Talk:Phoolan Devi

Expansion request

This article has no info what happened to her after she surrendered or about her later election to parliament in India. Someone knowledgeable on the subject should add such info. --Cab88 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination

• In 1998, Phoolan Devi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by some members of the British Parliament. [1]

Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official or even prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements, and more often it is impossible to verify. Further, in this case we only have the subject's own word in the matter. I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Will Beback · † · 07:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording

First of all, this article is informative and well written grammatically. My only problem is that much of it reads like a plot synopsis from a movie. I`m not going to try and fix it, without having any knowledge on the subject beyond what is presented in the article, but if the original author (or any else who is knowledeable) is around maybe they could take a look at that. Thanks. Random89 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(I suppose the fact that it came from an individual half way around the world has no meaning?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.12.200 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This article may be somewhat informative but it's NOT well written in any way. I came to the page hoping to learn a little more. I learned a little more and that was it. Very few references are given. The article is biased and is clearly not in favor of the subject (the references to her sharp tongue, how the "cops gave her a sound thrashing" etc.) What I did take away from it is that basically a used, abused girl found the courage of a lion and roared......quite loudly. Nobody liked it (no they certainly did not) and proceeded to try to undo her in anyway possible. That may not be correct, but neither is this interpretation of her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to agree here that this article is blatantly biased in a sexist way, the most shocking section being PD's early life: "Although her father acknowledged that there was some sense to this act, and agreed to it with mild protest, the 11-year-old Phoolan confronted her much older cousin. She taunted him, publicly called him a thief and attacked him physically." Consider here that we are talking about an 11-year-old child while her cousin was a grown man. The article implicitly blames the girl of actually abusing and taunting a supposedly helpless man, which does not sound very convincing. It takes the cousin's side in the land dispute, without providing any evidence, even though it would seem reasonable that both families should share the land, while cutting someone else's tree is not a very nice thing to do. Consequently, it makes the young child sound like an anti-social maniac. It then gets worse. "Phoolan's uncle arranged to have her married to a man named Putti Lal, who lived several hundred miles away and was 20 years older than she ... Phoolan Devi's husband tried to discipline her and make her behave in a more docile and compliant manner, which was agonizing for her to endure, given that she was of fractious and quarrelsome disposition even within her own family..." Here we have a case of socially-approved pedophilia and child abuse, and the article, again, takes the side of the social norms that allow this to happen. The child who protests this is of a "fractious and quarrelsome disposition". It is also implied that marrying an 11-year-old girl to a 31-year-old man is an appropriate response to such a "quarrelsome" child. I suggest all the understatements and value judgements such as "disciplining", "quarrelsome and fractious" as well as opinions about the land dispute are removed from the article. Timegoesbackwards (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved from article

Comment: The first version is taken from a Bollywood film and is far more exciting and stereotyped. So people like it more. The second version is called 'mythical' though Phoolan says that is what happened, possibly because it is so dull and not at all exotic.

Comment: According to Phoolan Devi herself, the land dispute was among her family members and this was the motivation behind her first public protest. The courts decided against her father, and she made the unheard of gesture of protesting to authorities about the decision when he would not. She said that leaving this part of her life out of the film Bandit Queen was enough to make it "not about my life". She said they did not even mention her uncle, whom she believed to be behind most of the horrors of her young life, including the ill-fated first marriage, after this confrontation. As usual, Wiki has only a few of the facts, and glosses over some pretty important ones. There are enough facts on record about this person that they could easily have made a movie about them and it would have been just as stunning. Devi's comments about her multiple rapes are quite interesting. For starters, read the Mary Anne Weaver articles, noted at the end of the entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mau4 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Correction request

As far as I am concerned it is not true that men were killed in Behmai. Phoolan Devi wanted to take revenge for what they had done to her and other girls and women of lower castes, and decided that cutting off their penisses would be analogous to rape. elisaz 13:02, 18 March 2008

Edit or Delete!

This article contains stupefyingly little referencing of any sort. Most of the so called information disseminated in it, appears not to have any supporting evidence. Long and drawn out episodes characterise her relationship with her husbands' "Second wife", without any references cited.

This article is ungrammatical, poorly spelt, and contains numerous errors of ommission and commission. It reads like a penny potboiler, and does not qualify at all as unbiased, containing as it does unquantifiable gems such as "her family was very poor, but not poorest in village" (sic).

Please edit this article, or proclaim it a candidate for speedy deletion. It does not contribute to a meaningful or even indisputably correct understanding of the subject at hand.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspuar (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea I agree, this article is atrocious, it doesn't even have any paragraphs, it's just a bunch of sentences with line breaks. Not to mention stuff like this: "The experience broke her body but ignited her hatred for men who routinely denigrated women.", it just sounds like poorly-written propaganda. I think she needs an article, but can we PLEASE do some work on it? 128.223.184.235 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)AOEU

i think every unverifiable sentence in this article should be deleted. i am happy to do this work, but as i am a noob i'm not sure if its OK for just one user like myself to edit it in such an extreme way.. is it? PlasticShark (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this Bio of Phoolan Devi! It reeks of animosity, and lacks clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4301:BA90:D1D:4856:6BE6:8601 (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo

File:Devi surrender.jpg

Phoolan Devi?

