Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 256: Line 256:


:@[[User:TheAnonymousWikiEditor|TheAnonymousWikiEditor]] has not replied yet. Most have been reverted by @[[User:Anas1712|Anas1712]] and me. [[User:Venkat TL|Venkat TL]] ([[User talk:Venkat TL|talk]]) 16:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:TheAnonymousWikiEditor|TheAnonymousWikiEditor]] has not replied yet. Most have been reverted by @[[User:Anas1712|Anas1712]] and me. [[User:Venkat TL|Venkat TL]] ([[User talk:Venkat TL|talk]]) 16:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
::Sorry,
::I haven't seen that there was a discussion. It's just that I've seen that the category "Municipal corporations in India" is too much crowded and that the articles are double-tagged with mother/daughter categories. I was quite sure that it wasn't so overpopulous, but I've decided to clean-up that. In addition, many India-related articles are regurlary doubled-tagged.
::: [[User:Anas1712|Anas1712]] ([[User talk:Anas1712|talk]]) 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


== Municipal Corporation functions cruft in individual corporation articles ==
== Municipal Corporation functions cruft in individual corporation articles ==

Revision as of 16:44, 22 June 2022

WikiProject iconIndia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This page is a noticeboard for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(106 more...)

Proposed deletions

(4 more...)

Categories for discussion

(1 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(17 more...)

Featured list removal candidates

Peer reviews

Requested moves

(8 more...)

Articles to be merged

(28 more...)

Articles to be split

(16 more...)

Articles for creation

(80 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot
Shortcuts

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Merge Requests

  You are invited to join the discussion about whether individual rulers of Turk Shahis and Nezak Huns deserve individual pages. Relevant links are:

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Opinion on Individual Pages about Ancient rulers

Is the very fact of being a ruler—whose existence can be verified—inherently deserving of a standalone page in itself? For all of the above cases we barely know anything of significance apart from one or two factoids sourced to one or two ancient sources. Can WP:DUP#2 be allowed to be violated for such cases by having the same information (in toto) on pages about the ruler as well as the dynasty? Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE is the guideline.

Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.

One of my gripes, which I should do something about, is that Wikidata doesn't understand this. (It doesn't allow multiple topics sharing the same Wikipage.)
But, other than that, there is absolutely no reason to have individual pages for rulers or other individuals, dynasties, kingdoms, events etc. etc. I was just thinking yesterday that we should start a clean-up drive when I noticed that every individual mentioned in Umayyad campaigns in India now has a standalone page, basically based on the content from that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you (except for WD, which I am not conversant with). I emphasized on these very lines at this discussion but was told that it was customary to create page for notable rulers on Wikipedia.
I can join in the drive—why do people write stubs like Agguka I?—but there are hardly any eyes in these areas. A single revert by some obstinate editor is effectively a veto. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, obviously, it is to claim, "we won". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be the case all the time, and possibly not in this case, but a consideration is that making new articles makes Wikipedia bigger. Also looks good on the "articles created" list. Is that necessarily better? I firmly believe that combining stubs and sub-standard start-class articles with a relevant parent article would be a net positive for Wikipedia. Why have one start-class and one or more stub-class articles when a combination could make an improved C-class or better? I think combining closely related articles an overall improvement including for navigational purposes. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Otr500. To see that in effect can only be achieved by supporting the above merge proposals or like proposals. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating tons of stubs is of course undesirable, but when there is a reasonable amount of content available on a given ruler or topic, I believe it is a good thing to have a dedicated page. We are an encyclopedia after all. Also, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is such that a page which was started as a stub or a small article (and sometimes staying this way for several years) can often ultimately develop into a full fledged article, with more or newer material, more images or maps etc... The above mentioned articles Ghar-ilchi, Bo Fuzhun, Tegin Shah, Barha Tegin should of course stay, there is no need or no value in merging them to something else, and if these articles did not exist, new editors would keep creating them anyway, that's the way Wikipedia has been built and expanded for the last twenty years. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the above articles to discuss I would have reservations. On Agguka I there really should be no valid objections. The article only remotely covers the subject as near to passing mention as some substandard sources. It is my opinion that the use of Chinese goes overboard, such as Bo Fuzhun#Chinese accounts, Turk Shahis#Dissolution of the Tang protectorate, the "Society and Religion" section, and the large amount under "Notes" concerning the "Original text of Cefu Yuangui 3.5. Fanyan in Vol. 999", as well as all the other overly explanative source listings that are not necessary. This applies to any of the other articles. A slight downfall with Wikipedia is the accolades for creating articles, regardless of the quality, and that creating more articles means Wikipedia is growing. It is not really a major concern sometimes if the articles are bare dictionary entries or sub-standard stubs. Sometimes it is just all about turning red links blue. That is where editors that do care about quality have to be diligent. However, each instance needs to be looked at individually unless there is proof that mass junk is being introduced. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; what are your thoughts on the updated section about the Dissolution of Tang Protectorate? I have proposed that the Chinese texts be removed from notes etc. but Pat disagrees. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I agree that these cases ought be judged individually but here we have articles, written for the sake of writing one.
Concerning Bo Fuzhun, we know nothing except a single mention in the Old Book of Tang recording his coronation. Our article, to fill space (probably), spends a line on describing what the Book of Tang is, and what it records before reproducing the entire paragraph. I do not know why our article claims that these events are again recorded in the Chinese annals Jiu Tangshu because Jiu Tangshu is the Old Book of Tang.
The rest two factoids, on coinage and identicality with Khingala, are speculations by a single historian—Shōshin Kuwayama—of which the first is not accepted (or even paid much heed to) in English language scholarship.
Coinage of ancient C. Asian rulers are based on a lot of hypothesis, which get revised every few years. And, apart from an exceedingly few cases, coinage of entire dynasties are studied rather than any single ruler. One can state Kuwayama's summary-hypothesis in an executive fashion on articles about individual Turk Shahi rulers but cannot explain his conclusions (or critiques by others) unless the entire Turk Shahi coinage is being discussed at a single place.
For every conceivable reason the two articles could be merged, they should TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most reliable sources on the subject do use the Chinese sources extensively and quote them as well. The reason is that a large part of the history of these polities is based on the Chinese chronicles. At the very least, these should appear in the notes. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand using available sources in whatever language. As I understand the Chinese Wikipedia is blocked in China so I do not mind as much coverage being offered as possible. It is my opinion, and likely backed by broad consensus, that this is the English Wikipedia. I read that 3.5 million households in the US speak Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese?) which is reportedly the third most spoken language. However, if the US population is around 332,915,073 (2021), that is around 1%. I am sure that becomes a lot smaller if we consider how many read and/or edit Wikipedia. For ease to readers (that includes editors), any possible sites that are in English would be a positive. Sources should be linked to but do not need the expansive use of Chinese. Note: WP:Reliable source; The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception... includes the "Notes" section.
If there is only a single mention, and of some historical importance, in which case, someone somewhere should probably have written something more (so it might be real or perceived), then the subject absolutely should be merged. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, foreign language sources are also accepted on the English Wikipedia (see WP:V#Non-English sources), especially when there is no English equivalent. English translation should be provided when doing so, preferably from a reliable source: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote." (WP:V#Non-English sources).पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, and thanks for the link I didn't provide. My concern is that articles that use large amounts of "other than English, be it in the references, a note section, or quotes, needs to be for some specific reason and not just adornment. Also see: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original material being in Chinese, the most rigorous approach is to provide the original text together with its English translation. Many academics and students of this region and period do rely on the Chinese originals for precise understanding. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up confusions about "Singrauli State"

