Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject India (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(31 more...)

Proposed deletions

(8 more...)

Categories for discussion

(11 more...)

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(12 more...)

Featured list removal candidates

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

This table is updated daily by a bot
Wikipedia Meetups edit
Outside India
Past meetups

Reference reliability[edit]

I am asking for comments regarding a discussion here on Talk:Chudasama dynasty#Reverting to older version for rewriting with new source. User:Sitush had opined to invite comments before going forward. Please express your opinion. More details on Talkpage.-Nizil (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, please could people respond at that talk page, not here. I will likely be keeping out of it as I've got to stay away from anything that might be stressful (no offence to Nizil - it's just the subject area). - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, nobody seem interested to discuss. :( What should I do? -Nizil (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Racism in British India[edit]

The article Racism in British India was redirected to Presidencies and provinces of British India in 2013 (due at least in part to serious NPOV concerns), but I have just reverted that as the topic is not discussed at the target. Please leave comments at Talk:Racism in British India#Redirected if you wish to discus this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Now draftified per talk page consensus. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

ITV Sources[edit]

Hi, This is to invite a discussion about Indian television, the question being why do Indian television articles consider Indian film sources at WP:ICTF as reliable. Why is there no separate guideline and information about sources particularly for television. Because Indian media works very differently for films and television. It is incorrect to consider those sources as the only reliable sources for television because the focus of most of those sources is on film and bollywood coverage. There should be a separate set of sources that should be discussed and considered reliable for ITV because generally they are considered unreliable and any edits including them are reverted no matter how true, genuine and notable they might be. MiaSays (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

MiaSays, (considering that you are not speaking about Great Britain), what the heck is ITV? WBGconverse 12:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, I think that it probably means Indian TelevisionFace-smile.svg << FR 12:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, seems so :-) WBGconverse 12:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric I think it's pretty evident if you read the whole paragraph. The only thing I'm talking about is Indian television and the need to discuss it's sources.MiaSays (talk)
I grant you that, understanding notability of any subject (and writing articles) in these areas is quite difficult given that we don't trust low quality source with little editorial control and that there is ample amount of promotional-paid-spam; in reliable national-media (TOI is the poster boy), in these areas which are useless to us.
At any case, can you give us an example of a source that you propose to use in these areas? WBGconverse 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, Ofcourse! I can list two sources which properly cover Indian television, Pinkvilla and BollywoodLife. I know most people will probably say that these aren't reliable enough but I'm suggesting these just because these are two sources which really cover Indian television, the show launches, awards, information about actors and basically everything that is required. But since only Indian film sources are considered, these are considered unreliable. As far as I have seen, they cover Indian television well enough and post confirmed content and not rumours. Secondly, I'd like to add another source, Biz Asia. It is a reliable source of UK Ratings of Asian television shows as well general updates and information. These are just my suggestions on the basis of which sources 'properly' cover Indian television. If not these, other sources anyone thinks can be discussed because there really is a NEED to discuss and finalise atleast 2-3 sources that do proper and not just vague coverage of Indian television. MiaSays (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with a delete discussion on an Indian political party[edit]

Hi fellow Wikipedians! A delete discussion is currently going on here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh . I'm pretty sure that, if there are any sources that would show notability for this political party, then they would likely be in Hindi or another local language and not in English. Anyone have an idea where they might be found? Feel free to point them out in the discussion if you do know where to find them. FOARP (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

History of India needs major work[edit]

History of India is up to 338kb, and need of some major restructuring, splitting, and move of content to child articles. Meanwhile, new editors are dropping in anywhere from 1k to 10k, without considering WP:SS. Please chime in with your ideas at Talk:History of India#Size split and summary style. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for promotion from {India-railstation-stub}[edit]

I'm not personally convinced that the mere existence of a railway station makes it notable, but I don't argue it here. I would like some objective standards for removal of the {India-railstation-stub} tag. These articles are often short because there is nothing to say. I think the stub tag should be removed when the following criteria are met:

  1. The article has two references that are not from an official timetable site. A newspaper, for example.
  2. The lede is well written,
  3. The town or nearest town is wikilinked
  4. Indic script is removed in accord with WP:INDICSCRIPT
  5. The article has coordinates. A map is a nice-to-have
  6. Timetables are removed. The trains that pass do not confer notability.