Anyone able to verify that photo Devi_surrender.jpg in any convincing manner? --Itu (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Biased

This is an incredibly biased article. Why is forty-eight italicized? Why is the marital rape by the husband never mentioned? Why is the fact that she killed men because they would not tell her where the rapists are not mentioned? Why are biased words such as "simply" included? I don't feel I can trust any information in this article, as the wording is so clearly biased against this person. 103.14.125.195 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've marked this article as containing multiple issues.

I was sad to check this article and see that deceased MP Phoolan Devi (AKA Bandit Queen) has such an under-maintained presence on Wikipedia. The article is written in non-standard English (colloquialisms abound); the tone is not what would be expected from an encyclopedia; the article lacks citations in important areas; citations that do exist contain errors in the links; too much extraneous information is given on Phoolan Devi's early life (in-laws and childhood family) without attribution; insufficient attention is given to Phoolan's later life as an Indian MP.

This article really requires some love and care from an SME. I'm not one, otherwise I'd pitch in. (Everyone's a critic--I know!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunkhaus (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Moll?

A "moll" is the female companion of a male professional criminal. This is therefore not a proper description of Phoolan Devi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.149.20 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Has the case for "Moll" as in "Vikram Mallah's moll" been made? SukiKF (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)SukiKF 22.24, 04 Nov 2014 (GMT)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phoolan Devi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goodbyemag.com/jul01/devi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414182145/http://www.sawnet.org/books/writing/roy_bq1.html to http://www.sawnet.org/books/writing/roy_bq1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414182145/http://www.sawnet.org/books/writing/roy_bq1.html to http://www.sawnet.org/books/writing/roy_bq1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602015649/http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/phoolan_devi/index.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/phoolan_devi/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Caste and jāti

I'm not sure, but it seems that the word caste is being used where the word jāti should be? Caste equals Varna (Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya, Brahmin, and Dalit), jāti equals endogamous groups of similar profession, such as 'boatman' or 'perfume seller'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.73.154 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - "PHOOLAN" documentary (2018)

In 2017, Iranian director Hossein Martin Fazeli announced the production of PHOOLAN, a documentary film about Phoolan’s life. It hasn't finished production yet but is set to be released sometime in 2018. Could someone add this information under the section Movie and autobiography? Sources: [2]; [3] (Note: I have disclosed a conflict of interest with Roads & Kingdoms. I am not paid for my contributions.) WillA98 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources you have provided are to a travel magazine with unknown ties to the production company and a Kickstarter page. The time to mention this documentary will be when independent, secondary sources begin reporting on it. If the production is notable, others will have reported on it. Regards,  spintendo  20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Bias and lack of sources

This article is ridiculously biased and is founded upon a lack of cited sources. Please rewrite or delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.83.254 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2017‎ (UTC)

That seems rather non-specific. It's unlikely to be deleted. To help with rewriting, you'll need to provide specific suggested changes, not just sweeping vague criticism. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent incidents

I think people should read and compare the two versions and judge for themselves. The other version seems to have an agenda to simply damn India, its society, its family culture, and above all, its religion. It is a page of apologetics for a bandit who murdered many people and looted many others. Poverty is pervasive in India and we all live in the same "dirty" country; how many of us become bandits? It surely cannot be right to blame all and sundry for crimes committed by one very damaged personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.20.116 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to rewrite this article

Can someone please rewrite this entire article ? Wikipedia primary purpose is to disseminate information,not tell stories.The article can be trimmed by getting rid of minor or unnecessary details. Prav001 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is certainly not very well sourced and the best way forward may indeed be simply to start again with a new version and to incorporate anything useful from the current version. I'm intending to do that with a view to taking the article to GA and maybe FA, if anyone wants to collaborate, feel free to drop me a line. Mujinga (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

done Mujinga (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Satanic Verses

Phoolan is mentioned a few times in the Satanic Verses, indeed the fact that I’m reading it is the only reason I looked her up on WP. Could we have a section devoted to media depictions of her? Then we could mention both the film about her and the Satanic Verses in that section. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phoolan Devi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larataguera (talk · contribs) 23:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I will review this article and post an initial review in the next few days. Larataguera (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on and let me know if you need any other sources Mujinga (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Also I should add my internet access is intermittent for the next week, then back to normal again Mujinga (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This initial review is incomplete, but raises a few things to work on while I continue. At first impression, I think this article can probably pass. I will need time to review more of the sources more thorougly. Larataguera (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

• Minor note: I think there are a few minor issues with commas that might need attention for FA if that ever comes up. Seems like different people have different ideas about commas anyway...

  Agreed - personally I'm unfussed as long as the system is consistent across the article Mujinga (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Broader note: please look through for places where text can be more concise or unnecessary detail can be removed. Sources note that accounts of Devi's life are not always consistent with each other, so excessive detail is an especially bad idea, since we can't be sure of the details anyway!
• Throughout: I have noticed that the sources do not tend to call Phoolan Devi just "Devi". This is a common surname adopted by many women in the Northern region when they are married. The sources (ie, Mala Sen; the Telegraph; the Atlantic) use the full name "Phoolan Devi", so I think we should also do this.

  Yes it's another thing where the sources are all over the place. Hindustan Times for example here uses Devi. I'm thinking we should compile a list of questions and ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject India Mujinga (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Questions:

  How to put her name, once first stated

  How to put Vikram Mallah's name once stated

  Should there be more detail on caste politics and if so, where

  Was her political career significant, at least in English-langauge sources there is very little about it

Early life

•  Done Mallahs were a subcaste of Shudra possibly excessive detail, especially since many readers won't know what Shudra is. Clarify and link, or delete.

