your own excellent argument had pulled the rug from under the footnote idea in version B. Said you, in as many words, that we can't say for example: Gilgit is the capital of the Pakistani-administered Gilgit-Baltistan.<<Footnote: Gilgit-Baltistan is in the disputed Kashmir region>> instead of what it says in the current version (which is neither version A, nor C): Gilgit is the capital of the Pakistani-administered Gilgit-Baltistan in the disputed Kashmir region," for as soon as a reader sees "administered," they will ask, "Why is it only administered?" and where is Gilgit-Baltistan? (Could it be an island in the Arabian Sea off the Pakistani port of Karachi?) and therefore the question will make it imperative for us to supply more information, which we can do in no other way than in the current version. For we can't say "Gilgit-Baltistan is in Pakistan" (neutrality will prohibit us).
    So, why did you then let an editor dishonor your argument and hurry on to a malformed RfC? When an admin gently but with great perspicacity offers an argument against an idea, and an editor, nevertheless ignores it, and rushes into something, what does one call it? There must be some WP rule against it. In my book it is not kosher. Pinging also @Chipmunkdavis: who had seemed to favor version B, but very likely did not have full information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B, as this description reflects what is used in similar projects, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, and per User:Chipmunkdavis' comment below. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for @Abecedare: Can you please close this? As I had predicted the RfC is foundering, if not already run aground. Not a single editor from WProject Pakistan has participated. I request that this be ended and I (as the original proposer) of the consensus of 2019 be allowed to formulate an RfC outside of this travesty. Or at least I be allowed now to begin another RfC in parallel which I'm sure will receive a much bigger response. Pinging @Vanamonde93, Johnuniq, El C, and RegentsPark:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan of August 2019 had the participation of 15 editors a third of whom were admins. This RfC is barely breathing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I view it to be nothing but a delaying tactic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have previously commented on the general issue, so I'm WP:INVOLVED and not the right editior to close this RFC. It is indeed unfortunate that this discussion has not seen high enough participation to (IMO) update the previous consensus. But I am not in a position to blame the other non-participants either since I too haven't had the time or motivation to do the required reading needed to provide an informed opinion. Would recommend holding off on starting a parallel RFC though till, at least, this one is closed; it's close enough to the typical 30 day period. Abecedare (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks @Abecedare: and apologies for my impatience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare: Please do ask anyone you consider to be uninvolved to close the RfC. The low participation is unfortunate, though I note that the RFC was sabotaged in its very infancy by the above editor with a WP:WALLOFTEXT that constituted WP:ASPERSIONS (and some insulting comments) against me, which several editors (including you) advised them against. Anyway, as you already said on Talk:Srinagar, the 2019 version (A) is the status quo if a discussion fails to land at a version, but I leave it to the closer. It seems a new RfC will begin immediately after this "travesty" is closed. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Closure requested. Be aware that it can take several days for someone to take up the task. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Abecedare:. I had not seen your note when I replied, but a few days even a week for the offer to be taken up is fine. As long as I'm aware that this RfC is not hanging over my head, I can finish the work outlined in said user page (above). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean below Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My impatience has been generated by the RfC being stuck in the quagmire of not meeting the barest of quora for any legitimacy in a topic as important as Kashmir. Kashmir has been the bane of India and Pakistan issues on Wikipedia. It is one of the main reasons for ARBIPA to have been put in place by Arbcom.
    I have instead been creating a record not just of lead sentences, but also info box maps (yes, two, one of which is interactive and both of which are impartial). See for example: Jammu district, Mirpur district, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu division, Kashmir division, Jammu, Gilgit, and in general:
    I won't begin a new RfC until all the red cross signs in the last sub-page have been changed to green check signs, so people have the proof of a pudding, not just words. I had completed a large number of the pages in and around June 16. So, they've stood the short-term test of time already.
