Talk:Nagaland

Ethnic terms

What is meant by "Indo-Mongoloid"? Does this term have any scientific validity? Shorne 00:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think someone borrowed that bit from MSN Encarta. The term is in use, but I don't know about its scientific validity. -- Simonides 03:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It means the Nagas have some physical features shared with the East and Southeast Asians. The Assamese also have some Mongoloid features (see, e.g., [1]). A-giau 10:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know what it is intended to mean. My concern is that it is pseudoscientific. It's as if we said that people from certain other parts of India were members of the "Aryan race". Such categorisations as "Mongoloid" are suspect at best. Shorne 18:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, given its scientific-sounding turn it could be (mis)taken as a statement of essentialist truth rather than a categorical construct. The issue is probably best addressed at Indo-Mongoloid, Mongoloid, or another article on how the scientific establishment has historically classified people in terms of physical features and how that classification has been buttressed or criticized by one ideology or another. For this article, scare quotes may be enough. A-giau 20:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that a discussion about how the scientific establishment has historically classified people in terms of physical features, etc. belongs on the race page rather than on any page about any specific race, particularly an obscure concept like Indo-Mongoloid. 130.216.224.32 01:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Map replaced

This page should be unprotected now; I just replaced the map with one that I hope Simonides will accept. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Poccil, I appreciate the help but I can't seem to see the new image you've put up. I see the old one with the last caption on it - care to point to another page which may have the same pic? The source page for the image shows the old one too, though I can see you've edited it. -- Simonides 23:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see it, finally, but I've temporarily removed the image till we've sorted it out completely. This is a big step in the right direction, in that dotting/shading etc is precisely what I requested; but a quick look at other maps of India, such as on this site, will show you that the current map on this page has an odd angular distortion, ie the state of J&K looks like it was drawn from the side (maybe the map from which the J&K was copied was using a diff. projection from this one), so it is not geographically accurate, though it is a lot more politically correct.

Now, any way to correct this distortion? Does the copyright allow some image editing? And if we want to use the general outlines of this map to replace all other offending maps from now on, how does one go about it - search up every possible page with an India map on it and paste over the image source? Not very clear about that. A policy informing new Wikipedians about uploading India maps would also be nice. -- Simonides 13:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I agree that the page should now be unprotected. As a sysop I have the power, but not the moral right, to do that, as I myself have been quite involved with this page as of late. As I wrote almost half of the text, I don't think it would be right for to exercise sysop powers here, at least not without consensus. If another sysop is willing to unprotect the page, that would be very much appreciated. I hope Simonides is happy with the new map. David Cannon 10:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of moral rights, it's part of Wikipedia policy that interested sysops cannot edit protected pages. For a sysop you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works very well - yesterday you absurdly threatened an Arbcom decision, which is a last resort for decisions on repeat offenders ... why not spend some time reading up Wikipedia rules instead of trying hard to throw your weight around? -- Simonides 23:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you here, and I apologise for having spoken so sharply yesterday. Frankly, I was offended by the way you spoke so discourteously to other users, and for the way you (a) kept the map but (b) with text calling it "inaccurate." What encyclopedia in the world would publish something, and call it inaccurate? Also I felt your "Wikipedia says so" argument was shallow. Everything on Wikipedia is written by people like you and me. There is no reason why the information you found on Wikipedia is any more (or less) accurate than anything that you or I could write. We need some authoritative external source. Having said all that, I agree with your comments in the last paragraph. I'm sorry I overreacted yesterday. I think I expressed myself poorly: When I talked about "moral rights" I MEANT exactly what you said - that for interested sysops to edit protected pages violates policy - therefore I don't have a moral right to touch the page while it's protected. I haven't, and I won't. Now, let's (a) bury the hatchet, and (b) find some authoritative external source, and (c) correct the article accordingly. David Cannon 11:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's hardly out of line to be "discourteous" when people are repeatedly acting out of ignorance and refuse to discuss their objections when asked to do so. Thanks for the apology anyway; as for "authoritative external sources", it should be obvious that this is a politically sensitive issue and you can never find an authoritative/ objective enough source, but if the infoplease site above, a map provided by the Kashmir Study group and the UN map of the region (large PDF file) are good enough for you, feel free to peek into them. -- Simonides 13:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