  Are you familiar with the Indian caste system? I am far from being an expert on this, and I note @DaxServer: previously made an edit which moved some text into a footnote, so perhaps you or DaxServer would be kind enough to suggest what is best here Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  To add, I linked Dalit and Shudra again. Also DaxServer, maybe you have an opinion on the Vikram Mallah question below? Mujinga (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  The footnote helps, but gets lost among the refs at the end of the previous sentence. I think this is clear enough now that you've linked it and if we move the {{efn}} template after the word Shudra. Larataguera (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've moved footnotes a and b so that they are before the refs and hopefully more noticeable Mujinga (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done successfully plotted to steal -> stole. Also delete They forced Devidin to relinquish the land. (This is implied if the land is stolen).

  sure, rejigged Mujinga (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done They continued to harass... pronoun ambiguous

  good point, clarified Mujinga (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Back in Gorha Ka Purwa... -> "When she returned home..." or "When she returned to Gorha Ka Purwa..." would be clearer. And then the second son of the village leader -> "The village leader's son..."

  Agree on first bit, rejigged. On second bit, is it better to say "the village leader's second oldest son"? I'm not sure if much is gained Mujinga (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think individually these questions aren't too important, but generally it's almost always better to use as few words as possible, keep the detail to a minimum, and distill the most important content. Cutting just a few words here and there can make a meaningful difference across the article as a whole. Larataguera (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Bandit Queen

•  Done For reasons that Devi has explained in multiple ways... This says almost nothing. Delete.I

  I don't want to delete it, but happy to rephrase. What I was trying to say there is that in every account, including the film, there seem to be different reasons for Babu Gujjar to come and take her away. Not sure if it's worth spelling them all out, but it is worth noting that the different accounts exist. Mujinga (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I wouldn't hold up the review over it. I am suggesting we say in the lead that details in Devi's biographies are sometimes contradictory. If we do that is this still needed? Larataguera (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that a sentence in the lead about unreliability is a good idea, but that would be no reason to delete it here - the lead should summarise the article body so some repetition is fine. Mujinga (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done ...came to seize her... -> When did this happen? Can we start this section with a date? There may be too much detail about the kidnapping. (Especially since the Atlantic says, Phoolan's own accounts have varied significantly. The first sentences could just say: "On [date], a gang of bandits led by Babu Gujjar kidnapped Devi and took her away into the ravines."

  I can look into this, I'm not sure if we have a definite date Mujinga (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just a year or her age at the time would suffice to orient the reader at the beginning of the new section. Larataguera (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  • sen: july 1979 p70 then 7 july 1979 - vikram kills babu
  • atlantic: july 1979, when phoolan was 21/22 - doesnt sync with DoB of 1963
  • autobiog: "monsoon time"
  • guardian: at age of 20 - clearly wrong
  • it seems we can say july 1979, so i'll add that

  Mujinga (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Should we be using Vikram Mallah's first name or last name to refer to him? Everyone else is by last name.

  I'm really not sure if Mallah is a last name or caste designation here, which probably betrays my ignorance. Just had a look for MOS guidance on Indian names but didn't find much. Mujinga (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  The sources say Vikram (or frequently, "Vikram Mallah"). My mistake. Striking. Larataguera (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've also seen Vikram Singh Mallah Mujinga (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Need to clarify how long between her kidnapping and Gujar's death. (Atlantic says 72 hrs)

  This is again a fact which has been presented in different scales, from days to weeks. It's tricky that all the accounts diverge! Makes it an interesting to write as encyclopedic entry but I'm sure we can find a solution. Mujinga (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. I would suggest presenting the range of timeframes with a citation for the lower and upper end. So far I've only seen 72 hr. (Atlantic, Guardian, and Mala Sen all say 72 hr.)

  sen: 72

  atlantic: 72

  guardian: 72

  autobiog: a few days

  szurlej: nodate, follows moxham

  moxham: no date

  roads&kingdoms: no date

  seems reasonable to add 72 hours Mujinga (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  could read a little more straightforward if it said "Three days after the kidnapping", instead of After 72 hours

• Speaking through a loudhailer, she demanded that the villagers hand over Shri Ram and Lalla Ram, then her gang went from house to house looting valuables is a comma splice. Use a semicolon. ("...Lalla Ram; then ...")
•  Done I suggest breaking the "bandit queen" section into subsections. One for the 'Behmai Massacre and one for Surrender. These were both events that received a great deal of publicity and are emphasised in the sources. I think it would make the section easier to navigate.

  Yeah it is quite long, I'll have a think about that. Maybe three sections: Banditry / Behmai Massacre / Surrender Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Whilst Devi was on the run, her mother was held for five months in Kalpi prison. Maybe not needed. If it is, it shouldn't be the first sentence of this paragraph, which should have a more general topic sentence

  The point of that, maybe it's not clear, is that the mother was held in order to make Devi surrender Mujinga (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not entirely clear, but the main thing is that I want the paragraph to have a clear topic sentence. As it reads now, I expect that paragraph to be entirely about the imprisonment of her mother. A more general topic sentence would be something more like, "Police pursued Phoolan Devi for two years after the Behmai massacre, and eventually negotiated a surrender in 1983." This would set up the paragraph to then provide further detail on the topic of her pursuit and surrender. Larataguera (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  rejigged Mujinga (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Political career

•  Done First paragraph says charges were dropped in 1994. Second paragraph says there were still charges in 1996. Can you clarify if there were two separate sets of charges?