As part of figuring out whether there was a princely state of "Singrauli" (different from the modern district and city), I found quite a few edits from blocked account User:Uchiha Baba and his sockpuppets, that are probably not accurate; although interesting to research, I'm getting out of my depth.

The facts of which I'm confident are that Veena Singh, daughter of Arjun Singh (Madhya Pradesh politician), married a Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Singh, and they have a son Aishwarya Singh who married Devyani Rana of Nepal. At some point they converted a residence of theirs into the Singrauli Palace Heritage Hotel. The part that is dubious is B.P. Singh's background - although his (election?) disclosures show a number of assets in the Singrauli area, there doesn't seem to be any independent source that he or his ancestors were rulers of anything at all. When you dig down around the net, the material is either derivatives of the altered Wikipedia articles, the forged maps uploaded to commons, unreliable genealogy sites, or vague claims on the hotel's website. On the other hand, some of the images floating around the net can also be seen at the hotel's website, when you zoom in on interior photos of the hotel. So I'd like to ask people to dig down on the blocked person's edits and revert anything that can be determined to be bogus. Thanks! Stan (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My original map
Patputralized image
On it. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I don't know anything about this politician or the hotel.) Well, my memory is already hazy, but some editor had proceeded to add "Singrauli" to quite a few maps of British India I had uploaded in 2007 from my personal collection of the Imperial Gazetteer of India (which are scanned from the old 1909 atlas and therefore, of much higher resolution than the ones you will find at for example at DSAL, University of Chicago, website), added "Singrauli" to them, most likely at the correct Lat/Long, and then replaced all the old maps with the Singraulified maps. They were also claiming that Singrauli was a princely state with the same number of gun salutes as Rewa State of the white tiger fame. In my quick check at that time, I came to the conclusion that Singrauli was a Zamindari estate that was either incorporated into the Benares Zamindari (also not a princely state as alleged often) or somehow at the time of the EIC takeover of Benares or soon after was lost. As for the images, this sort of OR, presumably allowed by WP is done all the time. User: Patliputra has a little cottage industry going of cutting, pasting, and modifying, images, come what may, ever onward. Here is one doozy gracing the Kushan Empire page. The fact that the Patliputraized images only obliquely acknowledge the original upload, is less important, but look at the ghastly colors. If I say anything, in my usual blunt fashion when Wikipedia's editors do things that are not in the spirit of the law even if they might be in the letter, what happens? Well, they threaten AN/I and the usual stuff. But look at this injustice, not done to me (because those maps were handed down to me by some men and women of great integrity, devotion, and care, now of happy memory) but to the images themselves! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here is that talk page thread about Singrauli. The conversation talk page thread is below the maps. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mention in the literature seem to be spotty. There is this from Hayden Bellenoit published in Modern Asian Studies, circa 2014.

These extant officers could sometimes more forcefully assist the Company in ensuring payment of revenue. Udai Lal, the Kayastha qanungo of Singrauli, worked with a powerful Zamindar, Raja Adil Shah, to get the malguzars to enter qabooliyats (revenue agreements) with the Company in the late 1780s. These malguzars refused to recognize British authority, but ultimately yielded (and paid) after Lal suggested to the British Collector: ‘if you despatch a company of sepoys and a gun to punish the aforesaid rebels, the Government money will be realised’.100 Lowly masters of paper, who rarely graced the Mughal court, let alone the presence of either Cornwallis or Wellesley, were quickly becoming vital links between British power and Hindustan’s agrarian wealth. The qanungo could sometimes exercise subtle, razor like bureaucratic power. The Raja of Benares, Bulwant Singh, went as far as to destroy the qanungos’ records that contravened his claims to khas lands10

Bellenoit teaches at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD. I had no idea that the USNA, where I've spent some time, had faculty with such varied interests! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS I should have explained, I thought WP had a qanungo page but it doesn't. Never mind, here is the word explained in Platts' good old Urdu dictionary, it is related to the Arabic, qanoon (law):

A قانون qānūn (P. also qānūn; akin to Gr. κανὼν), s.m. A canon, rule, regulation, law, legislative act, statute, ordinance; — a species of dulcimer or harp: — qānūn-dān, s.m. One who is versed or learned in the law, a lawyer, jurist: — qānūn-dānī, s.f. Knowledge of the law; — jurisprudence: — qānūn-ě-dīwānī, s.m. Civil law: — qānūn-ě-faujdārī, s.m. Criminal law: — qānūn-go, s.m. An officer in each district, acquainted with its customs, the nature of the tenure of the lands, &c.; registrar of a pargana, or the hereditary registrar of landed property in a pargana; a superintendent of village accountants: — qānūn-goʼī, s.f. The office of a qanūn-go.