What do you think? Rhadow (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not just use a new tag {{India Railway cleanup needed}} (or whatever), with application based on your criteria above. The worst articles would then populate that maintenance category. Problem solved. Cesdeva (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Please use Indian English"[edit]

When I come upon a page with a template that entreats us to use {Indian English}, I am stumped. The article Indian English describes it as a dialect of English. It goes on to describe a series of spellings that, to me, are indistinguishable to from British English. If someone could point me to a definitive source for spelling that differs from British English -- or conjugation or syntax -- that would be great. Otherwise, the template is nigh-on meaningless, unless it is to use numbering that violates MOS:DIGITS. MOS:COMMONALITY tells us not to use crore or lakh. Any help is appreciated. Rhadow (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Written Indian English (IE) is probably not that different syntactically from standard British English. There are lexical differences here and there: batch mate (for class mate), common use of "fortnight" and "thrice," "back" to mean "ago" (I met him three years back), "out of station" (for out of town), "accomplish" (v) to mean equip ("accomplished him with the best tools"), "post" to mean after (I will do this post your arrival), and so forth. Traditional IE had many more, but with the advent of the internet some Indians have abandoned their uniquely Indian constructions, and with that are dying linguists' hopes of seeing a dictionary of Indian English. Spelling: IE scrupulously avoids Oxford spelling (-ize, -ization). For a Wikipedia user all that the "use Indian English" injunction means is that he or she should respect the constructions that are standard in Indian English but that are not shared with other varieties of English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, yeah, you're mostly right about what you wrote, including the stuff about the usage of 'fortnight', 'back' and -ise and -isation word endings ('realise', 'democratisation' et al.), but, I have to admit that I haven't ever encountered a person using 'accomplish' in the way you described, but, that's about it. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 08:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting details but are you suggesting that once {{Use Indian English}} appears on an article (and assuming it is a relevant topic), then "three years back" should not be changed to "three years earlier", for example? I would argue that "Use X English" refers mainly to spelling and date formats. MOS:COMMONALITY suggests that changing text to a form common to all varieties is best. That is rather vague, like many other guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@SshibumXZ: "Accomplish" does seem to be less common. It was legitimate usage in other Englishes not that long ago. e.g. "keep him from all power of evil, accomplish him with all good, and bring him up before Thy holy sanctuary ..." Many Indianisms do exist in other Englishes but are rare or archaic. "Needful" for "needed" would be such a word. @Johnuniq: "Three years back" is probably more common in spoken IE than written; so, yes, what you have suggested would be appropriate. But would I change "the ten accused were chargesheeted on the basis of electronic evidence?" Would I wikilink it to Chargesheet? I am not sure. What about "passed away" for died, also used in spoken Am E, but less often in written? Would I change "X passed away in 1928" in a WP article? I probably would. Would I change "fast unto death" to "hunger strike?" Probably not, in part because those two are not the same, the former not referencing a prison within the confines of which food is being refused. I do agree with WP:COMMONALITY, but also sometimes balk at making interventions of only minor rephrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
