Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 19:26, 17 March 2012 (Archiving 14 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

Please suggest/vote for INCOTM - February 2012

An article needs to be selected by the community for WP:INCOTM for February. Till now the choices are neither new nor encouraging. Please feel free to add suggestions and also vote. Last date - 1st February 2012.

Result & Thanks to all who voted

  • It was awesome to see support for a "soft" subject such as Dance in India which tied with no less an august personage than India's most popular President Dr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. In a way, I'm glad that Tinu & Karthik tipped the scales because, Abdul Kalam's appeal will not fade in the generations of today but should the Dance article have lost out, it would have been hard for it to get so many eyeballs.
  • Thanks to all who voted. Its really encouraging to see people not just join in but change their vote on admirable grounds. Special thanks to Tinu & Karthik for helping resolve the tie-breaker.
  • INCOTM of Febraury 2012 is Dance in India.

Other suggestions

A suggestion for the process

I would like to bring a statistic to your kind notice. The article A. P. J. Abdul Kalam has an average of 4000 views per day. Dance in India has approximately 500 views per day. I am not saying this to advocate or disadvocate any article. There is a possibility that knowing the number of views of the article before polling enables voters to make an informed choice. Should we include the statistic during the polling of next month? Inviting your views on this suggestion... --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Lynch7 16:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
There is the associated danger of putting the popular in front of the important. Page views do not reflect importance - for example Sachin Tendulkar had 2.5 lakh views in the last month but I would argue to my dying breath that Dance in India, a topic discussing the cultural heritage of billions of Indians for thousands of years is far more important though it lags with 16,516 views in the last month.
If this metric is to mentioned, other attributes such as whether it is mentioned in any of the core topics in the template should be mentioned also. AshLin (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Also ≥List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have. AshLin (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:India articles with comments

Category:India articles with comments, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. This relates to a WP1.0 assessment category used by WP:INDIA, and the discussion has broadened into a wider consideration of such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia is so large and complex, WikiProject India is one, that there are many forgotten dusty corners. This is one of those. Though sitush did not get a satisfactory resolution at Cfd, the explanation there was educative to me as it will be for most Wikipedians. It is a point to be noted that Wikipedia articles with comments can be a fertile place for examining and rectifying cleanup issues & for improvement hints. AshLin (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Should this facility continue to exist? Imho this should exist unless a broader Rfc/Cfd etc decides to delete all these comments across the board. AshLin (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I would personally prefer talk pages to be used rather than comments, but comment pages automatically single themselves out from the rest of the 90K articles and become an easier method of finding such articles. Perhaps there is a use there? What do other editors think? AshLin (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I was intending to raise this issue again here, having got precisely nowhere at CfD & run out of patience with someone there. I'd bin it or, failing that, would appreciate advice regarding what to do with pages such as Talk:Barnwal/Comments. Among the problems of the current system is inconsistency: some people will use the comment system and the vast majority will not (ok that is my guess, but we have ca. 90k articles and < 1k using the category). - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable place for this discussion, but if editors do want to consider a change to the project's assessment process, shouldn't Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India/Assessment be notified? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Since everyone listed at the page you link to also frequents this page, and since this is by far the higher profile page, here is just fine. Spreading the crap around is exactly what we need to avoid. Conversations here can be chaotic enough without them devolving to multiple pages. Put a notice there and you will have some people responding there, and they'll most likely be drive-bys. Sometimes WP:IAR applies, and this is one of those times. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Filmfare best award of 50 years merger proposal

All ye film buffs (and others as well), do have a look at my merger proposal here: Talk:Filmfare Award for Best Film. Lynch7 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thillai Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram

There had been few edits like 1, 2, 3 which were about removal of referenced content and addition of unsourced material after which arun nadar123 was blocked due to legal threats. Now this recent edit is almost similar to which were caused by arun nadar123. I believe he is a sockpuppeter of User:Bhaskar pillai and have already asked for sock investigation and even for page protection. Since this article is of High importance to wiki project India, I am bringing this to experienced user's attention for clearing out those unsourced edits. I thought to clear out those edits myself but the person has already threatened me. Not like scared but an admin intervention would make things easier I think and I hope someone would look into this as soon as possible. Shriram (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Urgent attention (Karnataka politics articles)

I need urgent attention on the following articles.

I am investigating this further, request help. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think CSD is valid. Much of the material is well sourced and verifiable. Might need some slight rewording, but content is OK otherwise. Title of "Porngate" is probably inadequate; needs to be more specific. Lynch7 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The reason why I have used the CSD {{db-attack}} template is because of the way information has been represented in the article with the title "Porngate", which is simply ridiculous, since the Indian media seems to have gotten into the habit of sensationalizing events and adding -gate prefixes without even evaluating their significance. Feel free to move the page to a more appropriate title, but keep Wikipedia:Notability (events) in perspective. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't have much ideas; yes, the current title is certainly not good. All I can think of is some long, inelegant title like "2012 Karnataka assembly porn scandal". Lynch7 07:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and is completely inappropriate as an encyclopedic article. Apparently three politicians watched "sleazy clippings" and resigned yesterday. The article might be created in three months if any secondary source at that time shows the topic is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably; probably not. It might have some lasting effects. I don't feel too strongly about it though, and the same info might as well be included in the articles of the three ministers. Lynch7 07:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
All of India's newspapers refer to the event as "Porngate", including India's newspaper of record The Times. There is discussion about this on talk:Porngate. I propose that any issues be discussed on that talkpage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Xwas (talk · contribs · email)

I have gone through the recent edits made by the single-purpose account on numerous articles. Though Xwas does include citations to the insertions they make into the articles, however, their edits are characterized by distinct POVpushing, which place more emphasis on the surrounding controversies rather than the whole aspect of things. This is categorically against what is advised in WP:NPOV. I am listing some of the problematic edits below for analysis.

This account only exists to add sections on controversies to articles, and is likely a sockpuppet of another established user. I would like to get more opinion here before we can consider a sockpuppet investigation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to NPOV comment

Thanks for highlighting and alerting what you see as a NPOV issue.

  • My last edit to the Palemar article was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Krishna_Palemar&oldid=475730172 . The text that I added was the following: "Resignation after watching Pornography in Karnataka Assembly: In Feb 2012, Palemar was asked to resign after a television video grab showed him and two other cabinet colleagues, Laxman Savadi and C C Patil, watching pornographic clips on their mobile phones in a session of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly [4].". I did not add the "porngate" page and checked if that tag was included in List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix.
  • In the reportage on illegal mining in Karnataka and Belekeri port scam http://www.google.co.in/search?q=palemar+belekeri, the involvement of Palemar as a minister of ports, was relevant to a biographical picture. The specific text was "Involvement in the Belekeri Port Scam: Belekeri port scam relates to the illegal shipment and export of iron ore mined without authorization or payment of state royalties in Karnataka from Belekeri Port. Justice N. Santosh Hegde who authored the key reports on the illegal mining in Karnataka, had resigned from the Lokayukta position on 23 June 2010 after Deputy Conservator of Forests R Gokul, who had exposed the Belekeri iron-ore exports, was suspended by order of erstwhile ports and environment minister, J. Krishna Palemar [1] [2] [3]."

The facts presented in these sentences are objective and from widely reported news articles. By removing entire sections, which are relevant to the biographical sketch of a public figure, you are violating "Achieving neutrality: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.... " in the WP:NPOV. To refute the insinuation that this is a sock puppet account and primarily used for POV pushing, please go earlier into my contributions which span across other fields of interest. Regards. Xwas (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know every part of this issue, but I found out about Xwas when I was going to his talk page to thank him for starting coverage of three politicians involved in a widely-covered scandal - Porngate. Here are the pages which he improved with short, NPOV additions - J. Krishna Palemar, Laxman Savadi and C C Patil. In addition to only adding info about the scandal he added biographical information unrelated to the scandal, used good sourcing, and wikified the articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Porngate. I disagree with Rasberry's characterization of Xwas's edits as NPOV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Help on a DYK

Hello All!
A DYK has been proposed on the newly created article Abbas Kazmi. The article's content wasnt very clear to me. Hence i have tried my best to make things better. But i lack the recent knowledge on the Kasab case and have a feeling that something more can go in the article; especially with regards to the Hook proposed in the DYK. Anyone with fair & square knowledge will be helpful here. Thanks! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the link to the wikileaks1 cable that is mentioned in the article, can someone help expanding the section, Thanks- Ratnakar Kulkarni —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

Views required on how to include "year" in article titles of events

Articles about events have Year/month/date of the event mentioned in the title. A simplification of this is needed and hence your views on this discussion are welcome. Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(events)#Year_in_the_title -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Caste sanctions palaver

Permanent link to the WP:AN discussion referred to above. Not done this before but I think that it is correct. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong protest over how these sanctions have been arrived at. It is outrageous that the issue which has been ongoing for so long here be subjected to discretionary sanctions on AN without the knowledge of this Noticeboard. It is wrong for India-community members that they participate there and involve themselves in getting a discretionary sanctions imposed without informing the board before the discussion was closed. In such a situation announcing the results of AN discretionary sanctions as a fait accompli and expecting all of us to accept it at face value is a mockery of all free principles of Wikipedia. I have registered a strong protest at WP:AN and I personally feel that certain community members have transgressed in not informing their compatriots and giving them a chance to participate in this discussion. It is irrelevant as far as I am concerned which way the outcome of the discretionary sanctions goes. But it is a greater blow to free principles that the main actions to clean up Caste articles should be done in so unprincipled a manner. AshLin (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(moved from talk page of AshLin) Hi AshLin, I am really, really sorry about the lack of notification at WT:INB. I just assumed that others with more experience/clue were dealing with things in the correct manner, especially given that AN is primarily an administrator-focused board. There is a spin-off and I think it best to let you know of this so that you can consider how best to deal with it - see User_talk:Salvio giuliano#Sanctions template. It has all happened in good faith and it spun off prior to your perfectly justified note at WP:AN etc. Does this need copying over to WT:INB or some other venue? I will leave it to you because, honestly, this entire concept of general sanctions etc is new to me, although obviously I have known for a long time that such things exist in subject areas in which I have no involvement. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious from the proceedings that the not informing of INB was a lapse and it has been acknowledged as such by users. The discussion on discretionary sanctions by a number of users was done in good faith and the decision arrived at in logical consequence. It would have been far better if the stakeholders were informed. That apart, imho the result would have been the same - discretionary sanctions would have been arrived at and my own voice would have been in support of it. As such, undoing/redoing the issue would serve no useful purpose. As such, I have on my personal behalf accepted the sanctions by assuming good faith. As far as I am concerned the issue is closed. The good outcome is all users concerned have become more aware of the need to follow Wikipedia principles in spirit. AshLin (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ravidassia

WikiProject Ravidassia
This article is within the scope of the Ravidassia WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ravidassia Religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. You may sign up for the project on the Participants list.
. I am starting WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like help from people who are interested. I am working on a Portal for the topic here.

McKinseies (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Saptarishi article needs a clean up

Is anyone capable of cleaning up Saptarishi ? Aside from general phrasing/layout issues, much of it is unsourced and that which is sourced seems to rely on primary material and images that I am fairly sure are copyvios/dubious provenance. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing articles from new editor

We have Nathamar and Nathaman Udayar which should maybe be the same article. And if either is a caste article, does it need a template? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Indians in Afghanistan

There is an RFC on a topic under this WikiProject: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Indians_in_Afghanistan. Those interested may participate. Please ensure that your viewpoints are well-thought out and in the best interests of all concerned especially WP. AshLin (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions

I think that it is wise to note here the outcome of a discussion at WP:AN regarding sanctions on caste/community articles. It probably would also be wise for this to be incorporated into the Project page and elsewhere but I am not best placed to do that. The now-closed discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Discretionary_sanctions_on_caste_articles_and_more. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, I thought we needed such a notice, too, but I checked WP:WikiProject Slovenia and WP:WikiProject Ireland (two random projects that I know cover articles under sanctions), and neither one has such a notice on their project page. So I guess no such notice is needed. However, it is acceptable to tag the talk pages of relevant articles...obviously I don't think we should tag all of them, because a quick estimate looks like there are over a thousand...but we could start with the ones we already know are a problem. Let me find a suitable tag, then I'll add one to Talk:Nair and Talk:Kshatriya (the first 2 that spring to mind), and others can add them as they see fit. And then when other pages have problems, add the tag at that point, and gently warn new editors. For those that haven't worked with sanctions before, we must always warn a user about the sanctions first before attempting to enforce any sort of block or ban against them, since the whole sanction system is different than normal editing and not widely known. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I cannot envisage that it does any harm to make a general note. Salvio giuliano has created a template, although I am unsure whether this needs to be moved into template space cf user space. According to the Anthropological Survey of India, there are > 4000 such communities and I rather suspect that we cover well over half of those. - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That template seems perfect. I'll ask xyr if xe is ready to move it into template space. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to add a bit at the top of the edit box for the article pages? Something akin to the pink-ish notice regarding protection? We get a lot of IP contributors etc and my experience is that they probably do not take a look at the talk pages. Sure, they will be informed, per your comment above, prior to any imposition of sanction conditions but perhaps an edit box notice might inform at least a few of these contributors? This is an entire new area for me, so please excuse my ignorance. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You are referring to page notices. It is possible. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggest adding a note on talk pages of caste articles that the sanctions are in place. I can't imagine how else the editors of those articles will be aware of it. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
As Sitush mentioned, I have prepared two different templates: the former, {{subst:Uw-castewarning}}, is meant to warn an editor who has already violated Wikipedia's policies that the community has authorised the use of discretionary sanctions on anybody behaving disruptively; the latter, {{Castewarningtalk}}, is meant for article's talk pages. Should Template:Castewarningtalk prove ineffective, it's also possible to create an edit notice (but only admins can create and edit them). Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Name of the Article Basic Structure