A qanungo was a registrar of Company_rule_in_India#Revenue_collection. This suggests that Singrauli was a part of British India, not a princely state in which the East India Company could not have collected land tax, and it was therefore a zamindari estate, not a princely state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand from zamindar that a zamindari estate would rarely if ever be part of a princely state? The fictional maps showing Singrauli always seem to have it as carveout from Rewa territory, but it's hard to imagine the Rewa maharaja being OK with that happening in real life (although I note a long regency in the late 19th century, maybe a British regent made a sketchy promise to someone). Stan (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is also this paper: South Asia, Vol. XV, no. 2 (1992), pp. 29-46 RAJPUT REVOLT IN SOUTHERN MIRZAPUR, 1857-58 Troy Downs, Monash University which says,

Not surprisingly British rule was tenuous, if not non-existent. The Magistrate of Mirzapur, writing to the Commissioner of the Banaras Division as late as 1838, stated that the region remained 'little known to the Police and wholly so to myself or any European officer'.10 He also believed, incorrectly, that the Raja of Singrauli was an independent ruler whose domains fell outside British administered territory. Up to this date officials were unclear as to how far their authority extended southward from the Son and under whose jurisdiction this land should fall. Even jurisdiction over the Dudhi pargana located to the north of the Son river had been disputed between officials of the Banaras Division and those in Bihar.11 In the following decades little had changed. Up to the 1850s British rule over Singrauli had been signified by the presence of a single burkundaze (policeman).1

It has quite a bit more, some 57 mentions of Singrauli I'm seeing, which I will look at later, but it does have the crucial denial of independent rulership above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check though if there might have been two Singraulis, I doubt it, but its possible. Will also check where Rewa lay in relation to South Mirzapur, Benares etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The North-Western Provinces showing Mirzapur and Benares above the Son river, and Rewa, a princely state, below

So, at least there are all nearby. Now I will examine a map of Rewa. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, yes, Downs's seems to be the go-to paper. It seems to be a long convoluted story.

It will be easier for me to just start a new WP page Singrauli estate or Singrauli estates, which I will do in the coming days and clear this confusion. Here is some more from Downs:

By the late eighteenth century the Singrauli Raj consisted of two parts: Singrauli proper in Mirzapur, the Singrauli Rajas paying a nominal sum as tribute to the original Rajput overlords; the other far more lucrative possession was the 700 villages of Nisf Singrauli in Rewah, the Rajas being tributaries of the Raja of Burhi.44 In the 1780s the Raja of Singrauli resisted by force the overlordship of the Raja of Agori-Burhur who had been granted Singrauli as a jagir by Warren Hastings.. .... In Nisf Singrauli the Singrauli Rajas had been less successful in consolidating their monopoly over landownership. Just before his death in 1817 the Burhi Raja had adopted the Maharaja of Rewah as his legal heir. The latter allowed the Raja of Singrauli to remain in possession of his land subject to a nominal yearly payment of tribute. But in 1841 the level of tribute demanded had been increased to one-quarter of the estimated profits of the state, or Rs 6,125. In 1856 Raghuraj Singh, the Maharaja of Rewah again raised the amount demanded to Rs 8,500.50 While the Singrauli Rajas had consolidated their control over their own estates, to the east of Singrauli they sought to incorporate the fertile pargana of Dudhi into their Raj. Territorial expansion into this area had been facilitated by British ignorance of local conditions in Mirzapur during the early part of the century.

I have to run now but will create a new page in the next couple of days. Thanks for asking! This business would never have cleared up otherwise. There is the precolonial and colonial confusion and there is the postcolonial boosterism, between those two real history lives very narrowly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought. It seems there is only one Raja of Singrauli. So maybe that might the proper WP page to start. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stan Shebs: I forgot to properly answer your question about whether princely states could have zamindars. The answer is yes. It was the Mughal system prevalent in both British India and the Princely States, of farming out tax collection to overlords, who in turn farmed it out to under lords, and so forth. British India, of course, had had various land reforms, which I'm not sure the princely states did or when. But here is another fascinating answer to your question. The Great Trigonometrical Survey (GTS), which ultimately determined the height of Mount Everest, built two observation towers (stations) in 1828, one Gurwani Hill Station XXX (24° 1' N 82° 20' E) was in the Singrauli Paragana of Rewah State, pargana being the same (Mughal inherited) land revenue unit. This according to Downs's paper was with 700 villages, the more lucrative one. The other was the Gora Hill Station XXXV (24° 5' N 83° 17' E) in the Singrauli Parganas of Mirzapur District of British India. The GTS notes (in the two links if you click) are fascinating. Also, if you enter the two lat/longs in Google maps directions, you can see that they are 130 km by road, which must have taken the old Rajahs quite a few hours to cover (assuming they were cantering not galloping) in their rounds on horses of their two estates. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is OR, so we will have to find modern RS to also say the same thing, but Aberigh-Mackay's Native Chiefs ... 1877 has this page Petty Chiefs and Nobles of the N-W Provinces, with Raja Udit Narian Singh of Singrauli among other zamindars.
  • There is also this in the Rewah State Gazetteer, 1907 which also we can't use for reasons of OR: page 83, The portion of Singrauli lying in the Rewah State is now held by the Raja as a muamladar. (Well, muamla, which is really mu'amala or معاملہ is the Persian/Urdu word for "matter" or "business" a mu'amaladan would be a businessman, but a mu'amaladar I'm not sure (is it as an investor, or an investment?) or is this a special kind of revenue overlord and subtracter, an absentee landlord, perhps, as the real Singrauli was 130 km for these 700 villages in Rewah state. I can't figure out yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken mentions of Singrauli with its 17-gun salutes and whatnot out of: Satna, Devyani Rana, Princely State, Bundelkhand Agency, Central India Agency, Baghelkhand Agency, and Bagelkhand.
Quite a few mentions they were, and a few might yet remain. Will now start a new page Singrauli zamindari estate. I would prefer not to call it Singrauli estate as the boosterism might continue, with some people thinking Estate=State. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stan Shebs: Hello. Sorry, I just remembered I haven't gotten around to starting the Singrauli estate article. I have all the material I need. Will do so tomorrow. The wait was not all bad perhaps. I have some clarity about them. They were glorified landlords, but not princes in the sense of rulers of princely states. They had a formal, but nominal, estate in British India, and a much larger one leased from the princely state of Rewa on which they collected rent from the tenant farmers. I'm going to make a note on my user talk page, so I don't forget again. Thanks again for bringing up the topic here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leads of articles on castes

Certain editors claim to a "consensus" about not discussing the varna details of caste and relevant details (attempts to gain mobility etc.) in lead. Does such a consensus exist?