This has been discussed here before. The template is, more than anything else, a product of Indian nationalists (anyone remember Zuggernaut, MangoWong etc?) and the Kumbaya singers. Fowler is correct in the analysis of differences between Indian and British English, which fundamentally relates to the fact that the Brits introduced English to India and then the language as spoken there got stuck in something of a timewarp. Hence, the use of "thrice" etc which are now contextually archaic in British English. There are a few specific exceptions but, generally speaking, copyediting Indian English into British English loses nothing and actually tends to make the article more accessible. For example, we simply should not say cops in an encyclopaedia, although it is commonly used in Indian news media; I think the frequent omission of the will just seem ill-educated to most readers; and the fairly common lack of spacing between initials just makes things harder to read. So, I polish the stuff and don't worry too much about national sensitivities; I can't recall anyone ever objecting. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sitush, if we claim that this encyclopedia is in English, then the use of the definite article the is obligatory, whether or not we are implored to use Indian English. In the rest of the English-speaking world, the is the most common word in the language, delivering precision to any assertion. You are right, forgetting to use the is the result of unclear thinking, not the use of an equivalent language. Rhadow (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding passed away, we should not do it - see WP:DIED. Same with "met his maker", "attained moksha" and the umpteen other euphemisms for dying. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, WP:EUPHEMISM. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Fowler&fowler, please direct me to a definitive source of the constructions that are standard in Indian English, else I cannot distinguish occurrences of {Indian English} from errors in standard English. Otherwise the tag is as vague as {do better}. As to your specific observations, common use of fortnight and thrice are mutually intelligible uses of archaic, but not foreign, words. Substitution of back for ago is not an uncommon usage anywhere in the English-speaking world. Batch mates, out of station, and accomplish are new ones on me, but they are insufficient to define an Indian standard dialect. As editors, we are unconcerned with phonology. In Wikipedia, there is no similar recommendation to create articles in Caribbean English or African-American Vernacular English. In both of those cases, institutions employ a national standard for written work, British English for the the first, and American English for the second. Both of those lects have more speakers for whom they are a mother tongue than the 0.1% of Indians for whom English is a first language. Rhadow (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Rhadow: The evolution and course of Indian English has been driven by the speech of second language speakers who now number 300 million and counting, and among whom are writers such as Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy, Vikram Seth, R. K. Narayan, Anita Desai, Amitav Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru, and so forth. Whatever it is, a dialect or not, a regional variety or not, linguists take it seriously. The late Sidney Greenbaum had some prescient thoughts about it, which I unfortunately don't remember precisely right now. I said above that there are not too many syntactical differences with standard BE. I meant coarse or crude differences; there are, however, many fine or subtle differences, that I myself am not too expert on, but that are the subject of a spate of recent books:

  • Balasubramanian, Chandrika (2009), Register Variation in Indian English, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-2311-4
  • Baumgardner, Robert Jackson (editor) (1996), South Asian English: Structure, Use, and Users, University of Illinois Press, ISBN 978-0-252-06493-7CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
  • Lange, Claudia (2012), The Syntax of Spoken Indian English, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-4905-9
  • Mehrotra, Raja Ram (1998), Indian English: Texts and Interpretation, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-4716-1
  • Sailaja, Pingali (2009), Indian English, Series: Dialects of English, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-2595-6
  • Schilk, Marco (2011), Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-0351-2
  • Sedlatschek, Andreas (2009), Contemporary Indian English: Variation and Change, Series: Varieties of English Around the World, John Benjamins Publishing, ISBN 90-272-4898-2

I think to hope that the "Indian English" tag will be removed after ten or more years is to wander into a fraught landscape and history. I would not touch it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Fowler&fowler, you make my point. Register and Spoken Indian English are irrelevant to the discussion of the written language of an encyclopedia. If "there are not too many syntactical differences with standard BE", then we are talking about a distinction without a difference. All the {Indian English} tag refers to are "fine or subtle differences". The result of the tag then will be that a small minority of WP editors will profess expertise, making an argument from authority likely to be a logical fallacy. Rhadow (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
PS The OED has some five hundred Indian English words, but half are of historical significance only, being part of the speech of Anglo-Indians, i,e the domiciled British in India (not in its later meaning of people of mixed British and Indian parentage who now comprise the 150,000 native speakers in India) and many are neologisms or portmanteau with English and vernacular parts. The best source of distinctive written Indian English would be Indian newspapers, especially The Statesman and The Telegraph of Calcutta, Times of India, Bombay, The Indian Express, and The Hindu. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Words like bungalow, you mean? Whilst I can pretty much always understand reports in The Hindu, the same is not true of The Times of India which, to be frank, often seems to contain a lot of ambiguity and contradiction even when it is intelligible - I'm not convinced that it is a good example of any form of English! All this said, I add {{use Indian English}} to articles and will continue to do so; if nothing else, it helps future contributors in understanding that, say, a quotation is indeed quoted accurately even if it looks a little odd to many of them. But I still generally polish the garbage in a British English way, sorry. And you're right: there is little chance of getting consensus to deprecate the template, if that is the ultimate point of this thread. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rhadow: Well, register is an important difference even in written English. What might be informal or casual in AmE or BE might be normal in IE. Or what might be normal in IE might be archaic in BE. Sitush has given the example of "cops" being used in newspapers. There are many others I have come across. I have seen mixing of formal and informal registers in the same sentence, e.g. in this made up example "I saw at once the bloodied body below and the cops' helicopter above." This a common in newspaper columns. I am not disagreeing with you, but IE is being documented (see the corpora of Indian English: ICE-IND corpus and the Kohlapur corpus and the numbers of IE speakers is increasing with increased literacy in India. I expect the difference will grow as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
So Fowler&fowler, at your suggestion, I looked at the front page of today's Times of India. The article on Brexit was sourced in London and might have been edited at Reuters. Another article, "1.4 crore people take dip as Kumbh Mela begins". [[1]]. The lede reads, "The sacred baths began at break of dawn as the sun rose over the horizon and went on through the day till the last rays set over the Sangam, the chants of "Har Har Gange" reaching a crescendo as lakhs of people took a dip to mark the beginning of the beginning of the Kumbh Mela on Tuesday." This is the voice, tone, and attitude I should adopt as I write about railway stations? It's a fine piece of prose, lyrical, even, but has no place in Wikipedia. Dropping the before "break of dawn" was poetic. It recalls Homer: "When rosy-fingered Dawn came bright and early." If this the style I am to adopt for railway stations and dams, fine. I just need to hear it from others. Rhadow (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Rhadow: When someone starts talking like an ass, they can't expect to receive cogent responses. That is not directed at you, only an example of mixed registers. Why don't you rail at the pages that have