    So, the new RfC won't begin immediately, but only after the pages are finished, i.e. after a buffer of a couple of weeks at least. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The focal point is not Kashmir itself; rather, the issue arises when territorial claims over the involved countries are emphasized excessively, going beyond the articles on broader regions. It is also important to acknowledge that India and Pakistan have full jurisdiction over the regions they administer. Therefore, kindly also provide an alternative version in your RFC that avoids using terms like "Indian-administered" or "Pakistani-administered," though you may mention the dispute in the lead of articles on broader regions such as UTs and Azad Kashmir. Note that such a version will also herald the return of national emblems/maps and the removal of "settlement" infobox templates from their respective articles. [1]https://www.britannica.com/place/Jammu-and-Kashmir [2]https://www.britannica.com/place/Ladakh-union-territory Fayninja (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, kindly refrain from citing any resolutions from the powerless United Nations body. US is not a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), specifically its Article 3. India does not handout land on the principle of "first come, first serve" or "the early bird gets the worm". Fayninja (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B is better balanced as users above stated; also fine to mention dispute status in lead sentence in broader regional article like region or UT but for same to apply to every city/district/village/ghost town is kind of giving Undue weight.PersianV (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A closure based on the nominator's request has already been put in by admin Abecedare, who is on record saying, "The point of this centralized, and hopefully well-attended, RFC is to avoid having to read tea-leaves to determine if the previous consensus needs to be updated or clarified" This one doesn't meet quorum. Most Kashmir regulars haven't bothered commenting. They have not even answered the pings of the nominator. The 2019 consensus involved a long discussion with nearly 15 editors and 6 admins. Kashmir can't be taken lightly, nor its fate on WP decided in a hurry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFC also has had 6 editors and opinions so far including you @Fowler&fowler. I don't know why in your opinion our vote appears of less value than 2019 version. Everybody is equal on Wikipedia.PersianV (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2019 consensus was only ever applied to the top-level pages, and its application to lower level pages has been actively opposed by many editors including some who participated in the 2019 discussion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version B : I may be late to this discussion but I like @Fayninja point. Similar to how Taiwan is claimed by PRC we don't say "Taipei is capital of Taiwan in disputed territory claimed by China" blown up in first line. Also how South Korea is claimed by North Korea there also we don't go on saying "Seoul is capital of South Korea in disputed region claimed by North Korea" blown up in first line there too. To mention overlapping claims of countries against each other in footnote is very neutral and way to go– "Muzaffarabad is city in Pakistani-Administrative Territory of Azad Kashmir<disputed status in footnote>" and "Leh is a city in Indian Union Territory of Ladakh.<disputed status in footnote>. –JayB91 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without resolution I've been mulling over this for a while and I think Fowler has a point here. This is a complex situation and the ideal way to go about it would be to, through an open discussion with wide participation (for e.g., here on WT:IN with notifications at WT:Pakistan), arrive at an acceptable set of alternative formulations for the lead. UnpetitproleX, perhaps, started this RfC as a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute but, without a wider discussion on the alternatives, this is an incomplete RfC. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Why is a uniform version sought? Such text should be part of the wider lead, which may be structured in different ways. In principle however, B seems to be the best, but the note is unnecessary. The early lead sentences should be establishing what the place is, which in these cases seems to be a city. That these cities function as capitals, which is something which reflects on administrative role and relative importance in its region, seems like useful context. The legitimacy of the area they administer etc. drifts off that topic, and there are likely better ways to address it. CMD (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some background links:
    1. The 2019 RFCs that led to the current consensus
      An annotated description of the related discussions.
    2. Recent discussion at Talk:Srinagar that led to this RFC.
Pinging @Fowler&fowler, Gotitbro, Johnuniq, Fayninja, Kashmiri, and RegentsPark: who had commented in the recent discussions, in case they miss the start of the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare: Is it current consensus if editors who were involved in that consensus (such as @Gotitbro:, @Kautilya3: and @Uanfala: have reverted it? The first two have also explicitly said that the consensus stands limited to the first-order administrative divisions, which were the only pages that it was applied to until the past month. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted what? I would have only reverted POV edits that labelled selected parts of Kashmir to be "disputed". Any formula that uniformly applies it to all parts of Kashmir is ok by me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This revert from Jan 2020, where you said in the edit summary "The current WP:CONSENSUS is to mention the dispute only for the top-level pages of territories."
