Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Montreal Laboratory Review it now
Leo Frank Review it now
Featured article removal candidates
view edit
Batman Review it now
Backmasking Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 
view · edit · hist
2014

Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism

2013

Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

2010

Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review
Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3
Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2
Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1
Mar 15: GA Sweeps end
Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards

2009

Nov 2: Inner German border
Oct 12: Sounds
May 11: WP Birds
May 4: Featured lists
Apr 20: Valued pictures
Apr 13: Plagiarism
Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations
Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates
Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds
Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT
Feb 23: 100 FS approaches
Feb 16: How busy was 2008?
Feb 8: April Fools 2009
Jan 31: In the News
Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates
Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders
Jan 10: December themed page
Jan 3: Featured list writers

2008

Nov 24: Featured article writers
Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page
Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest
Oct 13: Latest on featured articles
Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview
Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images
Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch
Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August
Sep 1: Featured topics
Aug 25: Interview with Mav
Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Aug 11: Reviewing free images
Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July
Jul 28: Find reliable sources online
Jul 21: History of the FA process
Jul 14: Rick Block interview
Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June
Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine
Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources
Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale
Jun 9: Main page day
Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May
May 26: Featured sounds
May 19: Good article milestone
May 12: Changes at Featured lists
May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities
May 2 (late): Did You Know
Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes
Apr 14: FA milestone
Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence
Mar 31: Featured content overview
Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter
Mar 17: Changes at peer review
Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration
Mar 3: April Fools mainpage
Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories
Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity
Feb 11: Great saves at FAR
Feb 4: New methods to find FACs
Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer.
For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

Image/source check requests[edit]

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators[edit]

A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From today's featured article[edit]