 ? All three country articles carry them. Ask them how reading Naipaul, Robertson Davies, or Patrick White will will help you write articles on the railroads. All the very best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, ask me dat nuh! It have only two articles marked {Trinidadian English}. [register changes here] The article Trinidadian and Tobagonian English has itself been marked for two years {Use American English}. There are no articles marked {Australian English} or {Canadian English}. An encyclopedia needs to be written in a style appropriate to the reader unfamiliar with the topic. Lakhs and crores are as familiar to most people as guineas and furlongs, colorful language, but not useful in expository writing.
I am not railing, nor do I intend to be an ass. I only hope to normalize Wikipedia to a universally useful and mutually intelligible source of information. There is no reason for the encyclopedia to use flowery local language when encyclopedic style is more appropriate. I am happy to accept Oxford spelling for those national articles where it is used. All the best. Rhadow (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rhadow: There are 93 thousand articles that say up top, "Use Australian English" when you edit the articles. (See Category:All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English). Over 4,000 say, "Use Canadian English." See Category:All Wikipedia articles written in Canadian English. The Wikipedia articles for these two countries, both FAs, have "This article is written in ..." (as displayed above). See Talk:Australia, Talk:Canada. See also Talk:Trinidad and Tobago, Talk:Trinidad for the respective Trinidad English signs. Over 1,200 articles are written in Jamaican English; see Category:All Wikipedia articles written in Jamaican English. Over a hundred are written in Nigerian English: Category:Use Nigerian English. 154 are written in Singapore English; see Category:Use Singapore English; over 2,400 use Hong Kong English; see Category:Use Hong Kong English. 12,000 are written in New Zealand English; see Category:Use New Zealand English. Some 2,300 use Pakistani English; see Category:Use Pakistani English. Over 5,000 use South African English; see Category:Use South African English. Over 108,000 use Indian English; see Category:Use Indian English. Over 198,000 are written in British English; see Category:Use British English. The remaining, millions and millions, are written in the Wikipedia default, American English. So, really, why even have British spelling, considering its output constitutes a minuscule fraction of all WP output.
This general discussion doesn't really belong to this page, whose discussions have more limited, modest, purpose; it does to the MOS pages or at the Village Pump. As for flowery language, it is a feature of all Englishes. All have their encyclopedic styles as well. Any Wikipedia editor edits a WP article by employing the variety of English with which they are most comfortable. If there is a lack of fit with the advertised language of editing, then others, with more knowledge of it, will usually step in and fix it. That is the simplest way to edit. In any case, you will not learn Indian English by reading one article in the Times of India, and interpreting that to be the norm.
You are not the first one who has come by here, trolling these pages, professing high purpose, but in the end offering little but thinly disguised sneering at the very idea of Indian English.
This is as far as can I go in engaging you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone is not aware, this topic is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) Cesdeva (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • My two paise ("cents" Face-smile.svg): Indian English preserves and uses some phrases/words of British English. For example (this many not be the best example, howver I can think of this only now) w. e. f "with effect from", see. --Titodutta (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The template {{use Lilliputian English}} makes sense only as a question of stylistic consistency, not as an exhortation to change vocabulary or syntax in a way that makes it more familiar to Lilliputians, but less comprehensible in other parts of the world. The point of any of the "use English" templates is stylistic only, they are about consistency and not comprehensibility. They are there to help willing editors who wish to observe a consistency previously determined by first use by early editors, or by strong ties to a national topic. They do not trump clarity and intelligibility to the reader, which always come first, before any stylistic consideration.

I'd rather read an article with a mishmash of Trinidadian, Canadian, Zimbabwean, South African, and Australian spelling curiosities that is restricted to terms completely understandable to everyone, than an article written in one, 100% pure, national variety of English that uses numerous terms peculiar to one country and that leaves readers in other parts of the world scratching their heads in confusion. Which is why, for example, you should never write, "the MP tabled the motion" in a Wikipedia article, because either everybody in the U.S. will misunderstand it, or everybody in Great Britain will, since the term is a regional contranym; instead, you find a workaround that everyone will understand.

That applies to Indian English, because it has a fair number of terms that won't be well-understood elsewhere, but it applies equally to others as well, and if terms used in articles are common in AE or BE but are opaque in Indian English, than it's equally fair to require them to be changed to an expression that would be understood in the subcontinent as well as everywhere else.

The main problem with the {{use Indian English}} template for those willing non-Indian editors (like yours truly) who want to do the right thing, and who know how to write in either AE or BE and follow those templates, is that we will have no idea what to do with {{use Indian English}} when we see it, and will probably just ignore it, or assume that BE is close enough, and use that instead. Worse, we might perhaps be scared away entirely by the template and not bother to edit the article at all, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Really, every article should just have a {{use World English}} template on it, and then when they all have it, they can all be removed because it will be a de facto standard. Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

On a separate, subtopic: I must respectfully disagree with Sitush where he said, "I add {{use Indian English}} to articles and will continue to do so; if nothing else, it helps future contributors in understanding that, say, a quotation is indeed quoted accurately even if it looks a little odd to many of them." This is not a good usage of the template. For one thing, the template is likely to be distant from the actual quotation and missed. For another, a long article, on poetry, say, might have quotations from writers of AE, BE, Irish, Scots, Indian, and Australian English; then what template do you use at the top of the article?
In a case like this, do not tag the article, tag the quotation directly with {{lang-en-GB}}, {{lang-en-US}} or one of the other English dialect multilingual support templates. If a language template is missing, {{as written}} can be pressed into service: "Mighty Bhishma, hath he fallen? quenched is archer Karna's pride? / Drupad monarch of Panchala sleeps by foeman Drona's side?". Mathglot (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Using Wiki-userbox : political parties[edit]