Name of this Article should not be just Basic Structure, as just the words basic structure are not in any way related to the Basic Structure Doctrine followed in respect to constitution of India. I also tried to discuss this on the article's talk page and Wikiproject: Indian Politics, but I didn't get any answer. Alok Bansal (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What should be the name of the article, according to you? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It should be "Basic structure doctrine". Should that clash with another topic, it should be "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". AshLin (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the "basic structure doctrine" pertains to a universal concept. In fact, the Constitution of Germany is called "Basic Law" which is amendable only with a supermajority, by its very nature. So I support using Basic structure doctrine and I encourage Alok to write the article from an international perspective. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Basic structure by itself doesn't convey the meaning, it should be changed to Basic structure doctrine. Amartyabag TALK2ME 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving the article is simple enough but, reading it, I'm not sure whether this is an established doctrine or mere original research. The one reference provided does not make it clear whether the writer is using the term to expound a theory or whether the term is an established one. References to law articles would be helpful. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote for "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)" because this pertains specifically to the Indian Constitution. Gkjohn (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
To clarify on the matter whether the Article in question is an established doctrine or an original research, I would like to mention that this theory is mentioned in many famous books on Constitution of India. For example: Basu, Durga Das (2009). Introduction to the Constitution of India, Kashyap, Subhash C (2008). Our Constitution. Alok Bansal (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I recommend it moves as of now to "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". Further internationalisation & associated name change can be done later. AshLin (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess it's a valid concept. Thanks (Alokagrawal8) for the clarification. Basic structure doctrine should be good enough since there are no other contenders for that title but AshLin's suggestion is ok too. --regentspark (comment) 19:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
However, in both the books and the reference cited in the article, the term used is Basic Feature and not Basic Structure. Alok Bansal (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If my memory serves me correct (from law school), there are myriad number of academic works available on Constitutional law that refer to "basic structure" and "basic feature" interchangeably. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am moving the article to "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". I am also redirecting the "Basic feature doctrine (Constitution of India)" as these terms are used interchangably. Alok Bansal (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Have project seen this chill to editing of caste and political party articles?[1] A template and link was just put on the Caste system in India article.[2]

These community sanctions apply not only to caste articles (many of which have almost no factual information in them and appear to be made up), but to political parties also, as if Western political parties have no direct attachment, or a remote attachment, to their tribal roots....

South Asian articles suffer from issues of ownership, but not more so than popular kiddie culture articles on en.wiki. To me, the biggest problem with South Asian articles is the lack of editors. Get 3 editors in on a discussion about a caste and two of them will come to some sort of agreement, not in support of the POV editor.

I am concerned these sanctions will keep even more editors away from improving these articles. An administrator will see an edit, a POV pusher will shout foul, and the editor who bothered to correct wrong information will get blocked.

Are my concerns necessary? Maybe they are not. If there had been notice of the impacted communities, I might have been less concerned. Are there South Asian administrators on en.wiki? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed at WP:AN and there was a procedural error - see the thread further up this page. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, yes, there are South Asian admins on this wiki. Some took part in the discussion but I am not outing them here. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


Well that's done. Notified after the fact was good enough for the community.... Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW South Asian doesn't require outing, just an edit history. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your point re: edit history but if you mean that you can tell someone's origin from their edit history then you are incorrect. Probably, you mean something else. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I mean you can tell they edit in the area of South Asian articles by their edit history. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As it happens, I am not an admin but if I were and you checked my edit history then you might draw the conclusion that I was South Asian. I am not. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in whether or not you are South Asian. South Asian administrators are editors who monitor activity in the areas of South Asia, such as castes and political parties, preventing disputes from escalating, warning POV pushers, to prevent things like unannounced requests for sanctions against large areas of en.wiki based on the area being a hotbed of POV pushers and personal essayers. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, in that case your phrase - "South Asian admins" - was a bit ambiguous. Of course there are people who look over such articles. You will see some of them in the AN discussion referred to, but there are many more. The chances of any significant (hundreds of articles) subject area having no admin oversight here are pretty much zero. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Then how did this area get so bad, with so many POV pushers, so much bad blood, the necessity for 1RR, immediate sanctions, community wide? What were these administrators doing, watching it happen? Are there simply too few administrators in this area? If there were so few that this happened, what makes you think there will be enough to administer community sanctions? Have you read any of the India caste articles lately? They need edits by the thousands, not editors blocked from them. A large numbers of the ones I've read should be deleted in their entirety. That's the real crisis, not the POV pushers. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no 1RR restriction. Some of the admins took part in the discussion. As for "Have you read any of the India caste articles lately?" - honestly, have you checked anything out? - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Honestly. That is tough, being concerned about the lack of quality of a group of articles. Honestly. Honestly, it's simply not possible that I've checked anything out lately. Honestly. Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked me whether I had read any Indian caste articles lately. Check my edit history, or just take my word for it: I have seen many, and edited many also. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a rhetorical question, Sitush: "Have you read any of the India caste articles lately? They need edits by the thousands, not editors blocked from them." It's about the articles, not about your reading.
I didn't open this topic to discuss your heritage or edit or reading history. It's not about you. And, I marked it done. Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The existence of practices like discretionary sanctions worries me. It is just the kind of thing a rogue admin could misuse and the clause would allow that admin to get away scot free. I hope in practice that it does not become a fault-zone. AshLin (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a theoretical problem. However, these things exist in other subject areas and I am presuming that the practical problem does not arise. It would be a "straight to ANI" job if it did and it was spotted. Until then, it is WP:AGF. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bhardwaj

Anyone at all familiar is welcome to join in and help with this page. I haven't a clue and it is in need of formatting etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I think its better merged to Bharadwaja. Lynch7 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Bharadwaj is also a prominent sub-caste or gotra, hence the topics should be separated and a disambiguation page would be in order. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
IMO, Bhardwaj should be redirected to Bharadwaja. The current Bhardwaj should be moved to Bhardwaj gotra. However, I don't think a disambig is necessary as the sage Bharadwaja is clearly the primary topic. We can have a {{for}} in the Bharadwaja article, for the gotra article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No issues. Did you mean Bharadwaj (gotra) or Bharadwaj gotra? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Any one will do. What do you think? --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The bird Greater Coucal or Crow Pheasant is also known as Bharadwaj, whose sight is considered as to bring good luck. (But sorry! No reliable sources found.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a AfD now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhardwaj. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2G spectrum scam: Urgent attention needed

Immediate attention is called for the article 2G spectrum scam. Article is ballooning into an unmanageable mess, what with the embedded lists and all. Not without NPOV concerns also. Lynch7 14:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Is scam a suitable noun for inclusion in the name of an article?? Then, work from where that leads Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of notable persons in Cities - A need for a community Consensus

During the FAR of Kolkata article an interesting debate which has cropped up is regarding the inclusion or non-inclusion of names of personalities. It seems that there is no existing community guideline regarding the same except from the guidelines in the WP:NOTABILITY. However, the same guidelines are silent regarding addition of names of persons to other pages and especially for a featured article, and are not adequate for the same.

A rough criteria has been drawn up by me and Dwaipayanc with the help of inputs from other members. The same is as below:

There is no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria for accomplished personalities mentioned in the article. Some individuals such as are very significantly associated with Kolkata, while there are many others whose contribution or significance may not be as important. The significance level is a matter of subjective analysis, and there is room for discussion for each individual person. The following set of guidelines is recommended, while the name should meet all the Primary criteria, the person must additionally meet any one of the secondary criteria.

Primary
a. The person must have an existing Wikipedia article which meets the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY.
b. Individual reliable inline secondary citations proving the notability in the impugned article must be given.
c. The person must have born, or lived, or studied or worked significantly in the place, that is, the person should be related to place significantly.
d. The name(s) should be added in such a manner that it should not look like a laundry list, rather it should flow into a prose.
Secondary
a. There should be significant contribution to his/her field of expertise.
b. The person received prestigious international or national awards or was nominated.
c. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective prestigious scholarly society or association,
d. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC and his/her work is well recognised as evident from reliable secondary sources.


I would request all to suggest and have a common consensus regarding the criteria for adding names of personalities in Cities and other related articles. Amartyabag TALK2ME 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Awesome, we needed this discussion to take place. If I may put some minor suggestions: The Primary criteria is fine. Point 'a' in the secondary criteria is very vague; we could delete it. I understand the principle behind point 'd', but in this wording, it looks redundant; it should be worded in a way that only the most notable people are included (I would have suggested a wording myself, but I've gotta run now). Lynch7 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ultimately, this is all an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Is the contribution of the person significant enough to warrant a mention in the article? For instance, mentioning Rabindranath Tagore in the article on Kolkata may be a good idea, but that should not necessarily mean that it is important to mention the present Chief Minister of the State who happens to live in the city. There are not, and should not be any strict criteria for inclusion or exclusion except appropriate discussions on the talk page on WEIGHT. I cannot support the idea of any such separate criteria that are exclusively applicable to cities in India. What I am categorically against, though, is the insertion of lists such as "Lists of notable people from the city" as they are often indiscriminate, do not serve any encyclopedic purpose and are spam magnets. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • How about this: The person should have made significant contributions to the development of the concerned city--Anbu121 (talk me) 14:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    Nay, its like not including Einstein in an article about Zurich; he did pretty little for the city itself I think. Lynch7 07:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have one question. All these points can be easily met by a politician. Do you plan to include them? Eg. Ganesh Ghosh has a seperate article and was from Kolkata Dakshin (Lok Sabha constituency). -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that it can be dealt section wise. In the Administration section, the politician can be included if he/she has contributed significantly to the improvement/development of administration of the city in a unique way which other politicians have not. (Similarly for other sections like Education, sports, culture)--Anbu121 (talk me) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Obviously, a MLA or MP cannot be added by default, unless he has contributed significantly. eg, Jyoti Basu was the CM of West Bengal for around 20 years. The criteria of selection is not general notability but significant contribution is the essence. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
        • So you would have to compare amongst themselves to find out who deserves and who doesnt. (Not only politicians, everyone.) That seems fair but tough too. I am imagining how many Bollywoodies would go on Mumbai's page. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    Clarifications: Firstly, the discussion is not be confined to Kolkata article only, it is a general discussion regarding similar articles. Secondly, the discussion is not about whether we should have a "list of notable person" or "notable person as a separate section" in the article, rather the discussion is about what should be the criteria of having a name or not having a name, which generally flows in the prose in the article. Certain sections like Culture or sports cannot be comprehensively dealt without adding name of wellknown personalities in the place, so it is necessary to fix some objective criteria, even if they are not strict. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem can be divided into at lest three sub-problems! One is WP:WEIGHT, then context, and then establishing true relationship with the location.

Very important, as has been described above, is context. The names should be in appropriate section, and should flow with the prose. As an example, the education section in Kolkata article now reads, "Notable scholars who were born, worked or studied in Kolkata include physicists Satyendra Nath Bose, Meghnad Saha, and Jagadish Chandra Bose; chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy...".

To establish proper relationship with the location, consideration should be given to the person's birthplace, location of study, field of work. For example, Jagadish Chandra Bose was born hundreds of miles away from Kolkata, but his school and college education, and more importantly most of his research works took place in institutions in Kolkata. So, he has a significant association with the city.

The criteria that is very difficult to assess and should be considered on a case-by-case basis is WP:WEIGHT. While some persons may be clearly associated with and has significant contribution to a certain aspect of the city, it may not be enough to rationalize his/her inclusion in the city article, as we should follow summary style. And so, it is not only inclusion criteria, rather exclusion criteria that we should keep in mind, and consider on case-by-case basis --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can any one re-look on the issue?? Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the primary criteria outlined above are a good "necessary" condition for inclusion. However, the resulting set of people would likely be too large for practical purposes (not to mention the resulting "I have a source" wars :) ). Looking through the list of Kolkata names WP:Featured_article_review/Kolkata/archive1#Notability here, I constructed a short list of people that I think should be included: S N Bose, Tagore, C V Raman, Amartya Sen, Satyajit Ray, Kazi Nazrul Islam, and Vivekananda. The common characteristic of all these people is that they are likely to be known outside India and it struck me that it makes sense to include names that the general reader is more likely to recognize, otherwise the inclusion is meaningless. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

List of members of X caste

We have numerous articles that take the form List of X caste, eg: List of Yadavs, and we also have embedded lists in articles that serve a similar purpose, such as Vanniyar#Notable Vanniyars. I have spent a long time cleaning up a fair few of these and the problems that I have found are:

  • unsourced redlinks
  • blue linked entries without a source either in the list or the linked article
  • unsourced and unlinked
  • an assumption that the last name of a person defines their caste/community, despite no source for that
  • changes to a person's name in order to add their caste, eg: Shankar Pamarthy is shown as "Shankar Goud Pamarthy" at List of Gouds.

Basically, these are issues concerning WP:V, WP:NLIST and sometimes WP:BLPCAT. Generally speaking, I have had support for my clean up work on the relevant talk pages from experienced contributors. However, DGG has recently felt it necessary to revert a fair amount of the work, which prompted a thread on their talk page here. Obviously, the reverts were done in good faith but I feel that we do need to clarify the situation.

It should be noted that it seems DGG's reverts were connected to the actions of Pernoctator, who was proposing a fair few list articles for deletion on the grounds that they were empty. My solution to that issue has always been to redirect the list to the article concerning the relevant community.