Despite multiple scholars discussing how the Baidyas —a jati in Bengal— gained social mobility by opposing to being classed as Sudras and staking claims to Brahmin status across the (Nawabi and) colonial era through a variety of ways, I am not allowed to such introduce such details to lead. Such a consensus will be ridiculous given the extensive scholarly attention on attempts by different castes to gain social mobility through Sanskritization etc. The current lead at Yadava and many other similar articles will run afoul of such restrictions too. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As anyone who's aware of the Indian caste system would agree, varna has always been a subject of debate, and has often been fluid as well, apart from being imposed by Brahmins in order to exercise their superiority. IMHO, it would be best to discuss varna in the article body (covering all views as per WP:NPOV), and not in the lead, irrespective of whether any such consensus exists or not! Would invite LukeEmily and Kautilya3 to share their comments here in order to have the discussion on this page only. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a IDONOTLIKEIT argument. MOS:LEAD goes, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there is a consensus. Please see comments by Sitush here. Pinging all editors involved in recent discussion on Baidya about this-@Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, and Nobita456:.
  1. from Talk:P._K._Rosy see this
    1. For example, one of the most controversial verifiable statements is the varna of a caste but we very deliberately- by long-standing consensus - avoid putting it in the lead because it just creates a storm. We discuss it in the body, showing all opinions with equal weight.-13:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Talk:Rajput/Archive_24#Recent_edit_war
    1. It is probable that neither of you are aware of this but there has long been a consensus that we do not mention varna in the lead sections of articles. For that reason, the change is not acceptable.-Sitush 14:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Talk:Ror see this
    1. Even if we had a reliable source for it, consensus has long been that varna is not mentioned in lead sections (and, by extension, in infoboxes & short descriptions). - Sitush 10:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  4. Talk:Yadav/Archive_11#My_recent_revert Sitush's revert see this revert by Sitush
    1. There is a long-standing consensus that we try to avoid mentioning varna in lead sections because the issue is very frequently complex. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2016
  5. Talk:Nair/Archive_18#My_recent_removal
    1. Forward caste issue is dealt with in the article body and the issue is complex. There is a consensus not to include varna & this sort of stuff in lead sections Sitush 17:26, 7 January 2012
  6. Talk:Maratha_(caste)/Archive_3#Maratha_are_shudras
    1. Please note that even if these come to light, we would not be showing the varna status in the lead section or infobox as there is a consensus that such things cause only problems. The statement would appear within the body of the article. - Sitush 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus. Adding Varna in the lead (even if 100% correct), will attract vandals, lead to edit wars etc. Words like Shudra are not censored but we can mention them in the body rather than mention in the lead. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of similar comments by a single editor do not a consensus make.
You point to his comments at Yadav but he has not opposed the current lead in place which details their lowly status and upward mobilization. Unlike the reverted edits about Marathas etc., I do not claim the Baidyas to be shudras (or anything else) but rather note the Brahminic literature to have classed them in such a way. Which prompted their quest for upward mobility.
If our approach to stop vandalism is to censor information, I have nothing to say. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Sitush has enough standing in the community that he can, in fact, make consensus all by himself.
In any case, there was a very strained DRN on Yadav and a follow-up discussion here. What you think Yadav's lead says is not what it really says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Yadav] were outside the formal caste system [..] Yadav leaders and intellectuals have often focused on their claimed descent from Yadu, and from Krishna, which they argue confers kshatriya status upon them and effort has been invested in recasting the group narrative to emphasise kshatriya-like valour