  The sources are a right mess with regards to this - it was very hard to work out what was going on and what exactly the charges were, I can take another look Mujinga (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've added a bit more. The charges were always the same and actually still open when she was assassinated Mujinga (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  The courtcase is still going on?!? Mujinga (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done This section is a little unfocussed. The heading is "Political career", but slightly over half the section is about criminal charges from her career as a bandit. Should criminal charges go in the "Bandit Queen" section (maybe a third subsection about criminal charges)? And then the section on political career could be expanded and kept on topic.

  My rationale would be to keep it roughly chronological and the criminal charges are a big part of her political career Mujinga (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Popular culture

•  Done Devi's autobiography I, Phoolan Devi was dictated by her onto tape and then edited into a book which was published first in French and then other... -> "Devi dictated her autobiography, I, Phoolan Devi and it was published in 1996, first in French, and then other..."

  changed Mujinga (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Moxham reported that she then renounced Buddhism. redundant from previous sentence. Delete.

  It's not redundant, because she became Buddhist then recanted Mujinga (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  My mistake. I misread. Striking. Larataguera (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done In his autobiography (published in 2021), Farrukh Dhondy, the commissioning editor at Channel 4, described how he rushed to Delhi to sign a cheque to get Umed Singh to persuade Devi to drop her complaint. Moxham writes that when Devi discovered Singh had taken this payment, they became estranged, before later reconciling again. Excessive detail?

  trimmed Mujinga (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

•  Done Media theorist Sandra Ponzanesi sees Devi's life as an exemplary case of a postcolonial subject attempting to preserve their agency in the face of an Orientalist gaze. What's that mean exactly? Is it possible to say this simpler language?

  How about: Media theorist Sandra Ponzanesi takes Devi as an example of a Third World postcolonial subject who is well aware of the racist and patronising attitudes First World analysts can have of her.

  That's clearer. I would link postcolonial only, because of MOS:SEAOFBLUE. I still wonder if there's something more to be said here. Maybe I'll look over that source. But yes, this seems clearer to me and it's probably good enough.

  Adjusted, not sure what else to add Mujinga (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Lisa Ray was reported to be the main voice artist... -> "Lisa Ray was the main voice artist". Or, is Lisa Ray's involvement excessive detail? "In 2019 Hossein Martin Fazeli produced a documentary..."

  I agree Lisa Ray prob doesnt need a mention, it's just that the documentary seems to have been being made for at least 5 years and still hasn't been released or reviewed, so it's hard to get a year in Mujinga (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  ok chopped out Ray, said Hossein was developing the docu Mujinga (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Please look for more concise wording throughout, wherever possible.

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Lead:

•  Done The first sentence should clearly identify the subject. "Phoolan Devi was a bandit leader and member of parliament..." or something like that. Some of the detail in the first paragraph may not belong in the lead at all. Growing up in poverty, the land dispute, and repeated sexual abuse only belongs in the lead to the extent that it is necessary for understanding what makes Devi notable.

  Good point on the first sentence, I've changed that. MOS:LEAD says the article should summarise the article body, but of course I'm happy to discuss specific sentences or events. Mujinga (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done The lead should mention the Behmai massacre. This was a very notable event in her life. Behmai massacre also redirects here, so a person arriving from that search term should understand why they are at this page.

  Yes definitely - have added Mujinga (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Even a little more detail about the massacre may be warranted (when it happened, how many people died). The statement that The Behmai massacre was a controversial event which she claimed not to have organised. only makes sense if we've established that other people claimed that she did command it. Her imprisonment, later legal troubles, and eventual assassination seem to revolve around this event. Larataguera (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is getting better. Can the sentence The 1981 Behmai massacre was a controversial event in which twenty Thakur men were executed be rephrased to clarify how the massacre is related to Phoolan Devi? Maybe "Phoolan Devi faced murder charges for the 1981 Behmai massacre in which twenty Thakur men were executed"? Or "Phoolan Devi allegedly ordered the 1981 Behmai massacre in which..." Larataguera (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes i see what you mean, i tweaked it Mujinga (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

    Done It may be worth making a statement (even in the lead) that details about Devi's life are foggy. Partly because of this, it's going to take me a little more time to see what is consistent from one source to another before further comment on verifiability.

   As we are finding several situations where sources may contradict each other, perhaps we should repeat this statement from the Legacy section Scholar Tatiana Szurlej notes that the facts presented in these biographies often contradict each other, despite coming from interviews with Devi herself. in the lead. Larataguera (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

   added to lead Mujinga (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig ok. No problems so far.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

    Done I would think some additional information about caste politics could be helpful. One source[4] says she was the first low-caste woman elected to parliament. The context or aims of her political career could be expanded. Right now, the only sentence that does this is Devi campaigned with limited success for the rights of women and to provide better amenities for the poor. She told Roy Moxham "I want to bring hospitals, schools, electricity and clean water to the poor in the villages. To stop child marriage and to improve life for women. The rest of that section is actually about her murder charges.