Comments would be appreciated. There is arguably some overlap with our recent discussion here at Wikipedia_talk:INB#Mentioning caste of Individuals but my concern here relates specifically to lists. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good that you want a (continued) discussion on this issue. But i dont see how the issue is specifically related to lists. Am sure the format doesnt bother anyone. What bothers is the removal of the information itself. The root lies in mention of individual's caste; by any form. If the mention is in bio, it should be in list and caste article too. (Using "should" just because i expect Wikipedia to reflect info uniformly. Please dont argue saying "there-is-nothing-like-should-in-wikipedia") -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Only if it is verifiable and provided that we adhere to the BLP restrictions where applicable. I do not want this to turn into a re-run of the above debate: that would be pointless because the BLP side of things is resolved. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And perhaps another way of saying that is that the information shouldn't be in the bio either if it's unverified. If you (Animeshkulkarni, or anyone) ever find a caste claim in a BLP article and it doesn't have a source, or the source isn't top notch, please please immediately remove the claim. We cannot attempt to guess at people's caste (nor their ethnicity, nor their sexual preference, nor their religion). So, in response to Sitush's question above, I think we must treat these no differently than we treat any other BLP-related fact--it must be verified by high quality sources or it must come out. And if that means that there is no one left on the list, then that's just what happens. If it happens that there's only 2 or 3 on the list, I think a bold merge into the caste article is pretty clearly in the best interests of organizing the info. If WP:NLIST says we can't even put people onto a list of "Notable residents of City X" without a good verification, I don't see why we would be able to put people on to the far far more contentious "List of notable members of Caste X" lists without even better verification. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Further to this, per WP:BLPCAT, we shouldn't be putting living persons into such a list without explicitly citing a source that demonstrates that they have self-identified as being of that caste. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Qwyrxian! Exclude me from this example. I am always of the opinion that caste of a person should be mentioned. If there are no reasonable objections on a particular caste and its quite clear from surname, it should go in the article; EVEN IF WE DONT HAVE A SOURCE. Yeah! Yeah!! I know the WP clauses. But with all that we are not doing any good to readers. If we know that Deepika Padukone is Brahmin, say it so. If you are not sure of the sub-type, leave that part out. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There are several Indians who retain their paternal family names, but do not identify themselves with a particular caste because they do not believe in the caste system and/or because they are products of inter-caste marriages. You can't say "let's include this person in List of Y people, because his name is XY, even if we don't have a source". utcursch | talk 07:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
"it should go in the article; EVEN IF WE DONT HAVE A SOURCE". No, it shouldn't, per Wikipedia policy. If you want to put unsourced material into articles, start a blog somewhere. This in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
@Utcursch - What do you mean by they do not believe in caste-system? Just like someone doesnt believe in ghosts? I guess they do not believe in the discrimination based on caste-system, not the system itself. The existance of the system is not to their belief or unbelief in it. Just like how gravitation would exists even if Phoebe doesnt believe in it. Census 2011 had a column enquiring for the SC/ST/Others. There was no i-dont-believe-in-it column. Also the column asked for caste of the Head of the household, not of every person in the house; which means all will be assumed to belong to the same caste. Also they would be counted in that caste and not as caste-less. In case of inter-caste marriages, the child is presumed to inherit father's caste. In legal situations where one parent is of higher and other of lower caste, Supreme Court has decided on the child's caste based on his particular upbringing. That is especially for defining the child's benefits/rights. But in no case have they decided him to be a caste-less entity.
@AndyTheGrump - Thanks for the advice. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what I mean: "I believe X caste exists and my father belonged to that caste. But I'm not a member of it." Caste is a social construct. Just because one of my ancestors belonged to X caste does not mean I belong to X caste, even if I choose to retain the surname associated with that caste as a legacy of my family. If you can find a reliable source which says "Deepika Paduokne has enlisted as a member of the All India XYZ Brahmin Association" or "Deepika Padukone has said she filled her caste as XYZ Brahmin in the census", go ahead and include her in the list of XYZ Brahmins. But you cannot say "Padukone is a surname belonging to XYZ caste. So I'll list Deepika in the list of XYZ Brahmins." That's original research and BLP violation. utcursch | talk 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The naming issue goes still further than that. For example, I know some people called "Nair" whose connections with India are non-existent, although they may be connected to the Vikings; Boing! said Zebedee has said in the past that they know someone called "Jain". And both of us could spend £35 here in the UK tomorrow and thereby legally be known as "Menon" or "Panikkar", "Goud" or whatever. It is ludicrous to rely on a name, even within India, and another example of this is where people marry outside their traditional community norms. No source = no entry in a list, and this should be so regardless of whether the person is dead or alive. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yup. There is no room for argument here. Any unsourced assertion that a particular living person is of a particular caste is a violation of WP:BLP policy, and should be deleted on sight - and anyone who persists in adding such material against policy will be liable to the appropriate sanctions, up to and including blocks and bans. If you want to argue that the policy should be changed, then do it in the appropriate place, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Re: the absence of a "I-don't-believe-in-it-column", oddly enough such a column has existed in the past (1931, for example). - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Utcursch - I have said it somewhere before and would say it again now....Labelling people by a certain caste should be avoided. But mentioning caste can be done without labelling also. Eg. in this case Deepika's father's caste has a source in his article and that can be mentioned in some clever way in her article as well. That way you dont lable her nor do you prevent readers from drawing inferences; inferences that could very well be correct but are not implicitly stated because Deepika herself in her some interview doesnt say "Yeah! I am filming my next with Ranbir. And btw, i am Brahmin." or because some BLP policy (not clear enough) prevented it from doing so (And as if its a legal thing.)
@Sitush - Already replied to you inter-caste-marriage doubt. Child is presumed to be of father's caste. And you would want to keep your non-indian examples out of discussion as they dont apply. And you forgot you cardinal rule of referencing. Please give 1931's reference. (Couldnt find it.) And wasnt that census conducted by non-indians that then ruled india?
@AndyTheGrump - Thanks again! But the issue was raise here to get little response. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_33#Whats_to_be_included_in_biographies.3F.21.3F.21 The BLP policy doesnt specifically say anything about Indian castes and above that i seriously doubt they were framed with consideration of India in mind. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, I know that you mean well but yet again your contributions are causing a thread to lose focus. This thread has regard to lists. I do not see the need to re-raise an issue that has recently been discussed to death and in which you opinions were rejected. It smacks of a talk page version of coatracking.- Sitush (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Animeshkulkarni, see WP:BLP:
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing".
This is totally explicit. it is utterly irrelevant whether 'questionable' or 'contentious' material relates to castes, or to anything else - the policy is the same.
Frankly, I don't see why we are debating this here. Policy is clear and explicit, and no decisions can be made here that overturn it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If people stopped dragging up BLP issues then we would make more progress. The lists include/have included plenty of dead people. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
@Sitush - I dont care about a particular format as long as the person's caste is mentioned in his bio or some list or that caste's article. But you all have objection to its mention anywhere. Hence the talks. And yes, i am talking for both dead and alive.
@AndyThe Grump - So what are "citation needed" tags for? And i dont think every point on a Biography can be sourced and is sourced. Even in current FAs. And when they meant "likely to be challenged" they probably meant "reasonably likely to be challenged". Because for the sake of challeneging everything can be challenged. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The policy is entirely clear, and adding unreferenced assertions regarding caste is self-evidently 'contentious'. I have explained what policy is, and see no point in repeating myself. If I see any unreferenced assertion regarding the caste of a living person in any article (including lists) I will remove it. If people who are aware of the policy nevertheless chose to disregard it, I will report the issue for administrator attention. I'd ask all others to do likewise. This is all that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump - You said that twice before too and it was well noted. If you have anything else to say, say that. I am waiting.
@Sitush - Was raising this discussing just for formality so that you can point at this when you delete the articles? You people already have a good team with made up minds. Why care to even raise this discussion? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for Sitush, but the point of starting this discussion is to seek consensus. If a number of editors, especially those with good solid knowledge of policy, agree, and one person such as yourself disagrees, then there's consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. However, if you can present solid arguments in favor of a different path, then consensus might go differently. Others here probably know that I have regularly changed my position in face of good arguments, and I believe that everyone here will abide by consensus if its clearly established. And, of course, if we have a bunch of people and we can't get conensus (keeping in mind that consensus is not just a "majority", but it also doesn't require 100% unanimity), then we pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The point of this discussion should be to seek consensus in a manner that it does not require to be discussed again and again on all talk pages and fight over it. The fact that you all have to fight on all articles and there always is a different someone to oppose your actions shows that the so called consensus or even the policies you cite arent acceptable to these all. Isnt it? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Right here, right now, the only person who is failing to see the consensus that has existed for years is yourself. What goes on at articles is dealt with in accordance with the very policy that you continue to question and which you have repeatedly been told cannot be changed at this forum. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There are n people out there who do not agree with whatever your group decides. There is no dispute about that. The fact that only i am here and none of those are is immaterial. With all the editwars and fights happening you all should have resonably concluded that the consensus you have reached is not acceptable to many and hence lacks something. Dont blame them for not being here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to have a thorough read of WP:BLP. That is all I can suggest; your comments above shows a lack of understanding of BLP, and the BLP policy is one which you cannot change (not in this forum at least), even if you get "n" number of people. I am appalled by the apathy you show towards BLPs; perhaps you do not satisfactorily comprehend how serious BLP issues are. Simplified BLP policy: Material which is unsourced/unverified/unreliable = Remove on sight. No "Citation needed" tags or any nonsense of that sort. Lynch7 03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think its farce for me to comment any more on this; unless you are aiming to somehow change the BLP policy itself (something which would need a much larger forum). Lynch7 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Breaking out the non-BLP issue

I wanted to start a new section to clarify a question Sitush raises above (and that he and I have talked about before). I think that the BLP issue is pretty clear, and I'm pretty sure that there really is no debate on that point. However, for non-BLP (i.e., all those people who've managed to go and die before Wikipedia ever existed), how do we feel? The reason I ask is that for BLP, yes, we'll remove on site (and, like AndytheGrump, I am happy to do so and force the issue any time it comes up, fully expecting WP:BLPN and other venues would support it). However, for a dead person, where do we want to fall on the WP:V scale of activities? Let me give three analogies about companies:

  1. If someone wrote in an article, "Company X was founded in 1992", and had no citation, I, and I think most other people, would simply tag that statement with a "citation needed" tag...or maybe even just ignore it, because it doesn't really matter if its wrong by a year or two, isn't really contentious, and probably could be sourced with enough searching (even if it meant offline research).
  2. If someone wrote, "Company X is the number one seller of product Y in the world", I'd probably tag the sentence with a cn tag, and then remove it after some reasonable period of time if it were not sourced. This is clearly a claim that could be challenged, is promotional, and is more likely to be false than true.
  3. If someone wrote, "Company X was accused of regularly discriminating against minorities", I'd immediately remove the claim from the article, and demand it not be reinserted without a high quality source, and then still likely remove it unless there was very strong evidence that the accusation was actually true and met WP:UNDUE, because this claim is highly contentious and does real damage to the company (whether its true or not).

So, the question is, where do caste claims fall on this rough continuum? And, as a related question, do we treat the concern differently if its a claim in the person's own article, or when its inclusion on a list of "People in Caste X"? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is good! The policy of BLP suggests to remove any material instantly when unsourced properly so that it is not defamatory. Now whether the material is about a living or dead or company is immaterial. US laws probably allow deceased to be defamed. Indian dont. But calling someone to belong to a certain caste is not defamatory. Discrimination based on caste system is illegal, but classification is not. Hence "citation needed" tags are sufficient for caste mentions. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. See WP:BURDEN. The stuff that I have been removing has been tagged as uncited, often for years. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
But then you shouldnt just remove it. Are editors notified that a certain statement has no citation and that you are gonna remove it now? And it also says "...Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people;..." -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Animesh, please do not bring living people into this section! We do not leave uncited statements lying around for ever; nor do we reinstate information that has been removed as unsourced etc, without providing a citation. Will you please read up on our basic policies, such as WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay! Forget all this. Why do you think that a mention of someone's caste (living or dead) should be strictly deleted without keeping it with a Citation needed tag? Dont give refernce to some WP policy. If at all, give the reason behind introducing that policy. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Geez, I am utterly fed up of this tendentious stuff. Read WP:V. I do not have to justify policy. If you do not like it then go somewhere and propose a change to it. That "somewhere" is not here. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Good that you are fed up. Now someone else can sensibly answer things. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, this is not helpful. Sithush is trying to reason it out with you, but you are simply wikilawyering. If you have an issue with WP:V, then please propose changes on the respective talk page. Not here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Good to see someone new.) WP:Verifiability says "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag)." And thats why i asked, "Why do you think that a mention of someone's caste (living or dead) should be strictly deleted without keeping it with a Citation needed tag?" -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Because caste is not something that a person earns by his wish and will. It is thrust upon him by birth. It is an individual's right to decide whether to associate or disassociate himself from his caste. Mentioning the caste of a person without proper reference damages the reputation of the person--Anbu121 (talk me) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Animesh, because its a contentious topic. If it were a non-controversial topic, then keeping a {{tl:cn}} is correct. But its being hotly contested here and elsewhere. The fact is that there are such diametrically opposed views, the "citation needed" option would be the wrong way to go about it. As such, your stand is on the other side of WP:V, & WP:BLP, hence your stance has little chance of being accepted. Arguing here beyond the point of usefulness is not constructive. AshLin (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine! Do as you all wish! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So where are we with this?