Quite different from what I propose to write for our lead at Baidya, indeed. You understand that the Yadavs vehemently reject that they were ever outside the caste system?
That being said, in your opinion, we ought not cover how the Baidyas ascended the social hierarchy despite several scholars documenting such attempts or even mention the bare fact of it? Or shall we cover it but without noting anything about the shudra (or lowly) status, assigned by the Brahmins, whey they were contesting? Which will beg the obvious question about why a jati, who was so preeminent from a material perspective even in premodernity, was engaging in such acrimonious acrobatics across two and a half centuries.
I am yet to come across a single policy based objection about why a topic, which has attracted multiple scholars, shall not be covered in the lead. You are speaking about potential of heart-burns, LukeEmily is speaking about potential of increased vandalism, and Ekdalian is speaking about the need to respect your (plural) arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the previous discussions have said that it is too complicated, often contested and hard to condense it to a few sentences. And, I would add that it doesn't matter a dime.
The three citations at the end of the current lead mention Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas as three castes that make up the Bhadralok. Why isn't that enough?
Why were they contesting the Shudra status? Well, you are the one claiming that there is extensive literature on it. If they haven't bothered to explain why they were contesting, it couldn't have been very good literature, could it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it is better to invoke IAR. That existing literature do not cover a relevant question does not allow us to tag sources as "poor" etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was a protracted mess but RegentsPark as well as F&F had rejected any blanket-proposal to refrain from discussing varna, socio-political maneuvers to gain mobility etc. in lead. I do not see how someone can derive a consensus from such discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it about time Wikipedia stopped including all this 'caste' nonsense imposed on the Indian population by Raj 'ethnographers'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We merely document the world out there, whatever nonsense imposed on whoever by whoever — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we are under no obligation to repeat all this Raj-fossil name-calling as if it represented anything remotely resembling actual history. If people want pretend that castes are real things, they can - Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide a platform for it though. Document its unfortunate history, as fiction created by a foreign ruling class looking to impose their own ideology on another culture to make maintaining power easier, and leave it there.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that this is a rhetorical response to a not-so-recent fad in certain sections of scholarship about blaming all evils of the caste system on the White Men? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blaming it all on the 'white men'. I'm blaming them for starting it (or more accurately, for concocting a rigid hierarchical system out of something much more fluid and contextual, for their own Imperialist purposes), and on 'less-white men' for preserving the Raj-imposed hierarchy for their own purposes, after kicking the 'white men' out. You might call it a 'fad'. I call it an accurate reporting of history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The British may have been over-enthusiastic in trying to map out its details, but the Caste system is an old old Indian flaw. Very old. It had done great harm to India, long before the British, long before the Muslims. Chinese visitors in the early first millennium left some harrowing descriptions of its excesses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been pinged. I can't speak to the particular issue at hand but will speak broadly.
I haven't edited caste-related articles in a while, but Sitush and I did write Yadav, Kurmi, and Jat people a long time ago, and RegentsPark and I wrote the lead of Caste. Here are my two cents.
Indo-Aryan groups did enter the subcontinent some 3500 years ago. There is no evidence that there was a system of stratification in place before their arrival. The Indo-Aryan sacred texts talk of the four varnas, but the four varnas did not come riding in through the Khyber. The Shudras did not get off their horses and cleared the woods, and after the Brahmins had done their business the next morning, carry the business away on their heads. Unlikely scenario. What happened next as small bands of immigrants with powerful technologies of mobility and warfare began to establish hegemony in a highly diverse and populated land is the million-dollar question. How much bloodshed took place? How much destruction was there? Was the varna system a form of patrilineality for preserving property among immigrants whose males outnumbered their females? Were adjustments made from the very beginning as the immigrant men married local women? What about the vast Indian hinterland, the OBCs of later nomenclature, as they integrated.
Varna the world's oldest form of apartheid, has been around in India for a very long time. But it has also built in it a notion of ritual purity and impurity that has done India great harm. In its name, many groups such as dalits and adivasis have faced violence and discrimination, as have women. I never bother with WP policy, but there must be some policy that states Wikipedia cannot help in perpetuating social discrimination, bigotry, and violence. This is especially important because unlike Periyar who chose to reject caste altogether, most people in India have chosen to only move up its shaky ladder, and in turn sometimes, paradoxically, to participate in that violence.
So, summing up, it is OK to say Forward caste, Backward caste, Other backward caste, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, Dalit and Adivasi, to say elite caste and non-elite caste, to mention jati, but to say anything that hints at purity and impurity unless it is a discussion about ritual impurity, is not helpful. Although I did not take part in any of these discussions cited above, I am broadly in agreement with the previous consensus. May I express my admiration for my old friend Sitush, who hasn't been around lately for so forcefully expressing these views? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My views don't mean I reject all Raj-era ethnography or Raj-era censuses. My view on them is that they are old, and therefore a type of primary source. Secondary sources are needed to interpret them. Better a scholar who has training in reading primary sources than us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to clarify this. It is common sense, but what I mean is. You cannot use the 1891 census and write, "X was born in 1880, the third child of a mother who was a clean shudra grade 2 from whom the Brahmins could accept water and a father a clean shudra grade 1 from whom the Brahmins could accept "pukka" food (i.e. cooked in ghee)" That would be stupid, not just in the lead, but anywhere.
But you very much can say, "Yadav leaders and intellectuals have often focused on their claimed descent from Yadu, and from Krishna, which they argue confers kshatriya status upon them, and effort has been invested in recasting the group narrative to emphasise kshatriya-like valour, however, the overall tenor of their movement has not been overtly egalitarian in the context of the larger Indian caste system." cited to Susan Bayly, Joyce Burkhalter and Christophe Jaffrelot. It all depends on the spin, whether you are describing the varna status as a fact or ironically. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about,

In premodern Bengal, Brahminic literature held all non-Brahmins to be Shudras and accordingly, categorized Baidyas as the highest among Sudras alongside Kayastha. During the Nawabi and colonial era, Baidyas increasingly opposed to accepting such a classification and staked claims to Brahmin status. In the resulting negotiations, they successfully ascended to the upper echelons of social hierarchy.

, cited to monographs from Chicago University Press and similar high-quality sources from within the last two decades? [Some wordsmithing and details on "negotiations" are required.] TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be comfortable with that. For in the earlier version above, the secondary sources are used to describe the yadav's own description of their caste, yours describes others' description of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't you supportive of the line —Yadav groups were linked to cattle raising and as such, were outside the formal caste system—, which K3 has now tagged for "failed verification"? Fwiw, the Yadavs vehemently reject that they were ever outside the caste system; you (obviously) know of that! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
K3 made a very relevant query. I have since fixed it. We know say: Historically, the Ahir and Yadav groups had an ambiguous ritual status in caste stratification. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam:, I am trying to remember why I had written "as such were outside the formal caste system." That part is not essentially incorrect, but it is not the kind of observation you can cite to one source, or a few sentences of one source. I had been reading Susan Bayly's book at the time, ca 2009 or 2010, when I likely wrote that. In will say something more generally below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam and Fowler&fowler: this is a hypothetical case but relevant—the Rajbanshi people claimed Kshatriya varna in the 19th/early 20th century and the (very picky Brahmins of Bengal) seem to have agreed. They were not treated as Kshatriyas though. Now some in this community wants to be tribal—because of the benefits of ST-hood. What goes in the lead here? I am guessing that keeping varna out is much prudent, if we do need a consensus around this. Chaipau (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't touch many of the sources there with a ten foot pole. They are poor quality. The topic hasn't been written about with clarity and perspective in the reliable literature, unlike, say the Yadavs, I would not mention it in the lead. Actually, it is not clear what the value of this topic in that article is even in a subsection; it is far too UNDUE. I would take out 90%, cited, for example, to the proceedings of the Indian History Congress, to Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, PhD theses, the genetics mumbo-jumbo, ... but I simply don't have to time to monitor these pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I agree, it is in a terrible state. Please stop by one day and do a deep clean. One of the editors who was heavily invested in it was indefinitely blocked recently. So there is an opportunity to work on this.
But the issue I was trying to highlight is the general principle that (1) communities go up and down the varna system and (2) and this includes communities that belong to the "tribal" category and not just to the "caste" categories. To place these communities in the varna hierarchy is participating in a form of Sanskritization. Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments while I have your ear.