Ofcourse, a formula uniformly applied to all parts is OK by me too, and such a formula must also be formed per WP:DUEWEIGHT. That’s the objective of this RfC. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this by Gotitbro, where they stated "The original consensus was limited to lvl-1 administrative divisions (in the sense that it attracted no opposition), … Whether it has evolved in practice beyond that I cannot say but this is what I was clearly in consent back then [during the 2019 discussion] for." UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UnpetitproleX: The point of this centralized, and hopefully well-attended, RFC is to avoid having to read tea-leaves to determine if the previous consensus needs to be updated or clarified. Editors can speak for themselves explicitly here, if they so desire. I haven't commented on the substance of the RFC yet because I haven't had the time to analyze the options and sources carefully enough; hope to do so before the RFC closes. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what happens when editors with no history in the topic area rush into an RfC and then get all the versions wrong. There is only one version, the one that already appears in Srinagar, Jammu, Leh, Kargil, Gilgit, and Muzaffarabad. Consider Srinagar for example. The reason that the disputed status needs to be mentioned in the first sentence is that editors will routinely add sentences such as, "It is the 31st-most populous city in India, the northernmost city in India to have over one million people" soon after, without a thought. In other words, the arrogation of sovereignty will appear, innocently creeping into the prose. Without the initial disclaimer, a reader would fail to understand why Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and a couple of other countries boycotted the recent Indian government G20 meeting in Srinagar, and even the US, UK, Australia, Germany, .. sent only their local reps. Besides, the nominator had not even granted the lead sentence that footnote whose cause they are now so ardently championing; in the version of the Srinagar article that I had reverted on the day before the G20 meeting began (May 22). Their version had said: "Srinagar is the largest city and the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, India. It lies in the Himalayan Kashmir Valley on the banks of the Jhelum River, and Dal and Anchar lakes, between the Hari Parbat and Shankaracharya hills. The city is known for its natural environment, various gardens, waterfronts and houseboats. It is also known for traditional Kashmiri handicrafts like the Kashmir shawl (made of pashmina and cashmere wool), papier-mâché, wood carving, carpet weaving, and jewel making, as well as for dried fruits. It is the 31st-most populous city in India, the northernmost city in India to have over one million people, and the second-largest metropolitan area in the Himalayas (after Kathmandu, Nepal). no different from an Indian tourist brochure. No sooner had I pulled the rug from the effort, than the prelude to the RfCs and whatnot began.
  • Response to the objections raised by @Fowler&fowler in the survey:
Robert G. Wirsing in their book Kashmir in the Shadow of War: Regional Rivalries in a Nuclear Age[5] alternates between "Indian Kashmir", "Indian-administered Kashmir", "Indian-controlled Kashmir", "Indian-held Kashmir" and "Indian-occupied Kashmir". Here, only the first term implies absolute sovereignty. I believe Wirsing uses all these terms to achieve true neutrality by incorporating all perspectives on the dispute. If this is the case, Wirsing's position is neither for nor against Indian sovereignty over her union territories within Indian Kashmir.
"Why is it only administered?": The footnote is enough and if the reader wishes to dive deeper, a link to the Kashmir region and the Kashmir conflict can be embedded in the note.
"Where is Gilgit-Baltistan?": A darkened interactive map has been provided to readers. There was no need to circulate the altered Kashmir dispute map under a false "CIA" banner on all Kashmir-related pages. Thank you, Fowler, for your time and effort in redrawing and renaming the regions of that map, although it was not necessary as I found this version to be clearer for use in the Kashmir conflict article.
If Gilgit-Baltistan is not in Pakistan, then which country is it in? Is it an independent state? To hold neutrality, mentioning the Kashmir dispute in the lead of such broader regions is sufficient. Fayninja (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussion. Editors (mainly f&f here) are reminded to focus on the topic and not on personalities. UnpetitproleX, you should declare your previous accounts on your user page. If any useful comments are included here, please make them again (impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff!)
I recommend that this RfC be closed immediately and that I be allowed to do this properly if there is a need for it. I have maintained that there was consensus for the wording already in the August 2019 proposal. I mean was I busting my behind and the other discussants (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) theirs for nothing? Besides:
  • The nominator is known for their anti-Muslim and pro-Punjab-north-India-Hindu bias in articles (I can cite some instances: they were peddling the image File:Woman at Gate of Mosque (No Ladies Allowed) - Hazratbal Shrine - Srinagar - Jammu & Kashmir - India (26770523561).jpg on some WP article(s), making fun of Muslims; after I called them out, they turned it into an image that showed what Islamic feminists were battling! Then recently they made: this POV edit that I have not reverted, for it involves the textbook example of the use of WP:SYNTHESIS to engage in one-upmanship in the promotion of hate.)
  • They had given me and an admin a hard time under a different username (that they acknowledged was theirs only a few days ago when their hand was forced and have still not fessed up on their user page as requested by the admin, only blanking the old account both in WP and Commons)
  • On the Himalayas page; they took umbrage at the sentence: "The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan and China." in both their incarnations So, lo and behold is there any surprise that in their third incarnation, they would like to stuff the "dispute" bit into a tiny footnote as they have been arguing ad nauseam on the talk page?
  • What will editors from WP Pakistan (who had taken part in the 2019 Consensus) think of this benighted inequity? Kashmir, remember, is disputed territory. It can't be reduced to a cloistered discussion in WT:INDIA initiated by someone who has no history in the topic area nor the most meagre goodwill in WP:PAKISTAN. Why would Pakistani editors touch this with a ten-foot pole when the nominator has a tainted history in their portfolio?