Hatting as OP blocked for socking (Skymhnty), pages/userboxes deleted, proposal didn't fly, nothing more to do here -- DBigXray

Wikitext userbox where used
Political Party:
{{User:Tuwein/bjp support}} User:Tuwein/bjp support linked pages
{{User:Tuwein/modi bjp}} User:Tuwein/modi bjp linked pages
{{User:Tuwein/inc support}} User:Tuwein/inc support linked pages
{{User:Tuwein/inc rahul}} User:Tuwein/inc rahul linked pages

Can any one tell me if we need to have a consensus to get these Infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject_India#WikiProject_India_userbox_templates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuwein (talkcontribs)

I doubt that you can have such a poll on a Wikiproject, consensus or not. It would go against the very grain of Wikipedia. How did you make the connection between such a blatantly political poll and an encyclopedia with strict guidelines about NPOV and neutrality?Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, gosh. I know there is huge scope for people to do as they wish on their userpages but I dislike these just as much as I dislike those that appear for other countries. If I had my way, think anyone who posted one should be automatically disbarred from editing any political articles relating to the country involved. (That won't happen but it is what should happen.) And your SHOUTING in the section title doesn't help - I am fixing that now. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm actually amazed that someone who has had a registered account for two days can even grapple with creating such boxes! - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
what about if i post these here at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, I think that would be best. Where it will find friends, for example
Flag of Canada.svg This user is in favour of EU enlargement in a westerly direction.
This user voted
EPP in 2014
Vote icon.svg
European stars.svg
This user does not support the
European Union.
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg This user hopes the UK
NEVER adopts the Euro.

Fowler&fowler as you said that It would go against the very grain of Wikipedia., just answer me what about friends at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics#Parties

One important thing to note is that any responsible citizen of any country would vote(the party that he/she supports), whether any one admits it on wikipedia or not we all support a political party. PROTIP: These info-boxes can help you guys determine if any editor has WP:CONFLICT to any of these parties. Tuwein (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am a responsible person and I have never voted - every politician I have ever seen or heard has been unworthy of my support, as has every party. Don't make assumptions. "Clever" people would not badge their COI here. People who know just how many problems we have with COI and Indian political articles would not create such userboxes. Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I am really sorry you changed my heart. I will delete these now and will never ever think of creating such boxes. You are really an unbiased editor I am telling this on the basis of you contributions. Thanks Tuwein (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Admins need assistance[edit]

Hi, we have a report at WP:UAA that the username "land ka raja" is an offensive phrase in Hindi. English-speaking admins are unable to confirm that the term "land" is a Hindi term for "penis", finding only "lund" from online sources, but the reporting user insists that it is the same thing. We are unsure if the user is correct, or if this is a misunderstanding. Are there any Hindi speakers around who can assist? Thanks,  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  07:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Admins have been assisted--DBigXray 08:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help on wikimedia commons[edit]

Hello. With the efforts of User:Gazoth, now we have more than 114 thousand images uploaded from Press Information Bureau on Wikimedia Commons under the license GODL-India. Unfortunately, over thirty thousand of them are still not categorized. I'll be very grateful, if some users can lend a hand in helping me categorizing these images at Category:Images from Press Information Bureau needing categories. My apologies if this isn't the right place to ask for this. Thanks. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If people didn't upload so much crap, there wouldn't be so much of a problem. I've just looked at that category and it is ridiculous. Why duplicate the PIB in such a way if the stuff is open for use anyway - should have been done selectively, as and when required. Just because some things can be done is not a reason to actually do them. This strikes me as another example of why Commons is such a terrible project. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm, that wasn't very helpful, but thanks anyway :| —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Plus, there are some confusion that "images" don't come under "data". --Titodutta (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the FB page used as a source for Sathatha Sri Vaishnava‎ a reliable source?[edit]