Susan Bayly's book, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Cambridge, 2008, is a good book to read for these discussions. I'm simplifying here, of course, but she says caste in India saw major transformations in a number periods of the early modern and modern era:

a) in the post-Mughal period in which certain rising dynasts such as Shivaji sought the services of the class of scribal Brahmin specialists to certify and perpetuate their kingliness. Among those sought, were also Hindu traders and bankers who too had adopted purity in the form of certain values among which were increased vegetarianism, stricter marriage codes, the seclusion of women, and so forth. As these groups proliferated so did specialist pollution removers (typically at the bottom of the varna ladder) whose services were more frequently needed to guarantee their purity, and who came to be thus more rigidly codified.

b) in the early years of Company rule, in which the elite (twice-born) rural groups felt threatened and diminished by British land reforms, and sought to separate themselves from various groups of field hands or tillers such as the Kurmi or Jats, who had stood to benefit from the land-reforms, but who had hitherto been on the fringes of clear caste identity, came to be more rigidly codified and diminished by the rural elites. British land revenue officers themselves loved the Kurmis and the Jats for their work ethic.

c) As deforestation took place, and urbanization and cash-cropping, other groups such as pastoralists, market-gardeners, or forest-dwellers, came now to be placed and defined by forms of ritual purity, some by the British by equally by the Indian groups who needed to keep them at bay from gnawing at their privileges. This was happening long before the late 19th-century censuses or Risely's ethnological classifications.

d) Now to the British ethnologists, by which I mean civil servants, who used the then-current scientific notions of ethnology to further classify India's various existing and emerging groups. They were racist to be sure, but in the manner of those who were attempting to classify a society as they might butterflies in a collection, from a position of security; they were not racist in the manner of their modern-21st century Indian inheritors, who have taken that Aryan-centric ideology and twisted it into an ideology for violence. They did not gather on a railway platform and beat up a person from northeast India or from Africa because they looked different, though some among the British might have beaten up, without a thought, any Indian, light-skinned or dark, long-nosed or flat, of the high forehead or low, doe-eyed or slit, for defying their authority. They did not kill Dalits and Muslims alike for eating beef let alone (if a recent news report is true) an elderly, handicapped, Jain gentleman (of all people) for looking suspiciously Muslim. In other words, many of the modern-day manifestations of caste might have appeared in India's society in the absence of a British presence but with urbanization, industrialization, and the pressures of sharing reduced resources. The ideals of caste have been there in Indian society, waiting to be exploited in new ways.

e) I won't go into how in the 20th-century the same ideals, came to be used by the castes themselves in the form of caste organizations, ones that might on the one hand have requested the British to create a regiment for them because they fit into the valorous and martial ones and also 50 years later petition the Indian government to grant them reservation in government jobs because they fit into some notion of backwardness. Those sorts of things happen with state intervention, that is, can be the unintentional consequences of intervention.

So, summing up, let me quote from Susan Bayly's own conclusion:

The norms and conventions of caste have had a pervasive presence in the historical literature, and also in contemporary discourse. To ignore this, or to portray caste as a mere orientalist fabrication, would be the equivalent of trying to write about social change in modern Italy or the United States without serious discussion of faction and political corruption on the one hand, or race on the other. The comparable reference point for Britain would be class, and certainly no-one could credibly contend that class has been an unimportant factor in modern British life, or that the topic is an improper one for academic analysis. ... This study has not argued that caste is the only or even the most important element of Indian life, let alone that caste as a `system' has been the immutable core of Indian civilisation since ancient times. It does maintain that for all its diversity and its points of comparison with schemes of social differentiation to be found in other parts of the world, caste stands alone as a mode of thought and action. This distinctiveness is undeniable, even though caste certainly has much in common with other complex `invented traditions', most notably those of nationhood and ethno-religious community.

I think Sitush's dictum is a way to ensure that discussions on caste can proceed without devolving into the barbershop scene between Hinckel and Napaloni in the Great Dictator or worse yet a food fight between Hinckel and Napaloni, and worst yet a food fight in which only one party has the food to throw. Wikipedia should not allow a notion of ritual purity to even obliquely diminish the currently vulnerable in Indian society. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush has strangely not been pinged despite being cited 13 times. Venkat TL (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately. He has not been well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need of some editors interested in editing Assam and Northeast related articles

Recently I tried to write about the origin of a Tibeto-Burman group Bodo-Kachari_people#Origins. But I couldn't contribute much because suddenly an editor became active and added a lot of hypotheses related to Austroasiatic speakers. Though these hypotheses are cited, They are based on older hypotheses. The current understanding of Austroasiatic expansion (Sidwell, Blench, Rau etc) doesn't support the older hypotheses, Here a recent peer-reviewed paper http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52498 . I tried to discuss Talk:Bodo-Kachari_people#Origin Talk:Bodo-Kachari_people#Jaquesson_and_DeLancey_hypothesis but not fruitful as I am less experienced with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Currently Assam and Northeast related articles lack multiple editors. Therefore, They are written poorly and lack the consensus of multiple editors. I am expecting a larger community to edit Assam and Northeast India related articles. Thank you. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would really welcome more editors to take an interest in Assam and Northeast Indian pages. I request the community to please at least add any page in your wishlist and check in on them once in a while.
Regarding this particular ask, please look at the entire discussion here: Talk:Bodo-Kachari_people#Origin. OP has evinced interest in fringe theories which they displayed here [1]. This looked very much like a political project to me. Given the high and sustained level of interest in ethnic issues in Assam over the last couple of years, this fitted the same pattern.
Sidwell makes a proposal which he himself calls speculative. Sidwell writes: I speculatively propose that a significant proportion of early AA speakers were oriented to estuarine environments—as opposed to inland or upland ones as has been commonly assumed., p56, I pointed it out but OP kept insisting that this should be included. Sidwell has given a number of different iterations of this proposal and I don't see why this should be preferred. I have been burned once using Sidwell's latest proposals.
Pinging Fylindfotberserk, Austronesier, and Abecedare. Chaipau (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this place to discuss content dispute? Why are trying to impose negativity on my personal comment? That wasn't any kind of FRINGE theory. That's just random thought that I believe is possible. My claim isn't only based on Sidwell. Currently no austroasiatic scholars agree with older hypothesis. Sidwell hypothesize about locus of dispersal which isn't our discussion. Our discussion is about the migration of Austroasiatic. Here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_European_observations_of_Raj_era_about_population_distribution_reliable_? also you see politics. Are you saying anything that benefits some political party should be kept out of Wikipedia? If anybody oppose some politics, he/she become part of same game. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I speculatively propose that a significant proportion of early AA speakers were oriented to estuarine environments—as opposed to inland or upland ones as has been commonly assumed.", p56, I pointed it out but OP kept insisting that this should be included.
This isn't true at all. I was only interested to write the origin of Bodo-Kacharis, but when Chaipau added that Proto-Boro-Garo migrated to Brahmaputra valley it was already populated by people speaking Austroasiatic then I argued that the current understanding of Austroasiatic expansion doesn't support this assertion because Khasian languages migrated to Brahmaputra valley around 2.5 years ago according to Sidwell's paper. His work is based on genetics, archaeology, phylogenetics studies. He is a well-known expert on Austroasiatic. He abandoned his proposal about the homeland of Austroasiatic and recently proposed the locus of Austroasiatic dispersal. But the bases of his work remain the same. Chaipau's claim is that only the old hypothesis repeated by TB scholars should be given priority in the origin of Bodo-Kacharis. All hypothesis are speculation. I don't understand what is the problem where an expert calls his hypothesis speculation. Also, Sidwell argues with evidences against all other hypotheses. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to malign your status. I don't have any agenda as you try to impose on me. I don't claim to be expert on any subject. I joined Wikipedia to contribute whatever i know, following Wikipedia guidelines. I'm tired of unnecessary discussions about trivial things. Also, try to know the meaning of expansion time and correct all the articles wherever you assumed Expansion time means Arrival time. I'm retiring indefinitely. So, I am requesting multiple editors to contribute in Northeastern articles. Thanks. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Anglo-Maratha War result dispute