I mean look at the care with which I have written the lead sentences and drawn the two maps in each of the articles Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu, Leh, Kargil, Muzaffarnagar, Gilgit, Kashmir division, Jammu division, Gilgit Division, Diamer Division, Baltistan Division, Anantnag, Anantnag district, ... the discussions I have had with editors at MapFrame about the interactive maps, only so an editor can trip me in this fashion? I'm sure they'll have an answer, but I'm sick to my stomach. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the new normal on WP is to play gotcha with longstanding competent editors. If you catch them using "his," instantly assume a new gender identity and claim that you have been misgendered. I showed the nominator's writings to some of my female colleagues, all academics, and they said the arguments didn't have a feminine bone they could discern. We have three adult daughters, none is a pushover, I have worked with quite a few women on Wikipedia. I can think of SandyGeorgia, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Femke, Karanacs, Bishonen, ... SlimVirgin, Awedewit, that I've worked with, argued with, talked with at FAC, FAR, by email. You'd think I'd know a thing or two about when the exchange is sincere and when I'm being conned. From one set of genders I receive:this.
The other trolls me. Look at their talk page, where they've posted something I haven't read, but that was hatted by an admin on this page.
For some reason this bizarre perversion seems to be happening on India-related pages more than elsewhere on WP, kind of like high-school high jinks. But we are all helpless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that Kashmir is disputed territory. It has been disputed from 1947 onward; it is the oldest dispute before the UN; it is disputed for all the ten reasons given in footnote 1 in the Gilgit-Baltistan page.
It means every inch of Kashmir is disputed, that we don't have the luxury to reason that big cities, small cities, big towns, small towns, even villages don't need the disputed label, because that would be unseemly, for it is often there that the rubber meets the road, that the dispute shows its ugly colors. The idea that the characterization of a dispute is good for big region, but over the top for villages, towns, and cities, grist to be tucked away in a tiny footnote, goes again every notion of neutrality on Wikipedia that I know of. The Indian government has long avoided using the word "dispute," preferring "conflict" instead. But the reasons have been known to everyone for a long time:
  • Hill, Kenneth L. (2007), "India:War with Paksitan, 1965", in Ciment, James (ed.), Encyclopedia of Conflicts Since World War II, London and New York: Routledge, p. 718, ISBN 978-0-7656-8005-1, The Kashmir Problem: Kashmir is located on the northern borders of India and Pakistan in the Himalayan Mountains. When the 1947 war ended, India controlled about 65 percet of the disputed area even though more than 70 percent of its population of 5 million were Muslim. At the time of independence, Kashmir was one of 600 princely states that had to choose to become a part of India or Pakistan. The leader of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was a Hindu, and he opted to integrate Kashmir with India even though most of his subjects were Muslims. His decision was supposed to be ratified by a vote of the residents, but no vote was ever held.
    Military forces representing India and Pakistan raced to occupy as much of Kashmir as possible. Indian forces won control of most of Kashmir. The New Delhi government would not allow the people in Kashmir to vote, knowing they would undoubtedly vote to unite with Pakistan. ... The problem of Kashmir was placed on the United Nations agenda during the 1947 war. In January 1948, the Security Council created the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. Its function weas to monitor a cease-fire once the beligerents agreed to stop fighting. It was also responsible for investigating alleged violations of the cease-fire. In April 1948, the United Nations Security Council approved a three-part resolution. It called for a cease-fire, a truce between India and Pakistan, and the establishment of machinery to determine the will of the Kashmiri people. The Security Council hoped that during the truce both sides would substantially reduce their military presence in Kashmir. Many Pakistani leaders though the best way to determine the will of the people in Kashmir was to hold a plebiscite.
    Those parts of the resolution dealing with truce, demilitarization, and creating the machinery to determine the will of the people were ineffective. There was no progress on demilitarization or the holding of the plebiscite because of India's opposition.
There you have it. So just because there is a preponderance of Indian- or India-POV editors on WP and very few from Pakistan or China to prosecute a defense, does not mean that the WP keel over and forswear neutrality. The thing to keep in mind is that we agree with the general principle that a disputed region is disputed everywhere. But we can't really lay down the syntax for saying this. The bigger problem is belling the cat when the number is so large. Anantnag district has a dozen-odd subdistricts; one of these is Kokernag. It in turn has 51 villages. Most, I wager, have no WP pages. We can agree on a general principle of equity (that a dispute be mentioned whenever possible), but we can't really lay down the phrasing when the phrasing can't be applied in a uniform fashion, nor monitored with any reliability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is imperative to recognize the multitude of compelling reasons why these cities should gain global recognition, surpassing the mere label of "disputed". @Fowler&fowler's actions seemingly reflect a biased stance against India, aiming to use every inch of Jammu and Kashmir into a promotional platform for xenophobic Kashmiri separatist factions (her recent spree of edits on Kashmir-related pages are a testimony to this). These groups bear responsibility not only for the forced displacement of religious minorities but also for the ongoing killings of those who have chosen to stay[6][7], as well as the tragic loss of migrant workers' lives.[8] Why does Fowler insist on perpetuating the flames of conflict and promoting its presence within Wikipedia articles? I can only suspect...
In response to @Fowler&fowler's assertion regarding the United Nations' objection to India's sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir (UT), let me state this:

"The ‘international community’ has come to accept India’s position on Kashmir, with the United Nations Security Council removing the Kashmir issue from its agenda in 1996".[9]

Rest assured that Pakistan and China will be treated impartially and without any prejudice. Fayninja (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Fayninja (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing due time for Fowler to reply, I shall make my decision in a few days. Fayninja (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The contentious topics notice on your talk (diff) is intended to let you know that attacks such as the above are not permitted. You may be topic banned if they are repeated. Comment on article content and do not offer your opinions about contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh...exactly what I had waited for and anticipated. Quite biased don't you think, that this comment, "The nominator is known for their anti-Muslim and pro-Punjab-north-India-Hindu bias in articles " failed to initiate the same kind of response from your being. Hate is hate, there is no exuse for it. Fayninja (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: Are attacks such as those by Fowler right above allowed? Are editors allowed to bully, hound and misgender other editors despite being repeatedly requested to not do so? And to continue this behaviour even on RfCs? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you announced your gender on your use page? If characterizing it correctly is important to you, you should proclaim it upfront. Where did you mention your gender in any edit on WP before you did to me? So, what is your gender? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly told you here, responding to which you asked me to "please read Carol Gilligan before you shunt garbage." Then you did it again and I asked you again to not do it here to which you responded by asking me again to read Gilligan, and that you "have three adult daughters and none are slouches" implying that I am a slouch and thus cannot be a woman. You rudely repeated this here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but if you misinterpret idiomatic English, it is not my fault. Ask next time if you don't understand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Bezos's grandfather once told him, "It is much harder to be kind than to be clever. I recommend that you stop being clever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question: what gender are you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: till when do I have to deal with WP:ASPERSIONS? I have repeatedly asked this editor to stop over a long, long period of time. Can you hat this attack against me the way you hated my proposal for going off topic, or is this editor allowed to WP:BLUDGEON the RfC as they see fit? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in the same boat. I have not operated two accounts simultaneously and twice under different names without giving anyone a clue in order to make the same argument about sovereignty in the Himalayas, wasting the time of longstanding competent editors one of which was the selfsame RegentsPark. I don't go around starting RfCs or pseudo-RfCs at the drop of a hat when I can't have my way. How many did you begin on Talk Himalayas? Let me count the ways:
Well, if you had only "bothered to check", you would have seen that two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why have you not asked some admin to close it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ten months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see it has been archived. The coroners consent will be needed for exhumation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More likely, the closer closed by archiving. It was too unfocused for anyone to discern anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I have work to do. I didn't create reliable content on WP by wasting time in such RfCs Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the second example you mention above is regards the weather and pictures, absolutely unrelated to the other two, and which resulted in nearly all of my edits (which were removed by you) being reinstated. That’s what I mean by WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:ASPERSIONS. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: and by a long time, I mean a long time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't write nonsense. You were trying to replace the real India of its huddled masses, its dust, heat, and perspiration, its homeless sleeping on sidewalks or street medians by the unrecognizable "India shining." As such you were engaged in violating the cardinal principles about reliability and due weight, which applies to pictures as well, that aim to complement text that has been supported by reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continue in this manner and I'll eventually request a topic ban for you from South Asia related topics broadly construed. I've had it with you. I'm not coming back to check how you have proceeded in this false RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m reminded of how another editor responded there and then, calling your comments "ridiculously orientalist arguments — lacking basis in any policy". I have thirteen successful WP:FPCs, including three from Pakistan and one from Armenia. On Commons I have more. This is precisely the WP:ASPERSIONS that I’m tired of. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the ping above at 19:39, 15 June 2023, I have not examined everything on this page but noticed the comment I replied to on my watchlist. F&f: That is not allowed. I have no opinion on this RfC but in general, articles are considered on their merits and factors that apply to one article might not apply to another. That is, it is unlikely that a prescription about how unspecified articles should be written will be successful (apart from universal issues such as WP:MOS). There should be no further discussion about other editors—focus on content. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq: point taken. Will focus on content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UnpetitproleX: I apologize unconditionally for hurting your feelings by the inadvertent use of “his” to refer to you. From here on out I will always try to to use the plural pronouns they/theirs for you and/or your past accounts. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Johnuniq, though I am still waiting for something to be done about the many WP:OFFTOPIC walls of text, which are mostly unfounded accusations against me of my "misbehaviour" on Himalayas, WP:Featured Picture Candidates and whatnot. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there is too much text for me to want to sort out editor behavior. I'm happy to take steps so editors avoid aspersions against other in the future but I can't work up an enthusiasm for monitoring the past. My comment at 08:54, 13 June 2023 was easy because the short text I was referring to was obviously inappropriate. People should focus on content. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Johnuniq, I didn’t mean I’m waiting for you personally to do something. I pinged an admin above, who did shut a similar discussion down on Talk:Srinagar. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to write a wall of text in response to their accusations, but they have lied freely in their accusations. For example, they said this above "they were peddling the image [ this one ] on some WP article(s) making fun of Muslims; after I called them out, they turned it into an image that showed what Islamic feminists were battling!" I did not make fun of anybody, let alone a community, nor did I turn the image into anything of that sort (you can read about what happened here). Adding relevant images to pages is one of the many things I do. I have added the majority of images to Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh etc, including many that I have taken myself (such as this and this).
This is just one in the multitudes of accusations they have made against me on this page. Am I to just take it lying down? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know of any future problems. The rule is to discuss article content on pages like this and restrict discussion of other editors to a noticeboard like WP:ANI. I understand that you are unhappy with what has been said but the way to get ahead at Wikipedia is to focus on content without being distracted by inappropriate commentary from others. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wording arrived at in 2019 [here], but not implemented on any of the six pages
  2. ^ Wording as proposed by User:UnpetitproleX
  3. ^ Wording as proposed (and thereafter implemented) by User:Fowler&fowler [here]