   I remember not finding much in the sources about her political career but I'll have another look Mujinga (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

   Could be helpful to link Caste politics for context (not a very good article, but maybe better someday!). Larataguera (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

   I don't think roadsandkingdoms is correct there, for example Dakshayani Velayudhan was the first Scheduled Caste woman back in 1946

   I'm checking for political stuff and it remains hard to find, eg here and here. Her obituaries don't say much and for example on googlenews, '"phoolan devi" "lok sabha"'searching between 1996 and 2001 gives zero hits. I've found some other bits and bobs, and am adding them as I go. And outlook has a bit I can put in now Mujinga (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

   Ok, thanks for looking. Can't put it in if it's not there! Larataguera (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

   b. (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   seems to be

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • What do you think about adding an image of Durga? Larataguera (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

     honestly i'm not sure Mujinga (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

     I ask, because providing images of Durga and Gandhi was a condition of Phoolan Devi's surrender. The article mentions that she bows before these images during the surrender (though it doesn't mention that this was a condition of surrender). Since the image is explicitly mentioned, it could make sense to have the image in the article. (Also an image of Gandhi, although I'm assuming that most readers will be more familiar with an image of Gandhi; but this could be an incorrect assumption, and maybe we should provide both images.) So the caption would be something like: "Phoolan Devi required images of Durga and Gandhi be present at her surrender." Larataguera (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

• just as general feedback, I'm not really enjoying making replies within this template, the reply function sends me to the wrong place and I'm having to keyword search where to reply Mujinga (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. This was my first full GA review, and I just used the default template. I think next time I would just set it up with regular subheadings. If you have any other feedback on this whole process, please let me know!

  I think we're pretty close to being done. I guess we need to resolve these questions about naming conventions...Larataguera (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hiya thanks for your patience, I should have normal internet access again by tomorrow or maybe even later today. In terms of review feedback, I think things are going well - you are going beyond GA requirements on prose and that's fine for me because I want to take it to FA and we both want to improve the article. Do you have any questions for WikiProject India? Cheers Mujinga (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just the above questions. Hopefully they'll have some insight. Thanks Larataguera (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  At this point, the only thing left that would hold up the review is clarity on the naming convention. Larataguera (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hiya just checking in, no response yet to my query posted at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Phoolan_Devi. Mujinga (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sadly no answer so ... I think I'll ask at Women in Red, I'd hope to at least get an answer there. Mujinga (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Question asked here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Indian_naming_conventions - in the meantime is there anything else that needs doing? Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would be willing to pass this review if the naming convention were sorted out. If there are no responses, I suggest replacing all instances of "Devi" with "Phoolan Devi", because that seems to be the convention in most of the sources (unless you disagree that this is the most common usage). Larataguera (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm no sure if most sources use "Phoolan Devi" but I do agree that's the least bad solution if we don't find any other guidance. So I was thinking to leave the question open for another day then make that change, hope that works for you. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm still no answer on either thread, I suppose this is another way in which Wikipedia's systemic bias plays out. I tried to make the Devi ⇒ Phoolan Devi switch but it just makes reading the text rather awkward in my opinion, I'm so conditioned to using only the last name after first mention. I do note that her mother is/was Moola Devi, so maybe then Devi can be taken as a female last name? I had another look for guidance but didn't find much in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) (or indeed Indian name) Mujinga (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I suppose this is one more facet of systemic bias. My concern is that if Mala Sen used "Phoolan Devi" throughout her full-length book, in spite of it's awkwardness, then there's probably a reason to do it that way. (And I didn't find it so awkward while reading that book). I could possibly be swayed if you showed me more sources that use just "Devi". For instance, I would likely reconsider if Roy Moxham's book used that convention. If Moxham uses "Phoolan Devi" throughout, then I would have to insist we do the same.

  There was a little information at Indian name, where it says about Northern India "Many women, especially in rural areas, take on the surname Devi (meaning Goddess) or Kumari (princess) when they are married (ex. Phoolan Devi)". I wonder if using only Devi is too ambiguous, like writing an article about an English woman and calling her "Mrs." throughout? Or an inappropriate conflation with the word for goddess: Devi? I don't know. This isn't a subject I have much knowledge or experience with, and I am speculating based on my observation that the full name is used in the sources. Lacking further guidance, we should mimic the sources. Larataguera (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I agree we should follow the sources unless we find better advice. I'll have to go through the sources again then, prob can do that later today. Moxham uses "Phoolan" but that doesn't surprise me because if you were writing a chatty journalistic book about someone in english, you would refer to them by their first name. It is a good point that Mala Sen mostly uses "Phoolan Devi" but she does also use "Phoolan" eg p7,p29,p30,p39,p41,p46,p47 and "Devi" on occasion as well. Mujinga (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  PS Also thanks for pointing out that Phoolan Devi is actually used as an example at Indian name, not sure how I missed that! Mujinga (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• A survey of sources:
• Mala Sen - Mostly Phoolan Devi
• Moxham - Mostly Phoolan
• Dhondy - Phoolan Devi
• Butalia - Phoolan Devi
• Ashraf - Mostly Phoolan Devi
• The Hindu -Phoolan Devi
• Economic times - Phoolan Devi
• Sony Jalarajan Raj, Rohini Sreekumar and Nithin Kalorth -Phoolan Devi
• Shanthie Mariet D'Souza & Bibhu Prasad Routray - Mostly Phoolan Devi
• Bonnie Zare - Mostly Phoolan Devi
• Srilata Ravi and راڤي سريلاتا - Mostly Phoolan Devi
• Szurlej - Phoolan Devi
• So I've implemented the change to make it mostly "Phoolan Devi", except when the second mention is close and it's 100% clear we mean Phoolan Devi, then I put "Devi". This follows the sources in that most use "Phoolan Devi", and "Devi" is used in this way quite often. And for example the Hindustan Times in two examples uses "Phoolan Devi" and in another mostly "Phoolan Devi"! Devi does appear to be the surname and I hope to find a definitive answer in the future - in Indian name the source only says Devi is a surname and doesn't actually mention Phoolan Devi. Mujinga (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. I've passed the article. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Hello Phoolan Devi:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Mujinga (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Phoolan Devi: The Bandit Queen by Shirish Korde and Lynn Kremer