There's been an objection raised at WT:MAIN#From today's featured article that that phrase, one of the first things people see when they pull up the Main Page of Wikipedia, isn't actually right. [As background: Today's Featured Article text is almost never an excerpt from the Featured Article, although when I co-write these things, I do use as much text from the article's lead as I can.] There was little discussion at Talk:Main Page. Should the wording change, and if so, to what? If you want to see how TFA text differs from article lead text, you can pull up any of the dates at WP:TFAA, click on the history, and get a diff between the first substantial edit (which will be a copy of the lead) and the final edit. (I'm not going to vote.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The other objection, the one I raised at the beginning of that discussion, is related. As things stand, users can mistake what appears on the Main Page for the article itself, and fail to click through to the actual article. If the will was there, that problem could be ameliorated. Awien (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm not dismissing that, I just wanted to tackle the other question first. I'm hoping we can get consensus one way or the other here before heading back to Talk:Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Other than potentially tweaking the Full article link, it seems to me that the other questions are too intertwined to tackle separately. Awien (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the wording has changed much over the years. This is the first comment we've gotten on it. Is it really possible people would mistake it, or have? It ends with a link to the full article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I brought it up because I just encountered a couple of instances. Awien (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I already commented in the other thread, but I'll repeat it here: I find the basic premise for a need for change to be completely unconvincing. For the existing setup to cause problems for a hypothetical reader, that reader would need to (1) be unfamiliar with the near-universal "brief summary, click for the full item" principle by which almost every major website operates; (2) fail to notice the "From" in the header, the bolded link at the start of the blurb, and the "Full article" link, (3) actually want to read the TFA in full (since if they don't want to read it, it doesn't matter if they don't know where to find it), and (4) have such an interest in the topic that they want to read about it right now, but not enough of an interest that they've ever looked it up before and thus know where to find it. Yes, such a reader might exist, but I'd venture that they're a minute subset-of-a-subset of Wikipedia's readers. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
We seem to be discussing Awien's point first, which is fine ... if we can resolve it one way or the other, then it will stop muddying the water on the other point. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The purpose of featuring an article is to get our readers there. In my most recent instance, something about the present setup meant that a highly-educated Anglophone, a heavy consumer of the news, on a good computer, interested in the topic, thought that the blurb/synopsis/excerpt was the article. Last time we had this discussion, others admitted the same thing. Apparently adding "From" to the heading wasn't enough (who pays much attention to headings anyway?); why would a person click the bolded first word when they think they're already reading the article? Links are mostly for supplementary material. As for the link at the end of the blurb, it would be less likely to be missed if we eliminated the unneccessary brackets, amplified it with a verb, and separated it from the clutter of other, less relevant links. So what about our less educated, more needy, less sophisticated, non-Anglophone users who may be less conversant with our conventions? Or aren't we interested in them? Awien (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I see this as a non-issue and it's actually dangerous to make changes like this in response to anecdotal feedback and without any substantive user research. This is how you get in trouble in the UX world—someone doesn't like how something is worded or where something is placed, so you change it, but then you mess up the silent majority who were fine with the current design. I'm not saying Awien doesn't have a valid point, I'm just saying it's not one we should accommodate for without better information. --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Laser_brain, this is a solution in search of a problem. We know that an article is read many, many more times than usual when it's on the main page. People are getting the message that there is more beyond the blurb. We shouldn't make changes based on hypothetical misunderstandings. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Iridescent, Laser brain, Coemgenus. It's all very well to say that the "From" and "Full article" indicators, which always seemed very clear to me, might not help every single reader, but the premise that a paragraph could routinely be mistaken for a complete article doesn't convince me. In any case I don't see the justification for mucking around with the main page as it stands. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Currently "from" is incorrect (as ApLundell noted) because what we have isn't an excerpt but a partial synopsis. This could be fixed by doing what so many magazines do, post a certain number of words of the lead, followed by the link to the article. That would make it more obvious that you have to click to continue. Reduces people's workload too.
- Taking out "from" isn't the answer because then the heading would be saying that what follows is the Featured article, which it isn’t, it’s the blurb. Imperfect as it is, leaving it in is the less misleading option.
- Re the link at the end of the blurb, last time we had this discussion the consensus was to replace “More” with a sentence, “Read the full article” if memory serves, or anyway something similar. The person who made the changes ignored the consensus, decreed “shorter is better”, and went with “Full article…”. I don’t know when that got put in brackets, but doing so makes it seem like an aside rather than the crucial link. If we do nothing else, what harm could conceivably be done by using the consensus version, and taking away the brackets?
- Just what would substantive user research be, and how would we obtain it? Last time we talked about this, people admitted in the discussion that they hadn’t realised that the actual article is elsewhere, and I have just encountered a startling instance of that. Unless you think I’m lying or mistaken, that’s a real indicator.
Awien (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"From" is true, or near as dammit. We don't write TFA blurbs from scratch, we write them by tweaking or trimming the article lead to fit the limitations of the front page -- all the info is indeed "from" the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I asked my son to show me Today's Featured Article, and he found it correctly. So Awien's experience isn't universal. I think more such experiments would be more helpful than trying to guess what happens. Art LaPella (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It’s an interesting thought, Art, but neither my experience nor your proposed research can be statistically significant, and anyway, how are we going to poll the people of Burkina Faso or New Guinea? We already know that it happens that people fail to get to the article, so we have a choice. We can say “Tough, they’re readers we don’t care about anyway”, or we can say “If there’s a little tweak that might help, let’s do it”. The little tweak I’m proposing is to give the link a bit more prominence by changing (Full article…) to Read the article / Continue reading / Continue to the article / Find the full article here or similar, all of which are in common usage. As far as the brevity criterion is concerned, btw, with Read the article, there’s a net saving of 2 characters over (Full article…). Cost-benefit analysis would say might help, can’t hurt, go for it. Awien (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Awien, is there some possibility the individual of whom you speak, who had the misunderstanding, could participate in the discussion? We might benefit from the first-hand scoop. If you filter an experience through another person, you may get a slightly different perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I wouldn't want to put him on the spot again. It happened, it was a simple oversight: he failed to notice the link. That's why I took a fresh look at the whole setup. It's clear there isn't a snowflake's hope of making any significant changes, so I dropped that idea, but tweaking the link doesn't seem to me to be enough of a big deal to require interminable discussion. Awien (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
For comparison, see our French sister project which I mentioned before. The link is much more prominent as a full sentence without parentheses or ellipsis, and stands out even more by virtue of having a line all to itself. Awien (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I’m still thinking about this, and it occurs to me that one factor in some people’s not following the link to the article could be habituation. If you read the text of the blurb without following any of the links it contains, that makes a dozen or two blue links you’ve ignored by the time you get to the one to the article itself (today, Emma Stone, 20 of them). In other words, it could seem like just another digression to be ignored. The solution remains the same, of course: maximise its prominence. Best, Awien (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, who would have thought that the suggestion to change (Full article…) to Read the article or at least Full article would be such a threatening or revolutionary change as to meet with such resistance. Signed Sisyphus, the editor formerly known as Awien (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hyperbole aside, I'm not sure my point to you sunk in: Making such a change in response to circumstantial and anecdotal feedback would be inappropriate. It's the front page of Wikipedia. Would you email Google and tell them you don't like where their search box is located and expect them to change it in response to your opinion? It's not that your opinion is invalid or unwarranted, it's just that you can't make changes like this without substantial evidence that the change is helpful and needed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree; Awien might be right, but I think more evidence is needed, not more argument. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that statistically significant evidence is impossible: who and how are we going to poll? Plus, it's impossible to prove a negative: there cannot be diffs that show how many people didn't click the link because they failed to notice it, it's a logical impossibility. As I said, all we can do is decide on principle on the basis of cost/benefit analysis. Signed Sisyphus, the editor formerly known as Awien (talk)
Regarding there cannot be diffs that show how many people didn't click the link because they failed to notice it, if there are a significant cohort of readers who don't realise that the TFA blurb isn't the entire article I'd expect to see a fairly regular parade of complaints—on and off Wikipedia—along the lines of "Why is the Featured Article so short? It barely covers the topic", yet thus far the only complaint of this nature has been a single comment by your anonymous friend. I find it far more likely that if people aren't clicking through to the full article, it's because they know that Wikipedia FAs are generally quite long and they don't want to invest the time reading something they don't think they'll find interesting. (When a blurb makes the article look interesting to general readers, we have no trouble getting readers to click through.) ‑ Iridescent 17:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
How few readers who fail to click on the link is too few to bother about, even though what might help is totally harmless? Awien (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Around the Web: full-sentence links devoid of brackets or suspension marks