It is evident that WP:BLP has to be applied to these lists but there really has not been much said about the dead - whatever has been said became sidetracked by the BLP issue. Qwyrxian made a decent analysis of the situation at the head of the previous section. Can we get some sort of consensus for the approach that should be adopted? My preference is that a caste assertion must be sourced when someone is no longer living, but it is not necessary that the source should be a self-identification. If the source is in the article that is linked to from the list, then by all means copy the source over to the list (after checking that it is in fact WP:RS, says what it claimed etc). - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Works of User:Krantmlverma

I had raised this issue earlier here, but did not get any response. Given edits like these, I think it's high time we discuss the notability and reliability of such sources. I've started a new thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sarfaroshi_Ki_Tamanna_by_Krant_M._L._Verma. utcursch | talk 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, can someone please mediate here? I don't want a revert war. utcursch | talk 06:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there should be additional mediation by a higher up. Many articles require extensive review and pruning for unsourced information; Not enough people to do the job me thinks. --Fraulein451 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Report for January 2012

There has been a request from India Chapter for a monthly update and I thought I'd present my report here also. Criticism, suggestions and bouquets are most welcome. AshLin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The month of January passed quietly for WikiProject India on English Wikipedia. However elsewhere, the SOPA/PIPA discussion in the United States was the hot topic of the month and English Wikipedia went dark on 18 January for 24 hours in protest against these proposed laws.

At this point of time, getting the few small initiatives to keep going have been our concern in WikiProject India.

We have had Premchand as WP:INCOTM and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi as GA of the month. Premchand has had substantial improvement. The GA Master Class ( a hoity-toity name I picked up as an excuse for periodically giving a few hints on the Wikimedia-in-en list) for Gandhi has begun and some posts made. GA of the month is a misnomer because despite lots of edits, there is tremendous amount of work yet to be done on Gandhi. It seems that we will be doing a GA/FA a quarter instead. :( The new INCOTM of the month is Dance in India.

The Offline Wikipedia for Schools project has been dawdling along and we need people to recommit themselves to this Project. Recently, I realised that the most important parts of Wikipedia which need doing are not "pop corn and fast food". They require commitment and seem too much like work. They are not as much fun as editing on our favourite topics. That fact perhaps is the reason people begin working on this project and finding it is not much fun, gradually stop editing.

On the talk page, we have had a discussion since December and through January into February about whether caste should be mentioned in biographies. The protagonists quoting WP:BLP and WP:V took the stand that caste should not be mentioned unless it has been self-identified by the person concerned in a reliable source. Some Indian editors contested it vehemently arguing that caste pervades Indian society and binding strictures on its mention should not be instituted. But when it boiled down to a poll, the majority of editors stood up for the conservative position i.e. no inclusion unless self-identified in a reliable source.

An earlier discussion about which should be the languages that a title of an article should be translated into in the lead. After lots of discussion, the discussion was closed as no consensus emerged except that IPA should definitely be present for pronunciation. In this regard, I think common sense and not misplaced parochialism should help us decide which all languages the title should be transcribed into in the lead.

In this month, we saw MikeLynch (or Lynch7 as he masquerades nowadays :) ) become an admin. That is great news! Do a great job, Mike.

I am seeing more activity overall on English Wikipedia from the habitual editors - which is a very good sign. Young former CAs are playing up too but the spectre of exams had made its presence known by end January. All in all, a fairly okay month for WikiProject India.

AshLin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


super like Ashlin --naveenpf (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Should the article be named Uttara Kannada or North Canara

Emcx1 has been moving and redirecting Uttara Kannada to North Canara without discussion. The official website for the district says it is also known as North Canara, but the official name is still Uttara Kannada. Which one is correct? ScottSteiner ✍ 16:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indian official websites are usually very late to update. Uttara Kannada is common usage. Lynch7 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It should stay as it is. Uttara Kannada is its official name and is most commonly used. Furthermore, North Canara is its former name. Kindly refer. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Uttara Kannada is the official name of the district, it should not be moved to North Canara, North Canara should be redirected to Uttara Kannada --sarvajna (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No point, Uttara Kannada is an official and most widely used name. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Let atleast one Indian article have the Indian name. Uttara Kannada it is. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

english copyediting

this may not be the appropriate place, but i noticed many of the articles on Indian topics are in need of drastic copy edit. I have started doing some myself, but there are of course too many; Do you have a team for this ? --Fraulein451 (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out a few of them? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
We should maintain a list of these. I can copyedit many of the social community articles on southern India and Pakistan, also the religious articles for Suni, Sufi, Shia Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, throughout South Asia (including Afghanistan), but very little on Hinduism, except major deities. I bet that most members of this community have areas outside of mine where copyediting would be easy. One of the problems for English-speaking editors with little experience is, the poor translations from South Asian languages to English often lead to contradictory statements because of English-language grammar structures.
Can we create a subpage for a list of such articles? Thanks, Fraulein451 for bringing this problem here. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I just do it as I go along. You can always tag with Template:Copy edit but it would be really nice if there is a way to examine a category of Indian articles requiring ce. Is there a way to combine categories? Having a subpage is just going to be another level of stuff needing maintenance. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of making it a category. There are such things as hidden categories. Can we create one, then put the template thing on the project page. Yes, I try to copyedit as I go along, but I'm better at research, and there are some excellent and devoted copyeditors on wikipedia. A category might capture some of them. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It would probably be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. I am not particularly good with the detail of how this would be set up, though. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither am I, but give me a few days, and I can probably take care of it, unless someone more competent does so first. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl and Good Olfactory seem to do a fair amount of work in the category namespace. They might have some suggestions re: implementation etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you like to get their input? I think the India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh articles need so much copyediting that finding a community-wide means of going about it is a good idea. For example, I could do a fact copyedit on Kannada articles, with some translation help at home, then English speaking editors could easily do a final grammar and punctuation copy edit. Distribute the load, get lots of help. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Have left a note with both of those people. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of ways of doing this. One is to create a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and use that to tag India articles that need copyediting. The problem with this approach is, of course, that the tagging editor has to know that the sub-category exists. The second approach is to create a bot-maintained list on a subpage. The bot can periodically update the list by searching for articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit that are also tagged as a part of Wikiproject India. Assuming someone can write that bot (tinucherian?), the latter is probably the better approach. --regentspark (comment) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The list of articles that need copyedit is available as part of this cleanup listing. Scroll to the section for "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit". It will take some time to load the page due to the large number of articles that need a cleanup (65% of project articles are marked as needing cleanup). — Ganeshk (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It is also possible to download the list into a CSV file using this link. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have downloaded the list and filtered it to the articles that need a copy edit. I have added the filtered list to Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Cleanup/Articles needing copy edit for easy reference. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category

Saw this at User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Category_advice_requested. I'd be happy to help if i can.

In looking this over, Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit seems to be already set up for what you're talking about, complete with subcats. Is it that you aren't sure of which fixit templates populate which subcats? Or is it that you just want a big voluminous category so that you all can dive in trying to whittle down the forest to a few toothpicks? Or is there some other system that you would prefer?

Trying to understand the want so that we can implement as effectively as possible : ) - jc37 00:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A problem I see with India (and South Asia) articles is when they are added to en.wiki by editors who speak English as a Second Language. From my limited experience it is a bigger problem among South Asian articles than in many other places; possibly because a lot of Indians speak some English and often good English and have access to technology, but may not have the English grammar skills to write an article. I have seen a host of articles on en.wiki that were translated badly from Indian languages into English leaving internally inconsistent text even at the sentence level. Many en.wiki editors have limited experience with South Asian topics, particularly tribal, caste, and social religion topics. The coupling of inconsistent translations on an unfamiliar topic, make it hard for all but a handful of editors to copyedit these articles, so they often are ignored and allowed to sit as bad articles. It is my opinion that identifying these articles to the projects might get some good initial copyediting and fact checking that will leave articles in a state that allows any interested copyeditor to edit the articles. I would like, somehow, to identify South Asian articles to the projects for interested topical editors to take a first pass at. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How to find articles to copy edit

You can see one way the Guild of Copy Editors (WP:GOCE) does it, here - the CatScan tool can combine multiple categories in the same search, and you can specify further refinements. I've used it successfully to search for Indian articles during copy edit drives. (And if you want to help, feel free to join in the March drive, and earn barnstars too!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, that answers my question of 17:33 yesterday: we have the capability to combine categories in a search. That pretty much resolves the issue without any further complexity being necessary. The only problem is remembering/publicising the toolserver link. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create a "Copyediting department" within the India project (akin to the assessment department). Interested editors can sign up, the toolserver link can be recorded there, and, and this is the hard part, a periodic message can go out to members - perhaps listing important articles that need copyediting. Something like that anyway. --regentspark (comment) 13:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Alas, most of the huge number of India-related articles seem to need copy-editing. The problem is surely that too few of us give our time to it. Moonraker (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. I did check out some of the articles at the link above, and I was shocked. Seems doing nothing but copyediting to readability level would be useful. Pseudofusulina (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee -- I cannot figure out how to use the tool you listed. Are there instructions? Pseudofusulina (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bhookh.com

The article is undergoing an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhookh.com. AFAIK, it is the only Indian Click to donate site. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Housekeeping - Re-assessment of Lists of districts of India

  • All state articles are in or moved to format [[List of districts of <statename>]]. (Except "Maharashtra" which is in the queue for requested moves).
  • The class for all articles has been changed from stub/start/etc to "List".
  • The master list - List of districts of India - alone has been retained as having "Top importance".
  • Each state list - [[List of districts of <statename>]] - has been placed at importance "mid" for WikiProject India and at "high" importance for that state WikiProject/Task Force and also Task Forces "Districts" & "Geography".
  • The talk page template is now standardised to :

{{WP India
|class=List
|importance=mid
|state_name=yes
|state_importance=high
|districts=yes
|districts-importance=high
|geography=yes
|geography-importance=high
}}
{{talkheader}}

Some observations
  • All articles have state maps showing the districts.
  • The map of Tamil Nadu & text and an old image (which I deleted) have caused some doubt. Someone please confirm the correctness of the whole article.
  • In fact, every one please check the correctness of districts of your states and please amend as per latest changes. Please inform the Noticeboard for info of all and especially if you need help with the map/diagram.
  • Of all these, the article in the best shape is List of districts of West Bengal which is the only Featured Article of the lot.
  • In many lists, the sections are empty or text is sparse. If you belong to a particular state or have affiliation for it, please find material and improve these so that they are at least presentable.
  • We need a template infobox giving links for all districts of Indian states & union territories for the "See also" section. Any one willing to take it up?

AshLin (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Relief workers in Noakhali

Category:Relief workers in Noakhali, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mangalore

Hey guys, i have created a separate Wiki-Project for Mangalore. Anyone interested can add your name in the following link. The project was deleted before, and i hope that this time there are enough people to keep it functioning.

Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Raebareli Airport and IGRUA

Hi! I just created Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi and then decided to link it to Raebareli Airport, only to find that the article "Raebareli Airport" seemed to be about the flight academy too!

Should most of the information at "Raebareli Airport" be moved to "Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi"?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Academy is an educational institution and a separate entity, though it shares the Airport facilities. utcursch | talk 11:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Indian Mythology issues

I have searched on this topic and in the past there have been some issues raised about the accuracy of Indian Mythology related articles, I have not found any consensus about the issue. I have come across a lot of articles about Indian families like Bharadwaj and terms like Suryavanshi and Chandravanshi. Apart from Veda's and Kurana's are their any reliable books or articles on this topic? Or is it all a matter of personal interpretation? Regards Wikishagnik (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm!!! You will almost never find consensus on such a vast (and vague) question you are refering to. There are many books for referencing to Indian mythology and they surely contradict each others. Refer some current FAs and GAs and you will find "such such thing" according to XYZ and some completely different things as per another PQR. And as they are Myth+ologies, we keep all these stories. And for your question related to families, you will not find them in Vedas and NEVER in Kuran. You would wanna say Puran instead. And i would suggest you to sort it out articlewise. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Redrafting Narendra Modi lead: Talk:Narendra_Modi#POV_Lead_Section

There is a disagreement over framing the lead of the article and particularly over how 2002 Gujarat violence should be handled in the lead. Please comment and help build a consensus. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Would You like to Help?

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[3]]. McKinseies (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Help on Hyderabad, India

Hyderabad, India has just been fully protected due to an edit war about whether to include Telangana in the infobox and/or article. The debate chiefly is over how "official" this region is. Comments would be welcome at Talk:Hyderabad, India#Hyderabad is in the middle of Telangana region. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Templates creation request

Hey guys, if anyone would be interested in creating any of the four required templates for WikiProject Mangalore, i would be very grateful.

Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 17:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

New Volunteer joins WikiProject India team

Dear friends,

I would like to welcome User:BPositive to the fold of people in charge of doing things in Wikipedia. BPositive is a young member (in comparison to me :)) of Pune community and Wikipedia Pune Club. He was an active Campus Ambassador in the first version of India Education Program. Energetic and enthusiastic BPositive is taking charge of the India Collaboration of the Month (WP:INCOTM) process and is the first person to volunteer to help me keep WikiProject India active by taking on a specific responsibility.

All the best BPositive and hope you have a great time doing things new to you till now!

I request the wider India community to welcome and support BPositive as he guides us on our monthly INCOTMs.

AshLin (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome BPositive on WP:India. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to WP:INDIA ... All the best wishes ! -- Tinu Cherian - 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

BCCI page

Can some one look into BCCI it needs some clean-up. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

List of members (which Im quite confused about, Im sure its not totally correct, see [4]) and List of presidents need to be hived off into separate lists. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Iv moved the presidents list here and the members list here. The article is still in bad shape though, certainly needs some attention. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Subcategories "Type of garden" (Islamic/Paradise/by country etc.)

I have posted a question on this subject on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. Your opinions are welcome. Wiki-uk (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Autonomous law schools in India

A discussion regarding renaming the article Autonomous law schools in India is taking place here. Kindly comment. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Carmel School Giridih

Just to let you know, Carmel School Giridih (a wiki article for Senior secondary school )is currently being discussed for deletion here; some members of this WikiProject might like to express their views. ( I was looking for the Talk page for Jharkhand state but was redirected here )--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning caste of Individuals

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.