In the Legacy section, the article states that Shirish Korde's opera Phoolan Devi: The Bandit Queen had its premiere at the University of Boston. This is incorrect. While some careless Boston reviewers (like the source currently cited in the article) mistakenly claimed that the performance in Boston on April 23 was the premiere, the work (which should be credited to both Korde and Lynn Kremer, who co-wrote the libretto and designed and directed the 2010 production) actually had its first performance at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, on April 15, 2010. Both Korde and Kremer are on the faculty of the College of the Holy Cross, and apart from the lead singers the cast in both Worcester and Boston consisted largely of Holy Cross students. There were several performances in Worcester before the production moved to Boston the following weekend. This was correctly reported in the Boston Globe: see Matthew Guerrieri, "'Bandit Queen' Chronicles a Complicated Heroine," Boston Globe, 26 April 2010, page G5 (archived from Boston.com on 25 Oct 2012); as well as at Stanford University's Opening Nights database of opera and oratorio premieres. Photos from the Holy Cross performances are online at the web site of the HC Theater Dept. (Full disclosure: I am unaffiliated with the college myself, but my wife teaches there, although not in the theater or music departments. I attended one of those first performances, and it was fantastic.) – Choliamb (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Choliamb Thanks for the full explanation with refs! I hope this is now fixed, please have a look and feel free to adjust. Mujinga (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mujinga. Looks good to me. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Economic Times

@Nikkimaria the FAC got closed, slightly prematurely perhaps since we were still discussing FN33, but hopefully it doesn't need read re-opening because I'd argue The Economic Times (used twice) is not covered by WP:TOI. Yes they are both owned by The Times Group, but that's like New Scientist being owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust, which also publishes the Daily Mail. Mujinga (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anything to suggest it is more reliable? I checked RSN and found a discussion of it being a Wikipedia mirror and not much else specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes I also checked RSN and didn't find anything conclusive. It is taken as India's leading financial newspaper by other newspapers such as Washington Post, Guardian, NYT, Times. Is that enough or would you like to discuss at RSN? Mujinga (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that there hasn't been a conclusive discussion previously, I think it would be useful to get it settled one way or the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria First off thanks again for doing the image and source reviews. The discussion at RSN was inconclusive; I hope I've solved the issue by removing/replacing the ET references. I have to say I would rather have debated the merits of each individual citation and its specific context, but I'd also be happy to draw a line under this now. Mujinga (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi @Tayi Arajakate, I reverted your recent edits and would if it's OK with you like to discuss them here. The article has been made a featured article after helpful comments at GA and PR, so I would say a consensus on for example caste and OBC has at least roughly been established already. I don't doubt that you know more than me about India in pretty much every way since I know very little, but I have read all the sources I've been able to get my hands on regarding Phoolan Devi.

• edit summary - "restore and expand with better sourcing, post-2010 IT is not that good either"

  at first glance I thought TI meant ToI and I would be resistant to re-adding ToI links, since that's already been discussed in the FA source review. it seems you mean India Today, can I ask what you are basing that on? it's listed in RSPS

• edit summary - "this does not make sense in this context, OBC is a legal and documentational category, and there is a distinction between lower caste (as stated in the sources) and OBC"

  there seems to be a lot of debate and controversy on wikipedia about how to use the term OBC. the sources give a range of options to choose from, so do you think it's better to summarise using "lower caste"? I'm trying to work out your rationale here

• edit summary - "add, acc source"

  so you changed "generally popular among Other Backward Classes." to "generally popular among Dalits and Other Backward Classes" based on then Outlook source. but then later removed Dalits again

• edit summary - "this is way to simplistic a description to the point of being inaccurate, and not necessary in this article anyways

  I've asked around quite a lot for help on this issue, for example at [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_127#Indian_naming_conventions|women in red] and twice on [76] at the noticeboard for india-related topics. I've also asked people who seem to have decent knowledge in this area such as DaxServer, MPGuy2824 and Trangabellam. All with varying degrees of success. We seem to have reached some sort of consensus that a footnote is helpful. Personally I think when this article is on then frontpage a lot of people will be curious about caste structure so something needs to be said. I'm not at all tied to the current footnote but I don't think deleting it is best, I'd be fine with replacing it with an improved version though. Mujinga (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• *:@AryKun I hope you don't mind the ping - since we already discussed OBC and caste quite extensively at the FA review, I'd be grateful if you could give an opinion here. But if you are not so inclined, I quite understand Mujinga (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  My favorite kind of discussions—the never-ending ones! Snark aside, I do have some thoughts.