BBC: Find out more

New Republic: Read more

Telegraph: Read more about: XXX

Los Angeles Times: SEE THE STORY >

National Gallery: View the entire National Gallery Collection online

Apple: Visit the Apple Support site for quick answers, manuals and in-depth technical articles. (Etc., all links on main page follow this format).

US Geological Survey: Learn more

Awien (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review for Aries FAC[edit]

Can someone please do an image review for Aries (album) for the FAC? Erick (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done - For hopefully future nominations, you can also add such requests to the grey box on top of this page. In this way all are in one place and won't get overlooked by reviewers. GermanJoe (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Election[edit]

Perhaps FAC could consider running an election for an additional delegate or two; it'd boost the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1BF:AB8C:E5E4:E46F:CA2D:27F2 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Stay tuned to this channel. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
What Dan says but, FYI, what really "boosts the process" is more reviewers... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Delegates are not elected; they use a process of apostolic succession. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Brianboulton has retired[edit]

Those of us who know Brian through his work at FAC, but who, like me, don't have his talk page watchlisted, may want to know that he has apparently been forced to retire for medical reasons. His daughter posted a note on his talk page earlier today. I hope he is well enough to receive the good wishes being posted on that page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link, if you need it. A big loss for all of us. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Operation Infinite Reach[edit]

Hi,

Just wanted to ask if anyone was interested in conducting a source review and/or a source spotcheck for this FA candidate. It's a very interesting subject, and so I promise you won't be bored.

Thanks very much for your help,

GABgab 19:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

At Garage rock article[edit]

I would soon like to nominate the Garage rock article for FAC. Currently there is a split proposal and discussion on the talk page there. We welcome you to participate in the discussion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help out. My own music genre article, Viking metal, has been languishing in the nominations queue due to lack of editor interest, so I understand how it is waiting for an article to reach promotion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

New Featured Article coordinators[edit]

The FA coords have been discussing bringing some new people on board. Ian and Andy probably have something to say about their plans for FAC. For Today's Featured Article, Brianboulton has (sadly) retired from Wikipedia, and the TFA job will continue to get harder as the pool of available Featured Articles shrinks. Chris and I would prefer to pull in two more coords, Jimfbleak (to a permanent position) and Mike Christie (to a position with at least a one-year commitment, from him and us). Unlike in the above-mentioned "apostolic succession", whatever honor comes from their selection doesn't come from Chris and me ... my own process was almost mechanical, going down the list of past nominators at WP:WBFAN and past FACs at WP:FAL to gauge who was likely to have the most energy to devote to a big project like this one. No, any honor here comes from your support. The way we'd like to structure this is in two discussions, and the second will be a more traditional Wikipedia-style consensus process. The first discussion will run for a week and isn't meant to be official, it's meant to tell us what the community thinks about our choices, and to give Jim and Mike the support they'll need to do their jobs effectively. Both of them turned down the opportunity to say something about themselves here, but it's hardly necessary ... they're so omnipresent as reviewers and nominators that all of you who are familiar with FAC will be familiar with their work. Ian and Andy, did you want to jump in here? Thanks also for participation from the active @WP:FAR coordinators: Nikki, Cas and DrKay. I've intentionally kept this introduction sparse, but we'll be happy to answer any questions about what we see as the process. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. Graham Beards retired after several years of sterling service as a FAC coord in March this year, and Andy and I feel this is an opportune moment to bring a new person onto the team, in parallel to the proposal for the new TFA coords (who we incidentally believe are excellent choices). Our preferred choice as a new FAC coord is Sarastro1 who, like Mike and and Jim, has extensive experience as both nominator and reviewer, and who we feel will be well able to judge consensus on nominations and also field questions on the process as required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I love all of these selections. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Three excellent additions to the team. BencherliteTalk 00:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Dank. I have nothing further to add except that I believe all three selections would are excellent additions to the FA team. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
My vote can be purchased for beer. I'm a cheap date.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, folks, indicate your support or opposition to the candidates, here, this week. Possibly people are waiting to see if anyone else wants to say something introductory (unlikely), or are waiting for something official next week. Per WP:BEANS, all I'm going to say is: because of the wacky, weird ways Wikipedia works, this may turn out to be the real deal, so please register your opinion. The last time we brought in new TFA coords, we had a show of support in the 50s; we may need to extend this round. I know it's Black Friday, but still, I think we can pick up the pace. I'll create a heading, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support or opposition for three new coords: Jimfbleak (TFA), Mike Christie (TFA), and Sarastro1 (FAC)[edit]