After settling "transliteration of names in Indic languages" issue, how about removing Caste related mentions from Individuals' bio? Mentioning caste makes no sense in the age we're living, also religion for that matter. KevinBraun 21:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

May be there was already a discussion about this issue in the past. However a fresh discussion would be useful. thanks KevinBraun 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

If they have self-identified then it is not a problem; otherwise, it is and I tend to remove the stuff. This is just basic application of WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
But most of the times it is not the case. As is, many have not self-identified or make a mention of their caste in the public domain, yet caste finds mention in their cases as well. KevinBraun 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)
I would argue that caste falls under the restrictions of WP:BLPCAT--ethnicity and religion can only be included if they are verified by a reliable source, and generally need to be self-identified. I'd say caste has a lot of parallels (in terms of its real-world implications, as well as its lack of objective verifiability) to ethnicity and religion, so we should follow the same restrictions. Kbr, if you find any, just remove them with an edit summary indicating that a source is needed. However, if the information is verified by a reliable source, it seems like including it is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So WP:BLP applies. No big deal. Look, the standard of India-related bio articles is generally pretty poor. Often, even if a citation exists at the end of a paragraph, it will be found upon examination that the source does not even closely support all of the statements preceding it. So you either {{cn}} or you delete on sight. I admit to being inconsistent in that respect, but on the issue of caste I do delete on sight - it is a highly personal, highly contentious and potentially defining point, whereas which school they attended is usually just a damn nuisance. I do not care what the Govt of India etc may say: like it or not, caste is a major issue in that country and even the existence of the various official classifications, the politically-driven AnSI surveys and the mere fact that so many people clearly of Indian origin choose to war over it here confirms that point. The debate regarding whether caste should be significant or not is one that needs to take place outside the Wikipedia project. We are not censored provided that we have reliable sources, but the BLP policy takes a more strict line than in most instances. I spend a vast amount of my time ripping apart articles such as these. I would rather not do it but, hey, someone has to plough that furrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Sitush's point that adding info about cast/race/creed/religion/sexual-orientation/etc. type of personal things without proper references could be disputable. But as long as it is not disputable and over a period of time if editors dont object on it even with the lack of reference, the info need not be removed. If X is of a certain ABC cast and no one objects it, why should the info be deleted just because a source is not present. You have to accept the fact that India related articles cant be fully sourced. Never!
I also disagree with Kevin's point of caste and religion not making sense, in any age we live. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That sounds as if you are proposing an exception to WP:RS/WP:V for India-related content. Much as I accept that there is systemic bias here, I really do not see how we can just throw out basic policies in this manner. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"Just keep it there until someone raises a flag" is not a good way to do things on Wikipedia. Suppose someone puts something libellous to some article which is not very well known; take for instance: Borapa. How do we filter this? We don't have some board of editors to review content. Lynch7 14:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You can add anything to an article as long as the language is neutral and is supported by reliable, neutral sources. If a person is identified as belonging to a particular caste by a published book or a reputed newspaper or journal, then there is no problem.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not necessarily sufficient in a BLP. It should also be relevant to the person concerned, hence the self-identification point. The same applies to BLPs of Jewish people etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thats the fact with India-related articles. We arent fan of documenting all stuffs. Even if documented, we dont keep them in order to make it available. You have to compromise. Either believe on what all people say and add it so or just not add anything at all. Which means you either build an encyclopedia or not. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
"Believe in what people say". WP:OR couldn't be violated better. This is an extremely irresponsible statement you are making. Lynch7 17:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
If A thinks a certain thing is right, A says it so. If B says it is wrong, B will say it so. One of them has to prove themselves. Option would be to prove by providing what you call as reliable source. If no one has that, go for consensus. 1000 people say A is right & B is wrong then A IS right. Even if some newsreporter or some author hasnt cared to write it down in past. Knowledge in India used to spread orally. You will probably find a "reliable source" for that. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That is not merely contrary to our policies but also contrary to all the known methodologies of "proof" of which I am aware. Frankly, it is ludicrous and is a far wider definition of consensus than our own policies and guidelines permit. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Sitush - such an approach would be akin to polling all the people of the world as to their religion, and then declaring the one that comes out tops as true -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine! But what we can really do is stop discussing hypothetical problems to find hypothetical answers. This is not some school assignment where we will get marks which we dont need. & i dont understand, why do you keep citing so-called-policies as if they are not ammendable? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not a hypothetical problem: it is verifiably the case that hundreds, if not thousands, of India-related BLPs are in breach of policy. And then there are the "List of caste X" articles etc, which also fail to comply. If you want to try achieving an amendment of the BLP policy then you are welcome to try but you would have to take your proposal to a wider audience than is present at this forum. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to contest Kevin Braun's opening thesis that caste does not matter as being a world view of a person living in a Western Society where the issue is not important. Caste matters in India. it is an official policy subject of the government of India which positively discriminates as per it. You are asked this information for many types of government records. Chances of employment in government including recruitment of soldiers into the armed forces involves caste issues. It matters not just "de jure" but "de facto" in Indian society and Indian politics. So using a secular argument or a Western ethos to do away with mention of caste altogether is not the approach I suggest. We need to have a different solution. AshLin (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
See my message above of 00:28 22 December. I do not think that you'll see many here who disagree with you regarding the reality in present day India, although some may wish it was not so. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless a person self-identifies with a caste, or the caste is relevant, I don't see why we should automatically include the caste of an individual in an article. I'd go so far as to say that self-identification without relevance is not sufficient for inclusion but .... --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my preferred approach. So, for example, an article about a leader of a caste association or a philanthropist who assists just one community would naturally note that they are of that community, whereas an article about a film actor or sports person almost always should not. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You would not want this to happen but it happens for sure. A group of a certain people belonging to a particular caste get together maybe for a function or so. They have an inauguration of something or prize distribution or whatever. Who is their first choice as chief guest? A celebrity who belong to their caste, religion, region. These groups publish periodicals. Who will they cover through it? Someone who has some commonality with them. A certain boy from a small town makes it to the national hockey team. He will be congratulated by this group. This news will then make to paper. We editors will then use this as a source to record that he made it to the team. He didnt do anything for the caste in particular. But it was his caste itself that made him visible to you. In such cases, why do you dont wanna include caste of actors, businessmen, journalists, sportsmen, professionals & such types? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
For the simple reason that we don't know for sure. We can't simply be toying around like this with WP:BLPs. You should know very well that caste is an extremely sensitive thing in India, and just throwing them around mercilessly will trigger the big red WP:LIBEL alarm. What is natural in a normal case, would not be natural for a BLP. In short, if it is not explicitly mentioned, then we make absolutely no inferences; I cannot state loud enough that BLP policy is more more stricter than normal WP:V or WP:N or whatever. Lynch7 18:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Why am I getting the feeling that we're going round in circles. Lynch7 18:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
With the story i told i wanted to point out how apparantly irrelevant caste of people can really be relevant. Ofcourse the caste should be included only if it is referenced. But i dont agree with "self-identified caste" clause. What does that exactly mean? Should that person explicitly come forward & tell his caste? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The rationale for 'self-identification' is straightforward. Let's say X, a famous cricketer, is born into a certain caste, let's say Badaganadu Brahmin - I picked it at random from the list on wikipedia, but does not believe in the caste system. Now, a reliable source, say the Times of India (though its reliability is suspect imo!) says that X is a Badaganadu Brahmin and we predominantly feature this in our article on X. This is a violation of the basic principle of liberty, the right to choose your own identity. We can't go around assigning an identity to a person without their consent or without that facet of their identity being relevant to the notable aspects of their life. That is why, unless a person specifically identifies with a social group, it is best to leave it out of the article. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
With the story you've told, the most we can possibly do is tell that that person got such-and-such award from this community people, but there is nothing to definitively suggest that the person actually belongs to that caste. In short, yes, that kind of statement (or a mention in a reliable biography) would be something that I would be looking at. Of course Sitush and rgpk may opine differently though. Lynch7 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Since we are in involved in Verifiability not Truth and it is so rare that someone opines about his belief online, I am of the opinion, that if there is a reference that says he is A Caste, that should be added with citation. If he says he doe not believe in religion or caste that gets added too with cite. If the caste information is uncited, place a tag and delete some time later. People notable enough to be in Wikipedia do lose a certain amount of privacy which a normal person enjoys due to his anonymity. Imho personal liberties cannot be the excuse for keeping the information away from Wikipedia if a RS exists for it. I am speaking of course wrt Biographies concerned with this WikiProject only. AshLin (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree in general with what Animesh is saying. In UK and USA, on many forms one is asked to identify ones ethnic or racial origin. Also, biographies of a number of British politicians, i.e. Ian Duncan Smith, Sebastian Coe, Boris Johnson, David Cameron etc. give details of the mixed heritage of their subjects. For example Coe is quarter Punjabi, Smith is one eighth Japanese, Johnson has Muslim heritage, Cameron is partly of Jewish extraction etc. Are these facts relevant ? I guess they must be because the UK media and the subjects themselves frequently mention them. Similarly caste is central part of the heritage of a Hindu and therefore essential to the biographies of Indian notables. I believe, for a variety of reasons, contemporary Indians take pride in belonging to their caste and would not make an attempt to hide it. Do mistakes happen with a person wrongly being labeled? Yes, all the time. Take the Marathi surname Deshpande. A popular Marathi writer P.L. Deshpande is repeatedly added to the list of Deshastha brahmins, however he happens to belong to the Saraswat brahmin sub-caste. The surname is also found amongst the C.K.P. community. The mistake is however, immediately rectified. In P.L. Deshpande's case because one can find numerous references identifying his caste, however, with others it may take longer but not impossible to find. In my view, the way forward would be to put a citation tag if the reference is not there rather than immediately deleting the unsourced information. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that you may not have spent a lot of time in the UK, Jonathansammy. Your depiction of the situation is a little wide of the mark, although also not particularly relevant. In any event, in the case of BLPs we simply cannot allow an uncited claim of caste to remain. Period. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"I have the feeling that you may not have spent a lot of time in the UK, Jonathansammy."

