Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.
Click here to add a new section

Castes

I've been looking over some of the caste articles (particularly beginning with Nadar (caste)) and there seem to be a huge amount of them - and they are all largely unsourced and POV. Has this project formed any plans for a sweep of these articles at some point? ^Avruchtalk 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That’s why I am peeling off Sri Lanka related caste articles separately see Vellalar (Sri Lankan Tamil), Vanniar (Sri Lanka). This is just the beginning, when I have the time I will have a separate set for SL because Indian castes articles are never stable because of the huge amount of interest in projecting a positive and very high credentials. Taprobanus (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to prune those articles back or delete them. I think a coordinated effort might actually work. Relata refero (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose

Hi there,

Somebody inserted British Flag next to his birth country, India. I don't agree with this and I am sure everybody will do the same.

There are number of pages on the Wikipedia for number of prominent people, which do not have any such flags, particularly the flags of the countries which occupied/ruled at that time.

Manay Thanks Jagan kommareddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.213.138 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the links to flags: Taking a cue from this page. --Bhadani (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia follows this tradition of displaying the flags of country of birth depending on the the-then rulers than probably most of the current Prime Ministers and Presidents of European countries will have the Nazi flags decorating their pages on Wikipedia! --Bhadani (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that war time occupation of European countries by Nazi Germany falls in the same category as a country and its administration during the colonial era. Aside from the fact that India today is historically and politically different from British India. I dont have a problem with the flag not being shown, but do have a problem with the pages on Bose and INA becoming a battleground for PoV pushing Colonialists and nationalists. Facts are facts and that's the way it should be on an encyclopaedia. I have nearly single handedly build the entire Content on the Indian National Army (see {{Azad Hind Fauj}}), and am bored and tired of colonial as well as nationalist half-truths and pseudo-intellectuals pushing to have their long-disproved and now-downright-ridiculed theories in these pages. Do pardon me if I seem a bit overactive in these pages. I assure you it is in the best intentions and interests. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply. --Bhadani (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, no one should experiment with displaying British Flag at the same place in George Washington's's page as the discussion will last for long, and most probably the British Flag may not be acceptable for which some sort of consensus shall emerge which may not be based on facts! --Bhadani (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The matter is over as far as I am concerned - I got a new friend wiki-way in the process. --Bhadani (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia:FLAGS#Not for use in locations of birth and death gives just a couple of the many good reasons why little flag icons aren't appropriate for birth and death locations in infoboxes. They are confusing, create nationalistic (flag-waving) disputes, and can be inappropriate because they imply nationalistic support, when the birth place is merely a geographical location. I've taken to adding the following hidden comment in infoboxes, just above birth and death location:

<!-- Do not add flag icons to place of birth/death, per [[Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags]] -->

You can see how I've added it at Subhas Chandra Bose by clicking on the edit tab and looking at the infobox. These have been effective at preventing the same dispute from happening all over again. ~ priyanath talk 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Priyanath. Flags should not be used for birth/date years. --Ragib (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

An earlier discussion on this topic also suggests a clear consensus against using flags to indicate places of birth and death (i.e. in addition to Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags). Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bharat-Rakshak - RS or non-RS

I see Bharat Rakshak being used as a source on several articles. Can somebody convince me that it is RS? Or I plan to start removing them. I took a peek here and the links detailing mainstream media coverage of BR certainly proves that they are 'notable'. But reliable? Who are these people who run that site? What are their credentials? Are they acknowldged experts in the field? Or are they just amateurs taking themselves too seriously?.. These are the things that concern me most. Also, the fact that some time back I'd seen them plagiarising content from wikipedia doesnt inspire confidence. Does anyone here have info about the people who run that site. Please come forward. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I had raised this same issue a few months ago and it did not lead to a logical conclusion. So I am raising it again. Sarvagnya 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, the best way to convince Bharat Rakshak is a reliable source is the fact so many books provide Bharat Rakshak as reference and not to mention many international think tanks. I ran a search on google and found 184 books provide Bharat Rakshak as a source.