References

  1. ^ Lead paragraphs of Britannica article on:
    • Srinagar “Srinagar, city, summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory (Jammu is the winter capital), northern India, situated in the Kashmir region of the Indian subcontinent. The city lies along the banks of the Jhelum River at an elevation of 5,200 feet (1,600 metres) in the Vale of Kashmir.”;
    • Jammu “Jammu, city, winter capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory, northern India. It lies in the southwestern part of Jammu and Kashmir along the Tawi River, south of Srinagar (the summer capital), and to the north is the Siwalik Range.”;
    • Leh “Leh, town, Ladakh union territory, northern India. The town is located in the valley of the upper Indus River at an elevation of 11,550 feet (3,520 metres), surrounded by the towering peaks of the Ladakh Range (a southeastern extension of the Karakoram Range).”;
    • Gilgit “Gilgit, town in Gilgit-Baltistan, part of the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northern Indian subcontinent. It is situated in the Karakoram Range in a narrow valley on the Gilgit River at its confluence with the Hunza River and about 20 miles (32 km) upstream from its confluence with the Indus River.
  2. ^ For example, Leh is only described as the capital of Ladakh—and not in terms of Kashmir—in this 2021 book on Muslim communities of the Himalayan region which has multiple chapters involving Leh. The same is the case in this 2017 geological history of the Himalayan region. This 2022 work focused on the urban water issues of Leh, says in its book description, "The city of Leh is located in the high mountain desert of Ladakh in the Indian Himalayas …" See also this on the WMF website.
  3. ^ "Chapter two - India and Pakistan: The new dominions". India and Pakistan: The new dominions – Parliament of Australia. 2013-04-14. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
  4. ^ Desk, Outlook Web (2023-03-11). "Getting Kashmir On UN Agenda An 'Uphill Task': Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto". https://www.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 2023-06-15. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); External link in |website= (help)
  5. ^ Wirsing, Robert (2003). Kashmir in the Shadow of War. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-1090-4.
  6. ^ "9 Kashmiri Pandits killed in J&K in 2 years: Govt to House". Hindustan Times. 2022-12-14. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  7. ^ "Militants gun down Kashmiri Pandit, new terror outfit claims hand in killing". The Hindu. 2023-02-26. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  8. ^ "28 migrant workers killed in J&K since 2017; seven from Bihar: Govt". The Economic Times. 2022-07-26. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  9. ^ corporateName=Commonwealth Parliament; address=Parliament House, Canberra. "Chapter two - India and Pakistan: The new dominions". www.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 2023-06-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review request for Phoolan Devi

On behalf of User:Mujinga, I'm posting a peer review request for Phoolan Devi. It is currently a GA and they are hoping to get it to FA-standards. They had posted about it before but hadn't got much of a response. All they are looking for is checks on the naming and caste conventions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that MPGuy2824! I think I'll close the peer review soon in case anyone one wants to comment. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan#Requested move 11 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan#Requested move 11 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian media

@Board Regulars: Do you know of any significant scholarship from the recent past which documents the total devolution of English and Hindi TV media in India, perhaps with the sole exception of NDTV, into brazen Hindu nationalist circus? TrangaBellam (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Shalini (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Shalini (disambiguation) to Shalini. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Avinash (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Avinash (disambiguation) to Avinash. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Yuvraj (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Yuvraj (disambiguation) to Yuvraj. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Proposed Anti-Sikh Genocide

Does anyone have knowledge of such pogrom? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a hoax. The sources say nothing about a pogrom or planned killing of Sikhs. I cleaned up the citations and almost nothing is left. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>>> "The 1986 Proposed Anti-Sikh Genocide was a proposed pogrom by Hindu radicals, the Indian National Congress along with other nationalists to eradicate Sikhism from Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Bihar."
The hoax I believe has been perpetrated by the Indian National Congress to sow confusion among the ranks of the BJP. For real Hindu radicals would not have limited their ambition to the Bihar-Bengal border. They would have gone whole hog through the Ganges Basin
Just kidding. :)
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark @Fowler&fowler Could you also review Desh Sevak Sena by the same editor — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally not a fan of pages created off-Wiki (or even on a user subpage) and then begun on-Wiki with one big prose dump. If I had my druthers, I'd delete those pages.
That said, it is well-known that ex-INA men (upon release from confinement after their surrender in 1945) took part in violence of the Partition of India, especially on the Hindu-Sikh side in the Punjab region. I vaguely remember during the writing of 1947 Amritsar train massacre that along with the Sikh Jathas, they became organized killing machines that left no one alive.
As for the sources used in the Desh Sevak Sena article, I can't say.
I did change (i.e. move) Mohan Singh (general) to Mohan Singh (military officer) on the grounds that the "general" rank was a post-INA-induction rank, the result of grade inflation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem very promising, especially the S. S. Ahluwalia part. My confidence on the creator further dropped when I saw Kandu Khera Incident. FWIW, all of the creators moves are reverted too. From their contribs, I cannot, unfortunately, assume good faith. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's now SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit#22 July 2023 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrian statue of Mark Cubbon