Here's the link.[2] to the article. The FB page is at [3] Doug Weller talk 17:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Doug Weller, I have reverted the edit. They can claim whatever they want on that FB page, I feel, not a reliable source. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Titodutta: thanks. I suspect it will be back. Note that I removed it originally. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to move Mustafabad, Haryana to Saraswati Nagar[edit]

There is a request to move the article Mustafabad, Haryana. The subject appears to have been officially renamed to Saraswati Nagar. The request was made on 2 January 2019, but so far has gained zero attention. It was relisted a first time to Wikipedia:Requested moves on 10 January. I have just relisted the discussion a second time, and made a note here, in the hope that someone from this WikiProject may be interested in participating. Renerpho (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Here, hold my beer. Cesdeva (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism in an India-related source, published by a reliable publisher, involving copying verbatim from a WP article.[edit]

I recently came across the source Bimal Kanti Paul (2012), "Indian Famines: 1707-1943", in William A. Dando (ed), Food and Famine in the 21st Century, ABC-CLIO, pp. 39–57, ISBN 978-1-59884-730-7CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link). This source was being cited in the article Great Famine of 1876–1878 which I had written in 2008. (See this talk page discussion). When I examined the source, I noticed that some paragraphs seemed familiar. They had my style of writing. Indeed after some rummaging, I found text that had been lifted (i.e. copied verbatim) from the same Wikipedia article to which it was now being cited. Who is the author of the source? He is Bimal Kanti Paul, a professor at Kansas State University. I offer below two example. (There might be others as well. I had written several Indian famine articles around that time.)

Example 1, from the source: "After the Great Famine, a large number of agricultural laborers and handloom weavers in South India immigrated (sic) to British tropical colonies to work as indentured laborers on plantations. The excessive deaths experienced in this famine also neutralized natural population growth in the Bombay and Madras presidencies between the first and second censuses of British India carried out in 1871 and 1881, respectively. The Great Famine was to have a lasting political impact on events in India. Among the British administrators in India who were unsettled by the official reactions to this famine and, in particular, by the stifling of the official debate about the best form of famine relief, were William Wedderbum and A. O. Hume. Less than a decade later, they would found the Indian National Congress and, in turn, influence a generation of nationalists such as Dadabhai Naoroji and Romesh Chunder Dutt, for whom the Great Famine would become a cornerstone to [sic] the economic critique of the British Raj." (Bimal Kanti Paul (2012), Indian Famines: 1707-1943, p.50, volume 2 (Classical Famines))

Contrast with my version at the end of my first edits of 23rd and 24th May 2008 (see here, and scroll to the top to view the date of edit):

After the famine, a large number of agricultural laborers and handloom weavers in South India emigrated to British tropical colonies to work as indentured laborers in plantations.[1] The excessive mortality in the famine also neutralized the natural population growth in the Bombay and Madras presidencies during the decade between the first and second censuses of British India in 1871 and 1881 respectively.[2] The Great Famine was to have a lasting political impact on events in India; among the British administrators in India who were unsettled by the official reactions to the famine and, in particular by the stifling of the official debate about the best form of famine relief, were William Wedderburn and A. O. Hume.[3] Less than a decade later, they would found the Indian National Congress and, in turn, influence a generation of nationalists such as Dadabhai Naoroji and Romesh Chunder Dutt for whom the Great Famine would become a cornerstone of the economic critique of the British Raj.[3]

(In those days, I favored the more formal "would" for future-in-the-past constructions, in contrast to "was to." )

Example 2, "The Great Famine was preceded by an intense drought on the Deccan Plateau. Earlier, after the Bihar famine of 1873-1874, Mr. Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Indian government, insisted not only on a laissez-faire pol-icy with respect to the grain trade, but also on stricter qualification standards for relief and on more meager relief rations for those in need. Two kinds of relief were offered: "relief works" for able-bodied men, women, and working children, and Food and Famine in the 21st Century `gratuitous (or charitable) relief" for small children, the elderly, and the indigent." (Bimal Kanti Paul (2012), Indian Famines: 1707-1943, pp.49–50, volume 2 (Classical Famines))