i can give you few examples

• Fortifying Pakistan: The Role of U.S. InternalBy C. Christine Fair , Peter Chalk, ISBN 1929223889

• India's Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between by Ashley J. Tellis, ISBN 0833027743

• South Asia's Nuclear Security Dilemma: India, By Lowell Dittmer, ISBN 0765614189 Ajay ijn

(talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/main/Media.php has a collection of media articles pertaining to Bharat Rakshak. That should satisfy notability I guess.
2. If they were amateurs, I don't think 184 books would have used their pages as sources of information. (Google Books Search Result).
3. Even Government of India and Armed Forces papers use Bharat Rakshak as a source of information. For eg: Indian Navy - Indian Navy’s Role As An Instrument Of India’s Foreign Policy. Also see Analysis of multi-axis acceleration profile in a Supermanoeuvrable aircraft and Is backache a serious malady among Indian helicopter pilots
4. Bharat Rakshak Members have been acknowledged as reliable sources and experts in the field. They may not be experts, but 10 years of being involved in this field should count for something. Senior Bharat Rakshak Members have themselves written books and papers - for eg. The India-Pakistan Air War of 1965. Arun Vishwakarma, the manager for their missile website has been cited by Richard Speier, the person who created the MTCR in his paper on India's ICBM. PVS Jagan Mohan (who manages the IAF webpages) have been commended by the Chief of Air Staff, which is very rare, considering that this isn't usually given to Civilians. Additionally, Kapil Chandni, another Senior member, was part of a panel discussion on the Indian MRCA tender along with Generals and Air Marshals. All these should be ample proof of, if not expertise, at least, competence and reliability of the people who run Bharat Rakshak.
5. References for AFM-L Alfa, Global Security.org cites BR as a primary reference. The US Navy Centre for Contemporary Conflict also recommends Bharat Rakshak as a resource for information about South Asia (ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/southAsia.asp). As does the US Army [1]. And the US Air Force [2]. And the Navy [3].
6. Both the Indian Air Force and Navy have posted BR as a featured website for information. This endorsement by the armed services should be at least an indication (if not proof) that BR is a reliable source of information.
7. Another point to note - common members of the forum are not the people who write and manage the website (although they too are involved in the forum). readers shouldn't confuse the Forum with the website.

^T/_@Sniperz11 _edits^sign 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not a worse source than the US Ministry of Defence. They definetly have a positive opinion of the Indian armed forces and reflect this with their well researched articles. Besides this POV issue there is nothing wrong with using this site as a source since they are not extremists. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Wandalstouring's assessment. One does have to distinguish between their news listings and articles, though. In my experience they are much more reliable than the regular Indian media when it comes to aerospace topics, even The Times of India or The Hindu. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree, I don't believe that any blanket judgments are possible about the website. Its actually a collection of websites, according to this page, and some of those are obviously personal sites with little or no oversight and no expert knowledge; others appear to have 'boards' that might or might not exercise editorial control. They are definitely a much worse source than either the Indian or any other defence ministries. Relata refero (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know about other defence ministries, but have you seen the official websites of the indian army, air force, navy and compared it with this? the official sites bear no comparision in terms of coverage depth or expertise. The original discussion initiated was whether the site is RS or not. The site is a collection of articles with many retired people penning their thoughts. who are we to decided whether a particular article is reliable or not? I can understand if the article came from a prev unknown person, but when someones rank, background etc is given, or someones publishing credentials is given, you cant argue with that.

"the fact that some time back I'd seen them plagiarising content from wikipedia doesnt inspire confidence." Care to substantiate this by posting any links to the pages on that site? and ofcourse if you knew Wikipedia and its GNU licensing, you shouldnt really give a fig about who 'plagarises' wikipedia . jaiiaf (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How many individuals who are retired with the rank of colonel and above are there? My estimate is in the thousands. Just because someone had a certain rank and a website doesn't mean that their views are notable, or that their facts are reliable.