What is the relevance of this statement to the point being discussed, Sitush? I am a Guardian reader and was surprised to see you in one of your posts equating The Hindu, a respected. secular, and middle of the road Broad sheet being compared to the almost parochial rightwing tabloid like the Daily mail. That aside, the point I am trying to make with this and also my original message is that ethnic origin is mentioned in biographies of not only Western politicians but also scientists. Check the the List of Jewish Nobel laureates and see for yourself. If you accept what I am saying above, then I don't see why caste of an individual can not be treated in a similar way to the ethnic origin. I do, however, agree with you that caste claims should be backed with reliable sources.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that this discussion has also been taken up by Animesh on my own talk page in the last few hours, I am beginning to think that those who continue to insist that statements regarding caste are valid in situations where the relevance is moot and/or a person has not self-identified should perhaps read WP:JDLI. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
its quite clearlty and blatantly pov (how can a comment as suhc even be made?) that "makes no sense in the age we're living, also religion for that matter" WP doesnt push anything as the editors seem to uggest. if its sourced (and per BLP not a threatening mention in a vindicative way) then of course its notably enough tfor a notable person to have it mentioned.Lihaas (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
WP is also not a collection of trivia. Unless the point is relevant to the subject then there is no particularly pressing reason to include it, even if it is impeccably sourced. We do not, for example, usually mention the Christian beliefs of thousands of article subjects but we do appear more often than not to mention alleged Hindu beliefs (even when there is nothing to support the statement). It is wrong and people need to stop pushing these trivial and more often than not unsourced agendas. That a Bollywood actor is a Hindu, for example, is not usually a notable point for the wider world, although it may have some personal significance to the actor. This overuse of Hindu/Muslim and caste/community membership smacks of petty point scoring and an intrusive gossip style of writing. It is not encyclopedic unless there is some context to provide relevance. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
By removing the caste of a person from his article i assume you will also want to remove his name from that caste's article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if it is a BLP violation. I've been doing this for months now. I have tended to approach this issue from that end, ie: in the process of cleaning up the "List of notable members of caste X" articles. In fact, it is through that process, and by talking with various experienced users, that I developed a fairly decent understanding of just how this sort of thing should work and also the scale of the problem that exists - it is a pretty big one. However, I have only concentrated on caste so far, which means that the even bigger problem of the alleged religious beliefs of individuals is probably pretty much untouched. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
So you will be striping down all such list and examples of all such people from caste articles and include only names of such people who have contributed something to that caste thus giving impression that all notable people of that particular caste work only for that caste. There are no notable sportsmen, actors, businessmen, singers, painters, doctors, mathematicians, etc. belong to this caste. Let me go and check some other caste which will probably have some notable actors. Oh no! Not here. Maybe some other caste. OH NO! They are nowhere to be to found. That means all notable people like these do not belong to any caste. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, I would like to point out that caste matters. If Wikipedia articles under WikiProject India is to be relevant to Indians, this is useful and meaningful information to some Indians. If we have a policy where citations of reliable sources exists, I dont see the information violating the 5 Pillars. Quoting 5 PILLARS - "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person."
Any consensus in WP:BLP arising out of purely Western notions of what is invasion of privacy should not be applied uniformly to all cultures across the world, especially where core tenets of belief are different. In India this is not trivial information, it is sought out and found useful by some people, it is information legally sought by the government. In this case, we should accomodate the key Wikipedia requirement of having cited references. But to exclude information because of a different value system elsewhere in the world, seems more like a WP:JDLI situation to me here. If the information were completely trivial such as the person wears white shirts in preference to others would be unencyclopediac. But here, the caste for example explains a politician's background, his policies, his approach to emerging issues. If the relevance of the information is disputed, as it is in this case here, I'm of the opinion we need to err in the favour of the reader. In the case of caste, this is of interest to many people in India, so we should retain the mention but we should also have a policy which can be enunciated clearly, decide the contexts, the referencing and other aspects and enforce that. AshLin (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I actually think that it is relevant for politicians, especially because of the number of caste-based parties and pressure groups etc. I remain to be persuaded that the same applies to authors, film stars and the like. There may be some notable exceptions but as a whole it seems to me that direct family connections (fathers, uncles etc - akin to, say, the Dimblebys, Redgraves etc) matter more in India than caste for those spheres. I can see the systemic bias point to some extent but by the same token WP:BLP does exist and we are not a gossip rag. I stress again, that in the vast majority of cases that I have seen the caste has not even been sourced and it is in those cases that I have been deleting. Although the Indian population huge, and Wikipedia might actually be a useful tool for improving knowledge and maybe even literacy in that country, it remains the case that the vast majority of the English Wikipedia readership is not likely to have connections to India and, I would suggest, this will remain the case until/unless English becomes the dominant language in the subcontinent.
However, if this is the route that people want to take then be on advance notice: I shall most likely start taking sources such as the Times of India and also many of the websites used for movie articles etc to WP:RSN if they are used to support caste-based statements. I have long believed that these are often dubious & have frequently found them to be mirroring each other, plagiarising and simply getting it wrong on even the most simple stuff. In fact, of the major English language newspapers of India only The Hindu appears to me to be any more authoritative than, say, the UK's Daily Mail. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Though properly sourced, even by The Hindu, why do we include spouse's name in political leader's, businessmen's, author's articles? That info is irrelevant most of the time. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I have the impression that yours is a rebuttal phrased as a question, rather as you tried on my talk page recently. Well, naming spouses and children when they are not themselves notable often does irk me but, again, in my experience in the India sphere they are often not sourced at all. But none of this relates to the current discussion: let's just stick to the India stuff here, since anything else would have to be raised in a much broader context. The subject here is caste, not close family. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh no! The point now is neither caste nor family. It is relevance. You dont mind including a properly notably sourced caste of a politician as it is relevant with his work. But you mind including it on doctor's bio as its irrelevant according to you. So with the reason of irrelevance if you are removing caste, you should also propose to remove spouses, children, birth-place, etc. info from biographies. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
No. Caste can probably dealt with here, although perhaps with a request for input at RfC. Spouses etc would affect a far wider range of articles and therefore would need to be dealt with at a forum with a wider initial base. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you have forgotten that WP:NEWSORG already exists. So the approach to be taken for any newspaper and its use already exists. Placing TOI on a non-Reliable Sources list will do more harm than good, it has use and application besides being a source for stray caste facts. I dont recommend that you go the backdoor route. I AGF for your intentions but its obvious that there are or may be nuances out of your knowledge. For example, in the case of authors, I have reliable been told that Dalit poetry from Southern India has been suprressed with an agenda by the establishment over the last two hundred years or so. In business, we have a Dalit Chamber of Commerce. I'm sure there are many more cases. It is obvious that caste has not yet worked its way out of the Indian system. I suggest you go one step further and propose a policy here which is put to consensus. Once approved, this will give you the unassailable right to delete caste in WikiProject India where it does not apply within the policy and equal opportunity for those who find caste relevant within agreed parameters of policy to add it. Just a discussion on this noticeboard is not enough. AshLin (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This discussion should assist in determining the nuances, and let's not forget that I completely opposed the person who originated it. I've been accused on this noticeboard of wanting to perpetuate caste, and I'd hate to leave this discussion with people now thinking the opposite: my line is somewhere in between and always has been. Sure, an RfC may be needed at some point but I would also remind you that we have managed without in the past - eg: removal of varna from lead sections. My comment about ToI was intended generally, not merely in relation to mentions of caste. I think that someone else has recently queried its reliability & I know that it was denigrated in the recent India maps protest. Nonetheless, that is for another day and I'll stick to the caste issue here.
Having a Dalit chamber of commerce is no different from having the SDNP - it is a pressure group and if someone has involvement in it as a Dalit then there is no problem. I cannot understand your point regarding suppression of poetry: how does that relate to biographical articles, except in so far as if someone's poetry is suppressed then that may be notable in itself? It seems to me to be no different from, for example, noting that someone was a Russian dissident author during the Cold War period. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that those who argue that 'if it is sourced' it should be included are not correct. Content is guided by WP:V, which is a threshold for inclusion. Reliable sourcing is a necessary condition for inclusion but it is not a sufficient condition. Content on living people must also satisfy WP:BLP (as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR) where there is an explicit presumption in favor of privacy. In particular, it should be possible to reasonably infer that the person does not object to the information being included and the information should be notable, relevant, and well-documented (not just well-documented). In other words, if person X has never talked about his or her caste, nor is it relevant to that person's life, it is against our policy to include caste in the article. For example, it is relatively easy to infer the caste of Ramachandra Guha from the material in the article. But, we have no reasonable basis for concluding that he would not object to its inclusion. Neither is that information relevant to his work. Therefore, his caste should not be included in the article (and, fortunately, it isn't.) --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Again! How is caste irrelevant to any person's life? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The WP:BLP correct answer is that it is up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not it is relevant to their life. Failing relevance with the reasons for their inclusion in wikipedia, we don't make that decision on their behalf. --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you not understand about the policies, Animeshkulkarni? In particular, WP:BLP? AshLin mentioned a vote but if such a thing happened then please note that it would be adjudged according to WP:CONSENSUS and that would mean that non-policy based comments are pretty much ignored. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Where in whichever policy does it state that caste is irrelevant and hence should not be mentioned? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Geez. Sorry but I am beginning to lose my patience here. WP:BLP refers to it and this has been pointed out to you previously by myself, RegentsPark, Qwryxian and at least one other (MikeLynch and/or Boing! said Zebedee). I think that you will find all of those named are pretty experienced contributors and all but myself are admins also. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, WP:BLP does not say that caste is irrelevant but none of us have been saying that either. It says that info of this nature should be included only if it is relevant etc. Is this what you are misunderstanding? - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I will neglect your patience-loosing line as its irrelevant to this discussion and hence not comment on it.
So you all mean to say that info of this nature (i.e. caste) should not be included if it is not relevant. And you are pointing out at some biographies like that of cricketers, actresses, doctors, artists, etc. as being the examples where caste is irrelevant. Right? Hence i am asking the question "How is caste irrelevant?". Do you want to say that a certain woman born in a backward class where education was not given, they were married of at early age, where they were not allowed to come out in front of stranger males whould have become a notable actress or pilot? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
That is a good example because it helps clarify how and where we can talk about the caste of an individual. If there are reliable sources that directly associate her caste with her becoming an actress or pilot (for example, a source that says "despite being born in the Z caste that disallows women from this or that, X has had a successful career as a leading light of Bollywood"), then I'd say yes, that statement is relevant in the article. However, if there are sources that merely say that "X was born a Z", with no link between her success and the caste, then I'd say no, there is no relevance. Making the relevance explicit, or even assuming that caste is somehow relevant, would then be a violation of WP:OR. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This was an example where the caste of that person could have been a hinderance to his/her success. Hence there are chances you would find a source which would associate it the way its said by RegentsPark. But if the caste had been an advantage for their notability, i doubt any sources would take the risk of associating it directly. They would rely on readers to assume it so if they want to or just leave it. Their not associating it so does not however make it irrelevant. This care can be taken by us also. To not associate the caste with the subject but merely mention it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that would be WP:OR (or WP:SYNTHESIS. Material that is not explicitly covered by a source should not be included in an article. In your example, the hinderance or help to a person, if not explicitly stated by a source, is a conclusion that may or may not be warranted and we should not make it or include material solely because we believe that the implication needs to be made. With a BLP, we need to be extra sensitive.--regentspark (comment) 19:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Ofcourse it will be so. Thats why i said that we have to take care to not associate the caste with subject's notability. And that can be easily done & is done many times. Subject's caste is mentioned in his "early life" section which says about his birth-place, his parents names, schooling, notable relatives, other basic things. We usually dont write "He is a Hindu Brahmin critically acclaimed Hindustani classical singer." If so, am sure its clearly completely neglected article by regular editors or was written just few minutes ago. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If the caste is not associated with the subject's notability, then why mention it? Like I said, in a BLP we only include information that is relevant and that we can reasonably infer that the individual won't object to its inclusion (if it is not relevant). Given that you're saying that the information is not relevant, then how can we 'reasonably infer' that the individual does not object to the inclusion of caste? --regentspark (comment) 21:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear. If a reliable source indicates that the caste of an individual is relevant, it should be added to the article. If no reliable source indicates that it is relevant, then it can be added only if one can reasonably infer that the person won't object to its inclusion per WP:BLP. Even if one can reasonably draw that inference, it must still be WP:DUE for inclusion but you first have to cross the BLP barrier. --regentspark (comment) 21:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
But we do include various non-notability related points in biographies. We have religion (which i guess would be on your next to-be-excluded agenda), parents names, what they wanted to be in childhood, non-notability related education, previous professions, etc. We include them as it is a biography. If we have only notability related things, it would become a career portfolio. & you are not sure either if these are objectionable or not. And even if objectionable, we arent writing anything that the sources didnt not already say. The objection should be directed to the sources. We are also taking care that no notability-related inferences can be drawn from caste. We arent giving any undue credit also. Its one line. Thats the least you can write. Okay fine! We will mention the caste in a very long 30-40 words sentence so that it doesnt appeare to be given weightage. We also will not hyperlink that caste. Blue colour stands out. You know what, you can make a "Special checklist for mentioning caste", put it on all talk pages, make editors comply with all things on it such as these. But caste should be included. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Religion should not be mentioned either, unless it is relevant or we can reasonably infer that the person does not object to its mention. I believe, for example, that its exclusion has been discussed on the Arundhati Roy talk page and was explicitly excluded there. But let's not get side tracked by WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not sure why you're so keen to get caste included on BLP articles. I've given you substantial policy based reasons for excluding caste when it is neither relevant nor self-identified. Could you give us a substantial policy based reason for including caste when it is neither relevant nor self-identified? Or, as a weaker criteria, when it is neither relevant nor do we have a basis for believing that the individual will not object to its inclusion? --regentspark (comment) 00:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I fail to understand on which policy of BLP you stand your opposition. Hence i will try to go through those which i feel you are pointing at. (1) Verifiability: Issue cleared. We include caste only if verifiable by all the WP policies of referencing & sourcing. (2) Neutral Point of View: We are taking care that caste is not the determining factor to subject’s notability nor is undue weightage given to it. (3) No Original research: We won’t be including original researches. In fact we would also be taking care that no inferences can be drawn by readers with regards to the subjects’ notability & caste. (4) Privacy of personal information: Caste of a person in India is not personal information. Schools/colleges have it, government has it, census includes it and almost all application forms have it.
Also, as i mentioned above, removing names of notabilities from caste articles gives wrong impression that the only notable people of this caste are the people who work for the caste. Wikipedia is used as source of research (even with all the limitations and don’t-believe-wikipedia-completely clauses.) There have been notable researches done with regards to caste and genetics, caste and social-&-economic-differentiation, etc. I repeat, we are not going to make these researches. But we are only going to provide basic information of who belongs to this caste. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear above. The policy is WP:BLP and the point is "presumption in favor of privacy". The question for you is why, when caste is not relevant to a person's reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia, should we ignore the reasonably infer that the person does not object clause. Hope that helps clarify the policy point in question. You need to provide a reason, with sources that support that reason, if you believe that the policy is not applicable here. --regentspark (comment) 11:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Its stated in the policy itself that as a reliable source has published it, it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Plus, caste is not a private entity like medical records. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are two caveats. First, it must be widely published and second it must be due. Merely published by one odd reliable source is insufficient you will need to demonstrate that it is published in a wide range of reliable sources. Second, since wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, you will need to show that inclusion of caste is not indiscriminate. We don't, for example, include the height and weight of an author even if it is available from reliable sources. You're arguing for a blanket rule of inclusion for the caste of an individual. Could you explain why we need such a rule (rather than simply attempting to refute policy points that argue against the inclusion)? --regentspark (comment) 01:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Wide, as usual, is not defined. In an article which has references of 4-5 sources of early-life, childhood, etc. where caste can be mentioned, one source mentioning it is wide enough. (Ofcourse for the sake of objection you may object that too. Cant help! That’s how much our subjects are documented.) Caste is not something that you would find in western bios. That for one makes it not indiscriminate. Within Indian bios you will find how our subjects belong to various castes. So that too makes it not indiscriminate. I am not asking for a blanket rule of including castes in all bios. I am saying to put a sentence in every bio that “He/She belongs to (blank) caste” even if the caste is not know. I am objecting on deletion of this info.
Also rewinding on the BLP Privacy issue, i don’t think it covers caste in it. For one, i don’t think caste was even considered while creating that policy. (Was it? Can we have some historic info of how these policies are made?) And another one is that this policy fears identity theft and is hence made so to avoid adding personal info like telephone numbers, addresses, bank account numbers, etc. I don’t see how caste can be the reason for identity theft. That must be some lousy thief. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is time you answered a few questions otherwise this discussion will not go anywhere. Why do you feel caste should be included in Indian BLPs? I think you need to provide some sort of evidence that it is not possible to understand an Indian without knowing what caste he or she belongs to. --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
That was a funny question. For understanding anything, not just people, the more info you get, the more you understand it. You can say that frog is an amphibian animal with protruding eyes without a tail. You understood it. Now you add to it that it has webbed digits. Did you understand it more or not? & btw, you havent answered two of my questions. (1)What impression do you give to the readers who will find names of only political leaders and people who have their work field based on the caste and no mathematicians, jurists, military officers, doctors, etc.? (2) Isnt Wikipedia supposed to be a source for research? There have been notable researches related to caste. Shouldnt we atleast provide names of people who belong to these castes? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. The inclusion of caste violates the right of a person to define their own identity. If you're going to include it, you should have a good reason to do so. I don't see how, for example, knowing the caste of Ramachandra Guha adds anything to his article. As to your questions, (1) I don't understand what you're getting at. Why would it matter whether we include the caste of mathematicians in their articles? (2) Is there research that links mathematicians to caste? By explicitly including caste because of some generic "researches related to caste" you are engaging in WP:OR. Should we include height because some research somewhere has shown a relationship between height and income? Now, could you please answer my question: What does caste, when it is not relevant to a person's notability, add to the article (other than your apparent personally held belief that "caste is important")? --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
“The inclusion of caste violates the right of a person to define their own identity.” This statement of yours is what WP calls as Original Research! Whereas information published at Caste_system_in_India#Genetic_analysis is not Original Research. Table published here about Adult literacy of maharashtrian castes in 1911 by Christophe Jaffrelot is not Original research. DNA analysis published here is not Original Research. For genetics-caste relationships read Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia, which is also not an Original Research. These all are examples. I personally don’t know anything about Ramachandra Guha and hence i can’t say anything about him. But i would take some other example now. The article on Deshpande says that majority of the people with this surname are Deshastha Brahmins. But PuLa is Saraswat. Hence not mentioning it specifically misleads readers. Also, as already said few times, the article on a particluar caste, eg Iyengar would only include names of spiritual leaders and politicians. Same will happen with all castes. So it also raises a question as to where do other notabilities belong and also gives impression that all notable people (Iyengars in this example) are only spiritual leaders or politicians, which is also misleading. Now, if you at all don’t know whether Rahul Deshpande is deshastha or saraswat or whatever, you are helpless and can not avoid people from being probably mislead. But if you certainly know what he is, you SHOULD avoid deceptive information. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fletcher is a common surname in the English-speaking world. It is thought to have first been used for people involved in Fletching. There probably are still some people called Fletcher who do indeed fletch today (one of my friends has that name and certainly fixes my arrows on occasion). However, we don't go around every article where someone is called Fletcher and say "by the way, this person is/is not involved in fletching". As for the lists of notable members of caste X, well, practically all of those which I have come across have been cut by something like 95% because the entries within them were unverified: we do not usually have separate lists of "notable people from town x" or of "notable Christians" and so on; perhaps should not have these caste lists. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That could be the case with Fletchers as it might not be a common notion in English-speaking world to assume a Fletcher to be a fletcher. But in India, every Deshpande would be assumed to be a Brahmin, with first priority being a Deshastha Brahmin. Exceptions and inclusions should hence be mentioned. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Wrong reply, on at least two grounds that have already been mentioned to you. Firstly, this is the English language Wikipedia and, like it or not, will have to adapt to how most speakers of English perceive the world. Or provide a really good explanation to counter their bias ... which brings me to my second point. You would need to provide reliable sources to verify this opinion that the general reader of Wikipedia is unable to recognise that there may be exceptions to a "rule", and that is after first providing sources to verify that the "rule" is in fact one that Wikipedia policies would recognise in the first instance. I am fairly sure that you cannot achieve both of these across all of the 4000-odd communities that, for example, the AnSI determined to exist ... and then repeat it on every relevant article and still get round the consensus that is WP:BLP.
Given enough time, almost anyone can find an exception to any rule, if only because rules are merely hypotheses. There are ways to deal with exceptions, whether it is on Wikipedia or in the wider, real life context. A default such as you seem to suggest is definitely not the way because it fails both Wikipedia's communal consensus and the wider test of what is "reasonable". It gives undue weight to matters that are personal and unverified over the basic right to privacy and self-determination. It is, for the sake of example, the rule of the gutter press over the humane. Can you not provide some better substance to your position? - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh! The "english-wikipedia-is-for-english-people" card! If english readers dont care about knowing the caste of people why do they even care to know what caste at all is? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous piece of logic. Caste as a systematic, historic and present day socio-economic-religious reality has a valid place in any broad-based encyclopedia. Libelling someone does not, nor does making unfounded or factually uncertain statements. Further, the system can be a valid subject without it being necessary to brand individuals.
It seems to me that despite numerous requests, including such recent examples as that of Regentspark at 23:04 28 December, you are still failing to provide a rationale. Since it now also seems that you are the only person pursuing that course here, I think that it is incumbent upon you to do just that. Any further response that does not address your rationale is merely prolonging a situation where you keep drumming your personal viewpoint without providing just cause: it is, indeed, pointless. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine! Lets delete it. Lets start with FAs & GAs. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No censorship please, when a reliable source for example says that Ravi Shankar was born into a Brahmin family, then that alone is nothing demeaning towards him, just as it is not demeaning to say B. R. Ambedkar was born into a Dalit family. What would Ambedkar's article look like if you took out every mention of caste? It would be nonsensical. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
@Hekerui, No! For B R Ambedkar it wont be removed. It will be removed only for those people whose notability has got nothing to do with their caste. eg. businessmen, artists, jurists, other professionals. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and where do you place the cut off date? Ravi Shankar's autobiography mentions caste, how soon after his death until one is allowed to add the info back?And if you to justify the deletion of material with WP:BLP, then all the dead people articles retain the mentions and only those on the still living are cleaned out? Judgements about inclusion of such info should be made for individual articles, not across the board. Hekerui (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point! But i was assuming that caste should be deleted from all people's articles, living or dead. Because all points mentioned above relate to dead people too. Like privacy, branding individuals, no relation of caste with notability, defamation, etc. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been waiting for this one and am surprised that no-one appears to have raised it earlier. The simple answer is that since caste is inherited and most people have close relations, we have to be careful that we are not committing a BLP violation of the relations even when the subject of the article is dead, whether they are named in the article or otherwise. If caste was not irrelevant to the person's Wikipedia notability then it remains irrelevant after they have died. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The originator seems missing after opening this box. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