The article First Anglo-Maratha War has been disrupted numerous times where some claim it to be Maratha victory whereas other claim it to be stalemate with no victors or losers which ended with Treaty of Salbai. After going through citations on the article, I found the quotes included in the citation templates were incorrect information about the conclusion of the war. They were rather mis-represented. Below are the exact quotes from the citations about the conclusion of the war that I have posted after thoroughly going through citations. I believe according to these reliable sources, the result of the battle cannot have any victors and should rather conclude with "Treaty of Salbai". Now if there are sources that dispute with below citations, then undeniably the result should be considered "Disputed". Can you all please provide your opinion whether you agree that the result should conclude with just "Treaty of Salbai"? Or if you have any further suggestion?
According to reliable citations, the battle resulted with treaty of Salbai. Here are some quotes from reliable sources: From Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes (1977). The American Revolution: A Global War. David McKay Company, Incorporated. p. 247. "Hastings promptly repudiated the Treaty of Wadgaon and sent troops from Calcutta all the way across central India to strengthen the Bombay forces. One by one they captured Maratha cities. In May 1782 a new treaty was signed with the Marathas, the Treaty of Salbai. Although it merely restored the status quo ante bellum, this treaty gave the British twenty years of peace with the Marathas and permitted them to concentrate their efforts against the French and the forces of Mysore."
And James C. Bradford. International Encyclopedia of Military History. Routledge. p. 867. quotes, "The company renounced the first draft of the treaty of Wadgaon, fighting on until 1782, and, despite its capture of the fortress of Gwalior (1780), the only concession that the British could win was the cession of Salsette Island , which improved the security of Bombay."
M S Narvane in book "Battles of the Honourable East India Company: Making of the Raj", page 63 quotes that "Mudhoji was known to have taken bribe from Hastings and would not join a war. Mahadji, himself was anxious that his forces were not divided and separated, which war both in Malwa and in the Deccan would have entailed. Moreover, both Mahadji and Nana faced acute financial distress. Under these circumstances, peace at the most favorable terms was the only course left open. After prolonged negotiations a treaty was signed between Mahadji and Anderson on 17th May, 1782. It was known as the Treaty of Salbai, after a small village of the same name where Mahadji was in camp." M. S. Narvane further quotes that, "The main clauses of the treaty were as follows: All territories captured by the Company would be returned, including Bassein but excluding Salsette and some small islands near Bombay. These would remain with the British. Territories in Gujarat would be returned to the Peshwa and Gaikwad, Bhadoch being given to Mahadji for services rendered. Raghoba was to be handed over to the Marathas. He would spend the remainder of his life at a secluded spot in Maharashtra on a pension of Rs. 25,000 per month. Thus ended the First Anglo-Maratha war. Politically the Company was a slight gainer. They retained Salsette whereas the Marathas got back only what they had lost earlier. The main gain from the Maratha point of view was the elimination of the threat posed by Raghoba." Raghoba is Raghunath Rao.
I would also like to add that there are two sources on the article that are unreliable, by Y.G. Bhave and Barbara West, where the earlier is scholar in Humanist and the latter in Anthropology. Neither are historians. MehmoodS (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of response, inviting editors who I have found to have commented on other topics here on this noticeboard, to share their opinion: TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, Kautilya3, Fowler&fowler, Venkat TL, AndyTheGrump, DaxServer, Fylindfotberserk, SpacemanSpiff, including anyone else. MehmoodS (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student Suicides in India

I came across this POV write-up at Student Suicides in India which engages in original research and makes unsourced and exceptional claims like:

"Students from all professions are facing stress due to various reasons resulting in suicidal tendencies."

Student_Suicides_in_India#Causes and Student_Suicides_in_India#Preventive_Measures are just lists and probably undue.

Shouldn't this be merged to Suicide in India with a section there? 122.170.42.0 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

was Ballabhgarh a princely state or estate/ jagir ?

There is article named Ballabhgarh State other than Ballabhgarh town page. The first suggests in the lead that it was a princely state but here - [1] on page 161-162, it is written jagir and estate after Ballabhgarh. Request for inputs ? Akalanka820 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on page 161 in the book named: "Grass in their Mouths: The Upper Doab of India under the Company's Magna Charta, 1793-1830" -

Several of the minor and the greater part of the principal offenders in the Chhalera case had sought asylum across the Yamuna in one of these territories, the jagir of the Ballab garh raja, a Jat of the Tevatiya got, or clan.

Akalanka820 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on page 162 in the same book-

But the Bulandshahr joint-magistrate, as observed, now had cavalry at his disposal, which was of great help on that part of the Ballabgarh estate which was level ground.

Akalanka820 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is "estate," eventually confiscated by the British after the chief was hanged for being complicit in the Indian rebellion of 1857. See Imperial Gazetteer of India, Ballabgarh town. Please move the page to Ballabgarh estate. This is not something you need to post on the talk page as the name is an aspect of the boosterism found in Indian royalty or overlord pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kolff, Dirk H. A. (2010-08-13). Grass in their Mouths: The Upper Doab of India under the Company's Magna Charta, 1793-1830. BRILL. pp. 161–162. ISBN 978-90-04-18802-0.