India maps

If we're going to discuss how to deal with Kashmir on Indian maps, this is the wrong place, as it has nothing particularly to do with Nagaland. Simonides seems to try to use this obscure place to get his way by stealth, while others who would be interested in the Kashmir question don't see it. Unless this is discussed - and a consensus to change the maps (i.e. all Indian maps) reached - on an appropriate place, I will revert this article. Gzornenplatz 19:26, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is no "wrong" or "right" place to start discussing changes on Wikipedia - but if protocol is all-important to you, a discussion about India maps has been going on at the Village pump policy section for about two days now, which you obviously don't know about, or at least never contributed to. The Nagaland map was changed not because it was in an "obscure" article but because this article was on the In the News template for about 2 days, which is how other India maps on Wikipedia came to my attention. If you can't act with some maturity here and all your other objections, like the last two, amount to bluster, then I'd be happy to repeat the cliche about people in glass houses; in the meanwhile please debate the change on the Policy page, if you have anything worthwhile to say on the matter at all, and please refrain from hopping around on your keyboard. -- Simonides 19:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me know when you're ready for civilized discussion. Until then I will revert your POV pushing here. I'm glad to talk to anyone else who wants to discuss this issue without throwing insults. Gzornenplatz 21:42, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am not in sympathy with the removal of the map. ALL articles pertaining to states of India have that map, and I believe that the Nagaland article should conform to the default "states of India" model. Moreover, Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. With respect to international boundaries, de facto reality (i.e. the territory actually controlled by a particular country) is the best NPOV position we can come up with. Where the boundary SHOULD be is POV. Where the boundary is actually CLAIMED to be by the respective parties is POV. Where the "line of control" ACTUALLY IS is as close to NPOV as we can come. David Cannon 21:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. When an area is in dispute and has been in dispute for an extended period, it is NPOV not to judge for yourself what is the best/ default boundary to choose, but simply to indicate the dispute (which the current map does); besides, you seem to have a very superficial understanding of the situation - all three countries CLAIM they "actually" control the whole territory - merely because you are accustomed to seeing a map a certain way does not make it the correct one; Indians always see the whole of J&K on their national maps; Pakistanis see a version similar to what the CIA peddles (it's politically expeditious for the US to back Pakistani claims); the Chinese, I believe, have something similar, but not identical to the Pakistani or CIA map, but I may be wrong on the last count. Secondly, the map has not been removed permanently, but temporarily, until the little glitch I pointed out has been fixed - I thought Peter O. would fix it or at least suggest some fixes within an hour or two of removal but apparently he hasn't logged in yet today - we'll see - I certainly don't expect the image to be absent permanently, and once it is back it will hopefully serve as a model for the default state map and consequently, all the other incorrect India maps (using popularity is not an argument against replacement - a majority's belief in superstition doesn't elevate the superstition, etc.) -- Simonides 22:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Besides, what has the India-Pakistan boundary got to do with Nagaland? Nagaland is nowhere near the boundary/line of control/whatever you want to call it. I personally am not to concerned about whether the map as a whole is 100 percent accurate, as long as it accurately shows Nagaland's position relative to the rest of India. What do you all think? David Cannon 21:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Also it would simply not be practical to explain the dispute on small locator maps. Just using different colours or shadings can't explain who claims what, and it's not worth including the necessary text on every such map. Gzornenplatz 21:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

It's the map of India that's on display, and the map is inaccurate, no matter what the map is being used for. You may not be personally concerned with the accuracy of the map but since Wiki is an encyclopedia our obligations are to a more diverse body of readers. As for removal of the "necessary text", that's not what I'm objecting to at all; as I've said more than once in the past day I'm happy with the political correctness of the current map, it simply needs to look more like the actual thing. -- Simonides 22:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection and why