Are any editors able to help expand Equestrian statue of Mark Cubbon? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the statue need its own article? Surely a section on the main Mark Cubbon article could discuss the statue? Evansknight (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Files Spinoff

The Kashmir Files: Unreported — I am not sure if this has been released but Agnihotri is explicitly claiming it to be a seven-episode/five-hour-long documentary. To start with, the lead needs attention. Paging Fowler&fowler and @Kautilya3 for paying attention to the article. I will likely be unavailable but might chime in, if required. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uddhav Thackeray

Hi, it is regarding these changes. Looks COI. Please see whether some of the newly added things can be salvaged or all of it needs to be purged for being resume like. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harapanahalli - Karnataka - requesting attention

  • Non-co-operative user:

Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


  • Content dispute: @Darshan Kavadi (almost single purpose account) adds Kannada language words "ವಿದ್ಯಾಸಿರಿ ನಾಡು" (Transliteration: Vidyasiri Nadu (Land of rich education/Best Education etc) According to contesting user SJanakiPSusheela It's actually local media sobrequet, hence undue) to the article Harapanahalli in info box 'other_name' without providing reliable source as per WP requirement plus has slow edit warred with contesting user almost since June 24th.
@ WP:RPPI contesting user requested increase in page protection but got declined with either AIV or ANI solution.
Since I came across the message @ WP:RPPI attempted to mediate with @Darshan Kavadi at article talk then at user talk page asking to support the change with reliable source. Not only there is a lack of expected response, but Kavadi reinserted contested change and removed citation needed template put by me.

@SJanakiPSusheela is technically correct in following MOS:PUFFERY and deleting unsourced content. Though the route of AIV or ANI is always available; I am not sure to do the same for relatively small issue with a relatively novice user. Can some one take one more chance to help explain the user and handle the issue further if required.

Bookku (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has removed your date & citation needed formats too. Kindly ask admins to protect the page after removing disputed things in the article please. SJanakiPSusheela (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of caste members - delete them?

I'm reposting something I said on my own talk page an hour or so ago, just to get a feel for what the current thoughts are here regarding lists of caste members, eg: List of Rajputs. I think it would need an RfC to have any effect: I am useless at proposing such things but do think we have a growing problem, especially with so few eyes which are well-versed in our policies and guidelines.

What I said was 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.

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I strongly support deletion. That list is outdated not to mention imprecise in a day and age when it is disconnected from traditional priestly function. In fact, I strongly support deleting all caste lists from WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never even knew such lists existed. I too support deletion all caste lists. They have no use at all in Wikipedia. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been cleaning them for 15 or 16 years now. Things have improved slightly with the various changes to page protection systems but it's still boringly repetitive yet necessary work. The big question if they were deleted is whether people would then start creating the same lists inside the main articles for the various castes. But (a) it would dramatically reduce the number of articles which need to be monitored; and (b) I think WP:CASTEID would still be relevant. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you convert this into an RFC to bring in greater participation. Nowhere in Wikipedia should the caste of a person be listed. I think that this would come under WP:CASTEID as peoples' caste are being mentioned. Caste is a long gone social criterion just like clans that does not need to be mentioned at all. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the removal of such caste lists would be of considerable benefit to Wikipedia, for multiple reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating RfC below. Not done one before, so feel free to edit it if I mess up. - Sitush (talk)

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
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).[reply]
  • Support per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
OK. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Talk:2023 Manipur violence

Hello, there are some ongoing content disputes at the above article (many of which are discussed on the talk page) which could help from editors who are more aware of the subject matter. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jaipur–Mumbai Central Superfast Express murders

Just created. Feel free to expand, improve, and publish if you would like to. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cue more frenetic & often incorrect editing. WP:NOTNEWS needs to be revisited, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very much of a content creator, which is why I chose to not publish it directly. If it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, I can let it die for G13. But if someone thinks that (policywise) it warrants inclusion, so there's some of the skeleton to build upon. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will be fine, and I'd rather news-y things were developed in draft space first, but give it 12 hours & I'm pretty sure someone will have done the same in mainspace. I am just not a fan of encyclopaedias being used as rolling news sources. Back in the day, The Times (London) had a reputation for always being late reporting news ... but more accurate than any other source. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=1168340393"