The Indian army website may not look the best, and may not have information of the depth we would like, but what it has is more reliable than a self-published set of websites. Relata refero (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I (and others) say it is reliable based on the information we read - it is upto the original poster and you to substantiate it thru facts that it is not a reliable source where quoted. That should solve our issues and I am sure all of us would agree when we see evidence of unreliability , correct? jaiiaf (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"..reliable based on the information we read.." is precisely the test that we do not use, I'm afraid. Its up to you to demonstrate that each website you cite - and remember, B-R.com appears to be a "compendium" of websites - has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - I will keep using it whenever I feel the need to cite it for any relevant wikipedia article if I know it is reliable (as will others). Obviously someone with a greater knowledge will refute it if he knows better, citing facts and sources against it. Now what was it that we were disagreeing upon? jaiiaf (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will keep using it whenever I feel the need to cite it for any relevant wikipedia article if I know it is reliable - when you "know" it is reliable?? as in.. when it suits your POV? Sarvagnya 22:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"...The site is a collection of articles with many retired people penning their thoughts...." Retired with what background? I could only spot surgeons and software professionals and various other assortments there. Please point out any real experts with a background in military and political affairs that I may have missed. I dont give a "fig" how much time a novice has spent on reading up on a subject. Or how seriously deluded he is about his expertise. Neither of us is qualified to make such judgements and that is why we go by WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and such other non-negotiable statutes of wikipedia. The onus is not on me to prove the non-RSness of the site. It is for you to prove its credentials.

If experts have indeed cited/quoted from BR, it only means that they've taken the pains(and lots of it, I'm sure) to vet it themselves and seperate the wheat from the chaff - an exercise, we as editors of wikipedia shouldnt be expected to endure even if we thought of ourselves as being adequately equipped to carry out such an exercise. You cant be a little pregnant and a source cant be a little RS -- there's plenty of blinkered jingoistic puff pieces on that compendium of sites and this one, by an acknowledged 'leading light' of the site who heads its 'think tank' and one which BR counts proudly among its 'e-publications' is a case in point. The way the noble surgeon sets us up with a gem of a -

Imagine India to be a box with 100 eggs in it, but 30 of those eggs are broken. Imagine Pakistan to be a smaller box with 10 eggs in it, and 5 of those eggs are broken. A direct comparison will show that the India box has 30 broken eggs, and the Pakistan box has only 5 broken eggs, and it would seem that the India box is in a far worse shape, with many more broken eggs. But what is hidden from this comparison, is that the India box has 70 intact eggs while the Pakistan box has only 5 intact eggs

is particularly discomfiting. It is sources like these and their abuse that is at the heart of possibly every single 'content issue' on wikipedia. BR, to their credit are doing a good job and are certainly notable. 'Notability' however, doesnt automatically accord it 'reliability'. It is certainly a good place to start one's research but it cannot be counted as research itself. Some of wikipedia's articles are also of scholarly grade and many of them account for the very best you'll find anywhere on the internet. And yet, Wikipedia is not RS and for very good reasons. The same holds for BR too. And as for the plagiarism thing, this is what I was referring to back then. Sarvagnya 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

request for input

I would encourage all readers of this page to join in the discussion at Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians, where there is a heated debate over inclusions of material.Bakaman 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Good article" candidate: Economic development in India

I am reviewing Economic development in India as a "Good article" candidate. Can the folk of your Wikiproject clarify a few issues here please? Axl (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vice-President Bhairo Singh Shekhawat

Some people are asserting that a speech by (then) Vice-President of India Bhairon Singh Shekhawat is not notable to be mentioned in an article about a living person, who was the subject of the speech, on the basis that "Bhairo Singh Shekhawat doesn't have a reputation, because he attends meetings for large numbers of spiritual leaders" Comments? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Is that a direct quote? Or a blatant mischaracterisation of the sort you would do well to avoid in this climate?Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the direct quote for those who are interested:

Either you think this is a notable enough act/endorsement that it goes in the article; in which case I think we owe it to the reader to tell them exactly what else the source of the endorsement supports. The truth is, of course, that it is not notable. As Rumiton says "he put his reputation on the line...". Exactly. He doesn't have one, because he attends meetings for large numbers of spiritual leaders and releases their books and opens their offices and praises their foreign exchange earnings and inner peace. So, as I said, if you make the decision to put him in the article, then you are making the decision that his words on Rawat are notable or in any way exceptional.

This is in the context of whether, in a large and complex article, adding the fact that Shekhawat attended a meeting and made a speech is relevant. I invite people to consider the fact that Mr. Shekhawat has made speeches at meetings for Chandraswami, Baba Ramdev, Satya Sai Baba, the leader of the Swaminarayan movement, and several dozen others. I therefore said that if it was implied in any way that his attending a meeting for Rawat was an exceptional event, it had better be worded in a way that indicated that it was not. Relata refero (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The question remains. You said what you said, and I am asking editors if a in WP we need to make a distinction between the VP of India, and the VP of the USA as it relates to them attending a public event and making a speech at that event. Please let others comment. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff for an examination of the no doubt unintentionally deceptive falsity of your analogy. Please let others edit these articles. Thank you. Relata refero (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not editing these articles. I am asking for uninvolved editors to assist with disputes and engaging in discussions at talk. Read WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh*, yes. Perhaps I should have said "avoiding" them. Which you should seriously do. We aren't all examining those articles because we want to catch you out or because we have something against this gentleman, you know. Perhaps you should just step aside for a little while and see how consensus evolves without you. Helping shape consensus is also how we edit. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Relata refero (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What an Indian politician said about a spiritual personage? This could hardly get any more commonplace. I'm having a hard time believing that this is being discussed, unless we're trying to formulate a guideline blanket-banning such effluvia from BLPs. rudra (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is why I am asking here, as I am not familiar with Indian politics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Could the details of the speech be made more clear. What is the speech about? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul and images: DEBATE NEEDED

Please see this snapshot of Mumbai: [4]. User:Nikkul has added a lot of images that have little or no relation to the accompanying text. I have reverted Nikkul's edits and am trying to gain consensus here for the following:

1. Images must hold encyclopedic value. They should directly support the accompanying text. For example a reader should not deduce "that two palm trees signify a tropical climate"
2. If condition (1) is satisfied, images should be aesthetically pleasing.
3. Images should have a succinct caption.

Please lend your views. This is an important discussion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with each of those points with the proviso that they apply in contentious situations. (In other words, only if someone objects, or there are several alternatives.)

It should be plainly obvious that images are covered by the same prohibitions against original research that govern our words. Relata refero (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, particularly when it's a choice between two images. I would add that contentious images would also be covered by Reliable Sources - in other words, there should be a reliable source proving that the particular image is what the caption states (or the image's context implies), and that it relates directly to text in the article. ~ priyanath talk 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

IAST??

Should Article-names be in IAST or standard English spellings? e.g. should it be Mahabharata (std. English) or Māhabhārata (IAST). Is there any MOS available? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, it was discussed. As that shows, this needs to be decided on case-by-case basis. I don't think we can do better than that, as there's an obvious need to support spellings that users could be expected to search for, as opposed to what's correct -- or, for that matter, hypercorrect. rudra (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for notable religious leaders in ISKCON

• Question On the official Governing Body Commission website it states that there are "around 48" members. [5] So my question is are all 48 notable due to membership on the GBC of ISKCON? These 48 could be a good starting place for a discussion on a minimum standard for notablilty for religious leaders in ISKCON. I believe there needs to be some criteria set for establishing, "what is a notable ISKCON religious leader?" Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)