Howdy, folks. It's awful to see this much heat over an article, but I'm glad to see the temperature lowering a bit. If I understand the dispute correctly, the issue is over the map of India used by this and other India-related articles. I have no particular qualifications for knowing whether the often-used map is good or bad, but I hope that those who maintain that it is incorrect can find an alternative. I think that the people who have been wanting unprotection have not objected, essentially, to replacing the map they were using with another. I certainly agree that it is a very serious thing for us to have a bad map. For every map we use that shows too much India, a Pakhistani will be offended, and for every map that shows too little, an Indian will be. It seems to me that we would do well to have a map that indicates contested areas with a key that indicates such and that these areas be including in both national thumbnail maps. That's just an idea. In the meantime, I hope that Simonides will replace the bad map with a good one, and I will unprotect the article so that editing of text can go forward while better maps be found. Geogre 02:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the "people" who want unprotection (G-platz) earlier reverted a notice of inaccuracy and are now resisting a change of the map, though apparently not for any reason. As I tire of repeating, a discusson on a universal replacement of the India map HAS been ongoing for about three days at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I don't mind the unprotection so long as a better image is found - I am working on it myself and have replaced the default States map at the India article - now if some editors would be good enough to join me in photoshopping/etc the maps for each article where it appears, colouring in the respective state/ indicating the city, and uploading the correct versions (it is quite a pain for me since I am abroad, on dial-up, and access is not cheap), I would much appreciate it. -- Simonides 14:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

inter-ethnic conflict

Greetings!

i am starting this talk page to draw the attention of those concerned with Nagaland.

in the Nagaland page Wikipedia, there is a line in the second paragraph under Antiquity which is as follows, "The ancient name of Nagaland is 'Naganchi', derived from the Naga language."Nagaland i believe this is a misrepresentation because there is no such word in Naga language (read Nagamese- i speak Nagamese and any person speaking this language can attest to this). The thing is that Nagaland is a modern origin; a mixture of the word "Naga" and "Land" and there is no record that states otherwise. The citation given is for the subsequent line that talks about some political party demanding to the change the name and has nothing to do with the origin or 'ancient name' of Nagaland. as such it is my humble opinion that we either provide a source or remove that line.

Thank You H.S.Naga (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Historical content, like the ancient name of Nagaland should be sourced using WP:HISTRS compliant sources. News sources liek these are not reliable, especially when it is a recent politically motivated demand. Not to mention that the source only mentions Naganchi once and doesn't elaborate to its history. I believe it should be removed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It was first added here by an IP. The source used is this. However Geocities is not reliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: rightly observed "...especially when it is a recent politically motivated demand"

Thank You! for the additional info and source. H.S.Naga (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@H.S.Naga: I'm removing that line, for being poorly sourced. If somebody has some other ideas, they can discuss it here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: highly appreciated! Thank You. H.S.Naga (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@H.S.Naga: You are welcome. It had to go as per our policy. I wonder why no one raised that issue. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Hello! i have removed the 'ancient name of' from the heading as i want to start another talk but i am assuming that instead of starting a new talk we can continue here...

i want to bring to your attention, and all, if any, those who are reading this, that in the 2nd paragraph there is this line:

 "The state has experienced insurgency, as well as an inter-ethnic conflict, since the 1950s" 

it is a fact and we can find abundant source regarding the 'insurgency' since 1950s however regarding the inter-ethnic conflict it is the rather the other way around: Prior to the advent of the British India, the Nagas were 'headhunters' and war between village, clans, tribes (ethnic, inter-ethnic) was rampant, even as late as 1890 and even in 1900 internecine wars were common but there was a steep decline after the experience of WW1 and WW2 and in fact 'inter-ethnic' conflict disappeared around 1950s when the movement for sovereignty brought various tribes together... as for the conflicts around and after 1980s is not inter-ethnic because it is between various factions for political issue and not based on ethnicity (and each factions usually consist of every tribe/ethnic) H.S.Naga (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)