  • Support all 3. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all 3. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see any good reason why the coordinators should not be allowed to bring extra hands on board when they feel it necessary, but if a vote is really necessary then I support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all 3. They're all fully capable of helping to run the processes they've been chosen for. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Like Harry, I don't see votes as conveying any form of legitimacy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for all three; good contributors who should be able to handle the coordinator responsibilities. --RL0919 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • (((+S)++)++Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support these three gullible fools wise old hands per the comments above, and in particularly per the person below, who is about to put it much better than I did in the previous sub-section. BencherliteTalk 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - let's see how long they last! FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all three. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all three. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks all. It's been a week, so now we're going the more traditional route of leaving pointers to this discussion on relevant talk pages (including WT:MAIN). We'll let it run for a week more. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support All excellent people, well suited to being irritated by me. Seriously, thank you all for volunteering. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all three. Graham Beards (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, like Dweller, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all three. Level-headed long-time editors. Thanks to all coordinators for your efforts to keep these processes going. GermanJoe (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if you need votes to make it official, although IMO appointments like this would be better served by a "if nobody raises any objection in the next month" process—doing it by a vote can have the unintentional side effect of making some appointments appear more or less legitimate than others. ‑ Iridescent 18:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all three.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all 3, and with thanks per GermanJoe. Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all of them. I was really looking forward to an additional new delegate here. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

FAC mentoring[edit]

So, I did see Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC and I was thinking of asking someone if they were willing to advise on Lake Tauca, an article which I do plan to bring to FAC. How does that mentoring work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Like this; post a note and see if someone is willing to be a mentor. I'd be happy to mentor you on that article if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be happy with that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Great -- I'll follow up on your talk page, probably this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Would this be OR?[edit]

OK, let's assume you have three well-sourced (WP:RS) explanations for regions of heaviest famine mortality in Bengal in 1943: one says "It's Muslim inheritance laws", one says "it's the Boat Denial policy", and the third says "it's jute growing districts". The problem is, there is a very (very) high degree of overlap between the regions that fit into all three categories. Would it be OR or perhaps even WP:SYNTH to consolidate 2 or 3 or 4 sources into one table with a column for each of the three explanations? No one has done this before, at least as far as I can find. [The table could become more detailed, as the "seriousness of the mortality" and the "percentage of Muslims" both lie along a defined continuum.. and the former is divided into 86 geographic areas...]. Tks in advance.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, it's OR. The basic spirit of WP:SYNTH is that sources should not be combined to create a thesis that no source explicitly stated. It might be basic enough, considering it's just the intersection of sets, that it could be passable but I think that requires a rather good knowledge about Bengali demographics and policy to come to so I don't think it's a very basic conclusion. I'd say it's not really in the spirit of synth or NOR. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
A way around the synthesis problem—as long as you can rustle up an outline map of the area and a copy of Inkscape, or are prepared to flutter your eyelashes at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop—is to have a row of maps side-by-side showing the mortality rate per area, the Muslim/non-Muslim ratio, and the size of the jute industry, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. That way you're making the correlation clear to the reader, without implying causation if the sources don't agree on the cause. ("Muslim inheritance laws" in particular sounds particularly dubious as a primary cause, given that there were so many other Islamic parts of the world which were affected by shortages, war damage and expropriations during WW2 but didn't descend into famine.) ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!! Inheritance laws divided the lands between multiple brothers into smaller and smaller chunks until many people didn't have a large enough chunk to grow enough to survive.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
Sure, I get that, but it begs the question why equally-Islamic places like Tunisia, the southern Philippines, Somalia etc—all of which had a terrible time in WW2—didn't descend into famine in the same way. ("Blame the uncaring colonialists" doesn't explain it on its own, either, as other equally-Muslim parts of British India like Swat or British Baluchistan didn't suffer the same problems.) ‑ Iridescent 15:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
IMO, the inheritance laws were not enough by themselves to push anyone into starvation; however, under the scenario of rampant inflation plus boat denial plus "priority distribution" plus inter-province trade barriers, those with small landholdings were the ones left without a chair when the music stopped (to put it grimly). Then disease was spread by refugees to other areas ... The other major group was those who had also been struck by recent floods/droughts/pests/spores etc., e.g. Midnapore, 24-Parganas and Rangpur, but that's another story. Tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)