archived for new vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NO ACTION
Boldly closing as this !vote makes no sense at all. It needs a proposal, as is already evident from comments below. No-one can reasonable !vote in these circumstances. Start over, please. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Votes

Support

  • To say that one's caste, ethnicity, or religion is important or not important to him is purely subjective. It depends! My caste, ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, might not play an important role in my own life, but i will not generalize and say that it's the same for most people. On the contrary, this appears to be far from the case. In spite of widespread globalization and modernization, most people (particularly in the East) still prefer to marry into their own castes, religions, or ethnic groups. When this is the case, who are we kidding when we say that these factors do not play an important part in most people's lives? If there is a citation about one's religion, ethnicity, or caste to a reliable source, then i see no harm in mentioning either of them in a biography. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 18:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If reliable sources refer to that person's caste/religion/ethnicity, then deliberately excluding this information is nothing but WP:CENSORSHIP.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
If I understand the process, you meant to oppose the proposed deletion. Could this "poll" be made a little clearer, Animeshkulkarni? Hekerui (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Caste is rarely relevant and should almost never be included. This is similar to race - there are very few articles which mention a person's race because it is rarely relevant to their life work. If a person has a particular notable incident in their life which is caste related, then caste should be included. If you see a person's caste named in an article, ask "So what?" If you can answer that question with other information in the article, then keep caste in. Otherwise, delete it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No problem has been presented that can't be taken care of by editing an individual article, also per my above statements and Blue Rasberry's. Hekerui (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you support the inclusion of one's caste (for example, Goud Saraswat Brahmin, Dalit, etc) in his bio, or oppose it?

Neutral

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.

Poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus against including the caste of persons in biographies, if the caste doesn't have any impact on the person's life. And even in this case, there needs to be self-identification, which is reported by reliable sources per the biography of living people policy. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether caste should be mentioned in articles for persons when the article gives no indication of how caste has impacted that person's life. For example, there could be multiple reliable sources which state a person's caste but none of them give context about how that person's caste has ever influenced any aspect of that person's life or actions.

When reliable sources say something like "This person has caste X and therefore..." then caste is almost certainly notable and should be included. When sources mention caste but there is no source which gives context or confirms that the person's caste has ever had an effect on their life, should editors include caste identity in the article?

Support inclusion

  • Support inclusion of caste for various reasons stated in the discussion (though they seem irrational, ridiculous logics & what not to few editors). Will Support exclusion of caste if other non-notability related info like religion, DOB, place of birth, spouses, childhood fantasies, affairs, etc. are also excluded. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah! Thank you! ....though they seem irrational, ridiculous logics & what not to few editors... -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ok, you are entitled to think what you want about a widely quoted statement. Now, have you read WP:CANVAS ? I see that you have been drawing attention to this discussion on the talk pages of selected articles, and doing so in a long-winded way. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You yourself said somewhere that most of the regular editors in this portal havent yet commented on this issue. Plus deletion of caste from bios is gonna attract many Indian editors and instead of handling all editors on individual bios its better to have them all here. I cant see why you would have problem with more opinions. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
& it is not for you also to remain silent. Feel free to comment there. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - No, I will not comment there. That spreads the discussion around and is therefore A Bad Thing. My suggestion to you would be that you revert all those postings. If you wish to announce it then do so in a concise, neutral manner and ensure that you "spread the word" across a wide range of articles, not a select few. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Spreading discussion around is a bad thing! Good to know that. & thanks for your suggestion. But you too are free to revert it and post a more-suitable-neutral-msg-as-per-me if you want to. & dont be sorry for issuing warning. It didnt kill me. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just posted a note on the 100 or so pages where I have found your somewhat distorted summary. The reason for this was because in the last sentence of your message you tell people that they can comment "here" (ie: the article talk page) or at WT:INB. How on earth do you think people can keep track of a discussion that could potentially be running over 100 or so articles? It is ludicrous, sorry. My message tells them to come here if they wish to comment, and not bother doing so at the article talk page. That has been some pretty intense forum shopping that you were doing, AK. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I am still not sure of what your problem is with my actions that you call as Canvassing or Forum Shopping. I am just inviting more editors to have more opinions. I dont like to draw conclusions from 10 editors for a topic that would affect all biographies and caste articles. But thank you for directing them here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - To say that one's caste, ethnicity, or religion is important or not important to him is purely subjective. It depends! My caste, ethnicity, religion or lack thereof, might not play an important role in my own life, but i will not generalize and say that it's the same for most people. On the contrary, this appears to be far from the case. In spite of widespread globalization and modernization, most people (particularly in the East) still prefer to marry into their own castes, religions, or ethnic groups. When this is the case, who are we kidding when we say that these factors do not play an important part in most people's lives? If there is a citation about one's religion, ethnicity, or caste to a reliable source, then i see no harm in mentioning either of them in a biography. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 18:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it is censorship (which is a highly dubious assertion), then it is censorship as a result of policy - see WP:BLPCAT etc. On that basis, any !votes here are meaningless, and instead should be taking place where changes to policy can be resolved. Even if a decision was reached here to allow the inclusion of caste without valid justification, any Wikipedia editor would be entitled to revert such material, as policy (decided by Wikipedia contributors as a whole) permits (or arguably, requires). No project, notice-board vote or similar can override such basic tenets of policy. This discussion is a waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion

  • Oppose - Principally, on the basis of WP not being a collection of indiscriminate information, our policy regarding living people (where applicable, and this includes non-notable relatives etc). There are also major issues regarding the clarification of what constitutes a reliable source in this context and, of course, weight and the problem of how to deal with passing mentions. I could go on, but I would be repeating all of the arguments set out in the discussion above. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose - in general biography articles vide Sitush's arguments. However, listing of names of prominent personalities from a community may be permitted in articles on specific caste/community. AshLin (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unless the caste meets the requirements of WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS; specifically the information is supported by a source clearly meeting Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria and there is self-identification. I would like to note as well that regardless of the outcome of this discussion, no consensus of any sort here can override fundamental BLP policy. If the caste material in any article is challenged it needs to be removed until it can be verified by reliable sources. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose with exceptions. Caste ought not to be included except when there is self-identification and recorded by a reliable source, when caste is relevant the person's area of notability (there may be a grey area where the caste is indirectly or distantly relevant, these will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis) and lastly when the caste has mentioned by a wide range of reliable sources even though there hasn't been self-identification nor is there a clear link between why the person is notable and their caste. I admit I am a little hesitant about this last point but I think in extreme cases, it is a matter of common sense to include caste when reliable sources frequently mention it and there is no dispute. This way should be used sparingly though and I can't think of any example off the top of my head! My views on religion and ethnic groups are similar. GizzaTalk © 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Ponyo above: this poll is invalid in any case, as it proposes a violation of policy, which cannot be decided here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, it is meaningless and the policy-based reasons for why this is so have been explained time and again in the discussion above. But some people are reluctant to accept this. If sufficient "oppose" statements are made here, citing policy, then hopefully that will draw a line under this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Suppose someone identifies his/her family as belonging to a certain caste but says nothing more, would we then delete this information in accordance with the proposition? The existing BLP sourcing and category policies are sufficient, as they allow any user to fix problems with individual articles - no extra proposition is necessary. Hekerui (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the reasons discussed above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel, unless the caste has something to do with important events in the life of the person, it has to be excluded. But I wonder how are we going to handle the caste pages which lists famous people belonging to that caste and some pages also have description of the achievements of the people belonging to the caste. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Strong Oppose While the Constitution of India categorically states that no individual must be discriminated on the basis of his caste only, which shows that India as a country doesn't want to have emphasis on the caste, its akin of Racism. I strongly condemn and oppose the inclusion of caste in the articles of an individual. Amartyabag TALK2ME 12:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there is self-identification, the mention of caste is, in all likelihood, a violation of BLP policy. Lynch7 13:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

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.
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.