  • I don't see why India Today wouldn't be RS; in any case, if you think it isn't, you'd have to go discuss that at RSP. That edit also seems to me to add a lot of extraneous details and seems slightly puffery-y for the SP, although I do think that her sister joining the SP might be worthwhile putting in the article.
  • I have to agree with Tayi here; lower caste≠OBC (see SC), and lower castes would be more accurate I think. I will also note that The Graun does say "For the lower castes" explicitly.
  • This is hard; I guess Dalits and OBCs is a more "hedging our bets" sort of wording, but the source specifically says "The Dalit OBCs", so just OBCs should be fine and is probably more faithful to the source, since the only other mention of Dalit in the source is a quote from one Dalit woman who we can't extrapolate from.
  • The note should stay; it's simplistic, sure, but not inaccurate, and having some context is better than having none ig.
  • All this aside, the "100 Indian rupees (equivalent to ₹400 or £4.20 in 2023)" can't possibly be correct considering the marriage occurred sometime around 1973. I think you've used the wrong inflation index; using an inflation calculator for India online, it comes out closer to ₹4000.

  AryKun (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  • It's is not listed at WP:RSPS. It's not like its supposed to be a comprehensive list. It has similar problems to ET (the magazine is different but that's not a magazine article). They aren't aren't absolutely unusable but they aren't best sources for an FA. Otherwise I just picked up on the material cited to ET that was removed and re-added and/or expanded on those aspects. I don't see what the problem is with that. If adding how the massacre case continued is fine which it was at the time of the promotion then they should be, right now that bit just seems incomplete. And SP should have a more prominent mention rather than no mention considering it was her party and she is associated most with it. Although the last paragraph itself could be scrapped or re-written, it's a bit much of a random accumulation of very generic happenings rather than an overview, like say the last sentence, where such commemorations are made by Mandal politics parties every year or the other.
  • I don't think this is controversial in this case at all. The cited sources for the sentence "as news of Phoolan Devi's exploits spread, she became popular with the Other Backward Classes, who called her Dasyu Sundari (Beautiful Bandit) and celebrated her as a Robin Hood figure, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor" use the term "lower caste" rather than OBC, and they are not inter-changeable. OBC is an official categorisation that was introduced for caste related affirmative action for those groups who didn't fall under the SC (used for Dalits) or ST (used for Adivasis) categorisation but were identified to be marginalised, now there is controversy around who should or shouldn't be in each of these categories, using it doesn't make sense in this context. Lower caste is the relevant sociological term that bypasses all these categorisation problems to simply refer to anyone that is and feels marginalised.
  • Honestly doesn't matter much, although it's a similar problem as the the second point but the source is different and it explicitly mentions OBCs and focuses on that mostly. I'd say the cited article is not supposed to be comprehensive so this problem arises where her popularity among say Dalits becomes invisiblised.
  • It doesn't seem to have gotten any attention at all on the noticeboards? Can you show me where the consensus is? It gives readers an inaccurate understanding, it describes the conceptual understanding of Varna and then just replaced Avarna with Dalit, and presents it as the sociological reality. Either one has to go into jati or one would have to condense it to only say something like a very generic "a hierarchical system of social stratification". In fact just read the Caste system in India § Modern perspective on definition to understand what the problem is.

  Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @AryKun cheers for the reply, that's a good spot on the rupees, I'll have to look into that Mujinga (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate just a quick reply now, more to come. Thanks for the reply, we all want to improve the article so hopefully we can get this sorted out.

  • "It's is not listed at WP:RSPS." - yes apologies that's what i meant to say as well. The article has just gone through a stringent source review so I would like evidence rather than opinion a source isn't reliable
  • Let's hope it's not too controversial, everyone seems to have differing opinions. What i need to do is go look again at the sources which the sentence is summarising again to see what is more commonly used
  • Yes it's a good point that we need to record she was popular with Dalits as well as OBCs, if I am going through all the sources again I can try to make that clearer
  • Indeed that's why I said "We seem to have reached some sort of consensus" rather than pointing you towards a RfC becuase people simply came and made edits, rather than actually discussing. Then AryKun also edited it and nobody else popped up to change it, and it passed at FA so what I now want to avoid is every week a new addition/deletion on the issue of caste. But perhaps that's inevitable.

  Mujinga (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Adding a couple more talkpage debates here and here Mujinga (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

As far as I can see we have five discussion points open. I will take them one by one and hopefully we can find solutions.

• 1 India Today
• 2 lower castes / OBC
• 3 Dalits / OBC
• 4 Note on caste - suggestion
• 5 Rupees

1 Use of India Today @Tayi Arajakate questions the use of IT, AryKun says it's ok, I don't see a problem with it.

• Suggestion: either keep IT or debate at RSN Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

2 Lower castes versus OBC in lead - seems like we all agree to use "lower castes". As news of Phoolan Devi's exploits spread, she became popular with the Other Backward Classes, who called her Dasyu Sundari (Beautiful Bandit) and celebrated her as a Robin Hood figure, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor

• [12] BBC - "Her supporters say that she targeted high-caste families and shared the spoils with the lower castes, but the Indian authorities insisted this was a myth."
• [19] Guardian - "For the lower castes Devi - whose career was immortalised in the film Bandit Queen by Shekah Kupar - was India's answer to Robin Hood. "
• [20] Fernandes - "I discuss representations of Phoolan Devi, a legendary lower-caste woman dacoit in India who was known for raiding villages with her gang and redistributing wealth from upper-class, upper-caste landlords to po"
• [21] Seal - nothing relevant
• Suggestion: change OBC in lead to "lower castes" as TA suggested Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

3 Dalits / OBC

She was celebrated among Dalits (people at the bottom of the caste system) for fighting back against her abuse by men of a higher caste and when she eluded capture by the authorities her fame grew

• [24] Time - "in the eyes of millions of Dalits it also turned her into an icon of resistance against caste abuse" and " she was elected to parliament as a champion of the Dalits."