My version of 24 May 2008 (see here, and scroll above for date of edit):

"The Great Famine was preceded by an intense drought (or "crop failure") in the Deccan Plateau.[4] Earlier, after the Bihar famine of 1873–74, in which mortality was avoided, the Government of Bengal and its Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple, were criticized for excessive expenditure, which had included the costs of importing rice from Burma and providing generous charitable relief.[5] Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India,[6] insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire with respect to the trade in grain,[7] but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meager relief rations.[6] Two kinds of relief were offered: "relief works" for able-bodied men, women, and working children, and gratuitous (or charitable) relief for small children, the elderly, and the indigent.[8]

We are all familiar with the Wikipedia injunction about discontinuing editing if you are uncomfortable with your words being mangled, stolen, sold, etc., though I can't seem to find the exact quote right now; still, it would have been nice of some attribution had been given to Wikipedia. The irony now is that the copied material is copyrighted in this source—anyone choosing to copy the words again will be violating their copyright not our original. I am used to my words being copied on various India-related websites; even OED copied part of the definition of the British Raj that I had contributed in 2009 or thereabouts. But that was two or three sentences of fine print. These are whole paragraphs of text; they have been published by a fairly reliable publisher. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Roy 2006, p. 362
  2. ^ Roy 2006, p. 363
  3. ^ a b Hall-Matthews 2008, p. 24
  4. ^ Roy 2006, p. 361
  5. ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III 1907, p. 488, Hall-Matthews 1996, pp. 217-219
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference igi-III-488 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Hall-Matthews 1996, p. 217
  8. ^ Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III 1907, pp. 477–483


  • We are releasing content under CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Send them a notice for copyright violation, if needed. --Titodutta (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Fowler&fowler, please also add a Template:Backwards copy on the talk page, with appropriate version ID of the wikipedia article that was plagiarised. --DBigXray 14:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Sadly I've seen an article of ours, or much of it, turn up in an Indian peer-reviewed journal. I didn't know about notices and the template then I'm afraid. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I've seen this happen with supposedly respectable publishers in the past also. I would be tempted to kick up an almighty fuss with them and with Paul (perhaps even his university). I have a very poor list of dodgy India-related sources in my userspace (User:Sitush/Indic publications of dubious merit) and will add this one to it. To be honest, once an academic has been spotted to plagiarise, all of their works should be considered unreliable here. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:@Sitush: In this instance, the publisher ABC-CLIO is a fairly respect American publisher of educational material. The editor of the volume is: William A. Dando, whose biography at the end of the book (page 339) says: "Editor William A. Dando is Professor Emeritus, Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology, Indiana State University. He has taught courses on the geography of food and famine, as well as on climatology. His interests lie in agriculture, hunger/famine in Russia, climate and food, and application of geotechniques to food, famine, and agricultural problems. He is a member of the Association of American Geographers and the National Council for Geographic Education." The author of the chapter, "Indian famines 1707–1943" is Bimal Kanti Paul, whose biography on pages 339–340, says, "Bimal Kanti Paul is Professor of Geography at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. He is a hazards geography specialist with additional interests in health and population geography and quantitative analysis. His area specialty is in South Asia. Currently he is the Book Review Editor of the Professional Geographer and Editor of Special Publications of the National Council for Geographic Education. " Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Gobsmacked. Email Dando. Or I will if no one else wants to. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer that you do, as you are an admin. But there's more. Each one of the famine articles I wrote in 2008, half dozen or more, seem to have been copied. I'll make a collapsed set of examples of them. Btw, Dando was 54 on September 24, 1988 according to the Grand Forks Herald (North Dakota) on September 24, 1988 (see here and scroll down) That means he is 84 now. He might not be active academically. Writing to the publisher might be better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The various editorial boards of which Paul is a member, including in his role as a book reviewer, are going to have a fit of the vapours. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)