Please suggest/vote for INCOTM - March 2012

An article needs to be selected by the community for WP:INCOTM for the month of March. Please feel free to add suggestions and also vote. Last date - 29th February 2012. BPositive (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a small remark. I noted in the last month INCOTM, selecting Dance in India because many women voted for it didn't help improve the article drastically. I suggest we drop the idea of promoting a cause because not all editors can be forced to work on it. Noopur28 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

  1. Ratnakar.kulkarni
  1. AroundTheGlobe
  2. Hisham
  3. naveenpf -- support as member of WP:INRI, will try to create Wikipedia:Route diagram template for Mumbai Suburban Railway
  4. User:AshLin -- too many biographies, let us have a heritage railway station.
  5. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫
  1. Hisham
  2. Anbu121 (talk me)
  3. kondi talk/contribs —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC).
  4. Pseudofusulina
  5. -- Tinu Cherian - 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Noopur28
  8. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫
  9. Lynch7
  10. — Bill william comptonTalk
  11. Debastein
  1. Nitika
  2. Nicke.me —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC).
  3. User:AshLin -- a worthy cause.
  4. BPositive
  5. Netha Hussain —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
  6. basic.atari —Preceding undated comment added 11:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
  7. Abhilasha369 —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
  8. TheyCallMeHeartbreaker (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. Aurorion (talk) 09:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Results

APJ Abdul Kalam nominated by User:Hisham got the maximum number of votes (11). It was nominated for the last month's COTM as well but fell short of one vote to Dance in India. This time, Indra Nooyi fell short of two votes. Having it as the COTM would have been a worthy cause. But I think the result is a fair one considering the popularity of APJ and the scope for improvement. Hopefully, APJ Abdul Kalam will attract many editors and we will be able to improve the article to a significant extent.

Thank you all for voting! I look forward to your contribs on the article.

The INCOTM for the month of March 2012 is APJ Abdul Kalam.
--BPositive (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Restored the core topics template. A small addition with positive spinoff. Lets people discover articles. AshLin (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why WP:INDIA sucks big time!!!!

I find that categories for districts in India have the district name in small letters like Category:Villages in Adilabad district. I find this naming really strange and difficult to understand. Proper nouns should be in capitals and "d" in district should be capitalised as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Every other Wikiproject follows the conventions, like Category:People from Harris County, Texas and not Category:People from Harris county, Texas. Why does WP:INDIA alone not follow the convention? Any specific reason? I had earlier initiated a discussion here but no one bothered to reply.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any knowledge or opinion on this issue hence I did not post. Feel free to put it in a vote and start changing the names after consensus. Perhaps a bot like Tinucherianbot could help you. As far as epithets go, I do think it is a tad harsh that you label the WikiProject as such just on the basis of a small MOS issue. You are quite likely to put off those who could probably help you. And as this is a Wiki, you have the absolute freedom of making WikiProject India not suck! AshLin (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess there was a debate about the same few years back (before 2008), in which it was resolved that we must use "district" rather than "District". Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_districts/Naming. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It did not reach consensus though; the debate was never closed. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I consider the reasoning in the discussion to be rather strange. Anyway, if we are to consider that the name of the district is "Thanjavur" and not "Thanjavur District", we should rather rename people category as "People from the district of Thanjavur" than "People from Thanjavur district". That would be more appropriate.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 14:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It is only within the last few hours that a bot has been going round decapping District for some category names - eg here - apparently as a result of a discussion at WP:CFDS. I found that strange but this is the second time recently that there has been a CFDS discussion to which I would have contributed if only I had known that it was taking place. It looks like I am going to have to add CFDS to my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Poll

It is being debated whether the "district" in the names of districts in India should be capitalized. Please weigh in your opinions here and participate in this consensus

Retain district

  1. Support : Maintain the status quo -- Tinu Cherian - 03:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support : Vide TC above. AshLin (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support: Per above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 10:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to District

  • Support As we've already seen here, it is not clear whether the official name of the district of Tirunelveli was just "Tirunelveli" or "Tirunelveli District". Hence, due to ambiguity, we shall follow the naming convention used for articles on political entities of other countries.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 14:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do something else

  • Support. The "district" appears to not be part of the name of the administrative area—or at least it is not clear one way or the other. So, it appears to me that the word "district" in the names is acting more of a disambiguator than anything else. So I think it should be "Triunelveli (district)", if anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful whether "district" was not a part of the administrative area. Even district website use capital "D". See [5]-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much the issue of contention that has always existed. Otherwise there would be no real dispute in what to do. Some of the district websites I have seen do capitalize the word, but others do not: eg, [6]. Some switch back and forth between the two forms, seemingly at random: eg, [7]. There are hundreds of these and I doubt you or anyone else has checked every single one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems is that common alphabets for various Indian languages (Devanagari, Urdu) don't use cases; so, the transliterations for things like "district," "state," etc., are variable, whereas in English we have rigid rules for letter case. Also, sometimes the "district" is part of the name commonly used to distinguish from the metropolitan area, other times it does not matter--in English, too, this would cause casual capitalizations, Florida state driver's license Washington State driver's license. . In my opinion, we should check to see if there are already MOS rules for it, if not, pick one and go uniform throughout the project. I'll support and follow whatever path project members choose, and I'm not vested in either. Pseudofusulina (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that being fairly uniform is the key. Right now there is uniformity—the small-case "d"—but it has been a long slog to get there. It might now be easier to change now that it is at least consistent one way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I differ in opinion. Since it could not be established for sure that the district of Tirunelveli was named "Tirunelveli" and not "Tirunelveli District", it is better to follow the prevailing convention in other Wikiprojects.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What is the prevailing convention in other wikiprojects? Is there one? I don't see any problem with conforming to what other projects are using. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, they don't really have the same problems of uncertainty, so it varies. For ones that they are certain that "district" is part of the name, they use "FOO District", as with Category:Districts of Peru. For ones that are certain that "district" is not part of the name, they use "FOO (district)" if disambiguation is needed—or just the name of the district without the word "district" at all if it is a unique name, as in Category:Districts of Germany—see especially Category:Districts of Bavaria for examples of the disambiguation. The issue here is—do we assume that district is part of the name and therefore capitalize? Or do we assume that district is not part of the name and therefore disambiguate? The current approach has split the baby and taken a middle road approach and used the non-parenthetical "district". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing the scope of WikiProject Protected Areas of India

There is a proposal to expand the scope of WikiProject Protected Areas of India and expand its scope. Please join the discussion here. AshLin (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Announcement

In the absence of any dissenting voice, Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India has been renamed as "WikiProject Biodiversity, Protected areas & Environment of India" with suitably enlarged scope. AshLin (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Dav subrajathan.357

Can someone review the edits by the above named user? They have been relentlessly adding transliteration scripts in different languages to a bunch of articles over the past 48 hours. I have reverted many of their edits, and I think further scrutiny is necessary – [8]. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ATTENTION! Can someone review the actions of this user? They are continuing to add the transliteration scripts to articles – [9]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am reviewing now. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gujarat#Economy

The Economy section in Gujarat is pretty messed up and is not 'to the point', anyone interested in economics? Help is needed.--kondi talk/contribs 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Village article name

I kept out of the row last year re: village article names (Bogdan N was involved). Being clueless, could someone please look at the history for Madha, India and fix if appropriate - Madha, Hisar seems a more reasonable name but I do not want to start another move war. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done by utcursch. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

GLAM COTM

Dear all, since we have our first GLAM collaboration started now at the WP:GLAM/CM I was wondering if someone could help me start a GLAM COTM. We have identified 4 articles to begin with and two of them are high on importance. Any thoughts on this? Noopur28 (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend folding this into WP:INCOTM as a third topic choice for the month where the subject is selected solely from a GLAM point of view. AshLin (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Question re proposed merge.

Hi, I was recently patrolling the Articles to be merged backlog for WikiProject Merge, and I came across the proposed merger of Aaladikkumulai with Aladikkumulai. The nominator didn't start a discussion for the merge, and normally in that case, I just remove the tags if it's been long enough. On this occasion, it seems likely that the articles are duplicates, but not likely enough for me to merge WP:BOLDly. I am bringing this here because I think subject knowledge is needed to be sure that the articles are duplicates, and the pages themselves are not very active. I am willing to carry out the merge if we can agree here that it's necessary. Quasihuman | Talk 11:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, They are duplicates. The correct spelling for the village is Aladikkumulai as per the census of India --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go ahead and merge them then. Quasihuman | Talk 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

INCOTM - Report for February 2012

Hello Everyone!

It's time to review the WP:INCOTM for the month of February 2012.

Last month, Dance in India was the only article chosen for the INCOTM.

During the period under question, Dance in India had 208 edits from 20 contributors. This is quite good compared to the last month's COTM - Premchand which had 133 edits from 17 contributors. This months COTM was a success in my eyes as the following improvements were seen-

  • Lede was improved and expanded.
  • Size - increased from 1256 words to 1566 words (although this appears less it is still significant, see the reason below).
  • The article was restructured and visually appears better now.
  • Origin of dance, folk and tribal dance forms & contemporary dance were the new sections added.
  • Referencing improved from 2 to 38 (very good progress indeed in this aspect).
  • Images went up from one to five.
  • Sub-sections were made for the classical dance section.
  • Linking, grammar and other minor things were also improved.

However,

  • There was no drastic increase in the size of article as it increased just by 1.25 times. This was because while new sections were added, old sections like Ottan Tullal, Dasi Assam and Modern day television shows were removed under WP:UNDUE. That reduced the article length substantially.
  • More sections need to be added to the classical dance - one para per each of the main classical dance forms.
  • Although the referencing has been improved to a great extent, there are still some citation needed tags present.

The top four editors of Dance in India for the month of February 2012 were:

  1. Hisham - 51 edits
  2. Nitika.t - 46 edits
  3. Noopur28 - 29 edits
  4. Karthikndr - 11 edits

To encourage contribution, they have been awarded a Barnstar for taking time and effort to participate. Special thanks to Karthikndr for adding the references and helping in removing the refimprove tag just a day before the COTM was about to terminate. Also, thanks to AroundTheGlobe for adding images to the article. Wikilove was sent to AroundTheGlobe for the same.

We still need more work to be done on Dance in India as it is one of the highest visibility articles of the WikiProject - it gets 500 to 600 pageviews per day!

GA/FA of the month

As far as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi goes, there were 213 edits with the major contributors being AshLin, Hisham, Rjensen and Dav subrajathan.357. Wikilove has been sent to motivate them to continue the long struggle.

The referencing is still being carefully weeded. It has been completely moved to cite templates now. A lot of dud references have been detected and replaced. In some cases what the reference was saying had no bearing to the text and was replaced. Preference was given to references which are verifiable online. Referencing continues because the article is a mixture of cite & Harvard referencing styles.

It was suggested we go in for one of three models of referencing -

  • Direct referencing with Footnotes section & no bibliography
  • Shortened references with Bibliography at the end.
  • Harvard referencing.

It has been decided to move it to shortened urls/Bibliography model as the bibliography already exists and the Harvard referencing was in minority. Hopefully that once this ends, the GA proper can begin. The time taken for all this underlines the great importance of accurate referencing and choosing reliable sources.

Thank you all for contributing to this month’s INCOTM. Hoping for an even better response for the next COTM - APJ Abdul Kalam.

Cheers! BPositive (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


  • Noted. The next time onwards, Coordinator is requested that both the Nomination & Reports be on the talk page of INCOTM with only a short notice here informing of the nominations, report here etc. Traffic is sure building up on this page. AshLin (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Indian independence activists

I've just noticed that a lot of entries at Indian independence activists are unlinked and unsourced. If anyone can provide some sources, that would be great - otherwise, I think they should be removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep with "citation needed" tags. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant

Massive edit war going on in Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. I request some experienced editors to initiate some structured disussions. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anbu121 for bringing up the matter here. As a new user, I was advised to come here to discuss this in more detail by the TeaHouse. Could someone from the community take a look at Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. I think the article is quite biased and not maintainable in light of the recent events and disclosures on the topic, but the user insists on reverting the changes completely without discussing the matter on the talk page. Thanks for your help. Nashtam (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A user (talk to him) is adding all biased texts and reverting the articles. This user has registered only to edit Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant page. Its really wrong and unethical. Is there a way to mark him as spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuraliKumar (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the unfair editing that has been going on AMuraliKumar. I just got another "last warning" that I will be banned without further notice for "vandalisation" on Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. I have been waiting to discuss the matter in a fair manner on the talk page for more than four days now with no response from the people concerned. Request experienced Indian users for advice on how to proceed in this matter. Nashtam (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on Madhya Pradesh maps

User:Yann has asked for input from the community at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_maps#Location_maps_for_MP_districts. Would some one please oblige? AshLin (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


Street children in India

I am currently working on creating an article titled Street children in India. Though street children are a large (estimates are over 100,000) and very disadvantaged part of the Indian population, there is no mention of them anywhere either on the articles for India or poverty in India. Researchers have noted that the circumstances in which street children live are unique from other children in poverty and they must be given their own space in policy. Their absence from pages about India, especially poverty in India, is not merited; they need to be included, especially since the independence of street children puts them more at risk than children in poverty that live with their families. When Street children in India is completed, I plan to place a link for it on the India article. On the poverty in India article, I will write a paragraph or two about street children in an appropriate section and link my article.

I would love feedback and suggestions from anyone who is willing to read my article draft when I post it in my Sandbox. (I’ll add the link here when it is completed). KiaraDouds (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You can use some of the photographs from commons:Category:Street children in India. utcursch | talk 05:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49&oldid=482416347"