Page move at Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa

Please take a look at Talk:Rameshbabu_Praggnanandhaa#Requested_move_21_May_2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Unnikrishnan

Is he "killed" or "martyred" ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer: This [2] might be helpful on this, according to the article, they use variety of other terms (given in the article) but not martyr. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamboj

It is to notify about the recent addition of caste POV and badly written content in the Kamboj article. These edits might be coming from a sock puppeteer since most of their edits are restricted to this topic area [3] [4] [5] [6]. Requesting project members and admins to have a look at this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are Indian laws copyrighted?

More specifically does the officially approved text about the functions of a parliamentary committee (a state assembly) in this case as published on assembly official nic.in website comes under copyrighted text or Government of India Open Data license or Public Domain? I believe it is free, as they are published as government gazette for public use. Please guide. Venkat TL (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your actual question. The main problem is that the bottom of the page says "© Punjab Vidhan Sabha, All Rights Reserved." You can get around the problem in two ways:
  1. quote the actual act (with ref) that brought this committee into existence. Hopefully, it mention the duties of the committee too.
  2. write about the functions of the committee in your own words. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 thank you. I believe the © was added as a standard sign, (may be in error by site operator without applying thoughts) and it does not apply to this passed law. I am raising a fundamental question that still needs resolution (not just workarounds). How are law books publishing these laws on books and websites if they are copyrighted? Venkat TL (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not copyrighted. Reports tabled in the Parliament are also in public domain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3, @MPGuy2824 thanks, I believe so, but @Diannaa has responded on my user talk that they are coprighted. Venkat TL (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Government works in India (including legislation) are copyright for 60 years from publication date. Check in this document: Copyright law of India, where it says so on page 17 — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misstated it. Section 52, subsection (q) states that such documents can be reproduced. That is what I meant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's license goes beyond reproduction, allowing the content to be reproduced, altered, or even sold. So that's not liberal enough for the content to be copied here in my opinion. See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India, where they clearly state that govt works in India are copyright-protected for 60 years. — Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia follows only U.S. copyright law, and the U.S. does not recognize copyright on edicts of government, even those issued by foreign governments. So the text of any law is fair game. Random text from a government website, not so much. Toohool (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of US copyright law, I wouldn't call copying any copyright text as "fair game", as our copyright policy says not to do it. — Diannaa (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is fair game. Our copyright policy follows U.S. copyright law, and laws are not copyrighted under U.S. copyright law. Toohool (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Corporation: Unnecessary categories added and relevant category removed

Eg: Special:Diff/1093849666

I have asked @TheAnonymousWikiEditor to undo their mass edits. Someone will have to undo all of these. Venkat TL (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAnonymousWikiEditor has not replied yet. Most have been reverted by @Anas1712 and me. Venkat TL (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry,
I haven't seen that there was a discussion. It's just that I've seen that the category "Municipal corporations in India" is too much crowded and that the articles are double-tagged with mother/daughter categories. I was quite sure that it wasn't so overpopulous, but I've decided to clean-up that. In addition, many India-related articles are regurlary doubled-tagged.
Anas1712 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Corporation functions cruft in individual corporation articles

(unrelated to the above one) For example, see this edit - all of these are additions by @Gardenkur. As @Toddy1 put it in his revert, these are general functionalities of a municipal corporation [in India], not necessarily what a specific corporation does. The references are also general references and not to a specific corporation. If this text is not a copyvio from somewhere else, should this text be okay in all these articles, or be moved to Municipal corporation (India) ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaxServer. Hope you are keeping fine. The edits are done in all articles of Municipal Corporations to get consistency and uniformity in the articles. The functions of Municipal corporations is to develop a town with more than 1 million people. Let me know if I am wrong. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur instead of copying on every page, I think is better to link the functions section of MC (India) from these pages. Only unique functions should be listed on individual MC pages. Venkat TL (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. Nice to see your inputs. However, I feel for informational purpose each article should have its own notability. Public members will not see referenced article and collect information. There are also comments in some articles of not having sufficient references or they miss important information. My effort is only to get uniformity in similar articles. If iam wrong please correct. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur I guess such addition would come under WP:UNDUE why would you discuss the functions of Nagpur MC in Cuddalore MC? Similarly we dont discuss the functions of MP or speaker in their biography page. Just a link to one page where it is discussed is sufficient. Venkat TL (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. Thanks for your prompt response. Going by your suggestion did you mean I will add section as Functions in each article and link it to main Municipal Corporation for defining the same. However as you refered, an individual is different from entity. The entities are governed by state level Municipal Corporations Act which are generally same, except their official details vary which is more important for general public. Hope Iam clear. Gardenkur (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur Thank you. In such cases, I believe those unique functions of Maharastra MC according to MC Act, should be discussed in a Maharashtra subsection of Functions section on MC (India) page. Normally you will not need to add a function section in the individual MC page. A link to the "Maharashtra subsection of Functions section on MC (India) page" can be added in the lead or history section as a sentence. Only if there are too many unique functions of a particular MC, then a functions section should be created, otherwise it is undesirable. Venkat TL (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. Thanks again. There are no unique functions from state to state. The functions are uniform and similar. But will do as you suggested. As Wikipedia editor, I was doing on the interest of general public as per its policies. I was also observing the remarks for each article. Gardenkur (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur thank you for understanding. The interest of the general public can be served by adding a link to the MC (India) page where the functions are discussed. @Toddy1 and others also feel the same. Venkat TL (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gardenkur: if you copy text from one Wikipedia page to another, you are meant to give attribution in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
One of the sources cited in the text you cut and pasted said: Not all the functions mentioned in the schedule are obligatory for civic bodies across the country as different states have enacted legislations to delegate functions across various departments.[7] So what is stated for functions for each municipal corporation needs to be back by citations that actually mention that that municipal corporation does those functions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toddy1. Thanks for pointing the statements. However, as I read it, each place has its Municipal Corporation and Development authorities created to improve infrastructure of the town. Inserted references gives the functions which are uniform across states. Hope Iam clear. Please let me know if it needs elaboration. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. If I want to add Functions in this article,can you suggest how to add as per your inputs. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur, see this diff where I added the functions. If there is any novel function then please post your proposal on article talk page and ping me from there. Venkat TL (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL. Thanks and will update the functions likewise in all articles where that part is missing. However, to have information on the same will need reading of all states Municipal Acts which I dont think relevant now. Gardenkur (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=1094440659"