Mallah people were happy to have someone of their caste representing them in parliament for the first time and she was generally popular among Other Backward Classes

• [32] Outlook - "Phoolan’s transition from a baghi (rebel), as dacoits are referred to in Bundelkhand, to a mainstream OBC leader" and "Phoolan Devi emerged as an important leader in OBC caste politics" and "before being elected as an MP and with the support of the OBC community" and "The Dalit OBCs remember her as their messiah and recount how she had been able to win their hearts in a short period"

Other sources:

• Ponzanesi - "When she was released on parole in 1994 (her involvement in the massacre of Behmai still to be determined), she joined the regional Samajwadi Party (Socialist Party), which represents the lower castes that account for about 85 per cent of those eligible to vote in India."

Not currently in article:

• Madhavi Murty - Reading the Perplexing Figure of the "Bandit Queen": Interpellation, Resistance and Opacity - "A number of these regional parties, including the Samajwadi Party, on whose ticket Phoolan contested and won two elections, were organized by and claimed to represent the interests of historically disenfranchised lower castes, dalits and the rural poor."

• Suggestion: keep as is currently? Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

4 - The note on caste. This currently reads Indian society is divided into four castes or social classes. From top to bottom these are: Brahmin (priests), Kshatriya (warriors), Vaishya (traders) and Shudra (labourers).[5]: 194  Underneath these four classes are the Dalits, also known as the untouchables.[6].

• Suggestion: we keep the footnote but discuss here any adaptation, which would be welcome. Paging @Sitush: who previously discussed this with MPGuy2824 Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

5 rupees - correct sums in article?

• ₹100 (equivalent to ₹400 or £4.20 in 2023) - 100 Indian rupees (R; equivalent to 400 Rs or £4.20 in 2023)
• ₹50,000 (equivalent to ₹72,000 or £750 in 2023) - 50,000 Rs (equivalent to 72,000 Rs or £750 in 2023)
• ₹2.5 crore (equivalent to ₹10.0 crore or £1 million in 2023) - 25 million Rs {(equivalent to 100 million Rs or £1 million in 2023)

  Aha I see the prob, the top conversion used year 2001 instead of something like 1973. And therefore should be:₹100 (equivalent to ₹3,800 or £40 in 2023) - 100 Indian rupees (R; equivalent to 400 Rs or £4.20 in 2023) Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@AryKun thanks again for the spot, I'll make the changes when i stop getting database errors. By the way, "My favorite kind of discussions—the never-ending ones!" is still making me chuckle Mujinga (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A week later

OK so moving forward withb the suggestions:

• 1 India Today - keep as is
• 2 lower castes / OBC - changed to lower castes
• 3 Dalits / OBC - keep as is
• 4 Note on caste - keep as is
• 5 Rupees - already sorted Mujinga (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Numerous NPOV violations in this article

The lead in this article is a mess. The murder she was accused of are being labelled 'executions,' a cult status is being labelled 'heroine.' Blatant WP:NPOV and WP:PUFF violations. LΞVIXIUS💬 16:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, murders by organised outfits like terrorist organizations, cartels, and bandit groups can be referred to as executions, although that wording could perhaps be changed. The article doesn't state that she was a heroine, it says that she was seen as a heroine, which is demonstrably true and probably why she was able to have a successful political career. We also cannot call her a murderer or say she was responsible for the murders per BLP:CRIME, since she was never convicted. The only NPOV issue here is maybe the wording for the murders, although I think that what is currently there is also acceptable. AryKun (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Levixius: in case you didn't see this. AryKun (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm particularly tied to the word "executed", but it is summarising "twenty-two Thakur men were lined up at the Yamuna River and shot from behind" in the body, which to me does sound like how an execution would be described. Mujinga (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed blurb

For TFA, 1461 characters, no fair-use foto:

Phoolan Devi (1963–2001), popularly known as the Bandit Queen, was an Indian dacoit (bandit) who later became a politician. She was a woman of the Mallah subcaste who grew up in poverty in the state of Uttar Pradesh, where her parents lost a land dispute. After being married off at the age of eleven and being sexually abused by various people, she joined a gang of dacoits which robbed higher-caste villages and held up trains and vehicles. When she became its leader, she punished her rapists and evaded capture by the authorities, making her a heroine for the Other Backward Classes. She was charged in absentia for the 1981 Behmai massacre, in which twenty Thakur men were executed, allegedly on her command. After this event, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh resigned, and calls to apprehend her were amplified. She surrendered two years later and spent eleven years in Gwalior prison awaiting trial, then was released in 1994 after her charges were set aside. She was subsequently elected as a member of parliament for the Samajwadi Party in 1996. She lost her seat in 1998 and regained it the following year; she was the incumbent in 2001, when she was assassinated outside her home in New Delhi. Her worldwide fame had grown after the release of the controversial 1994 film Bandit Queen, which she did not approve of. There are varying accounts of her life because she told differing versions to suit her changing circumstances. (Full article...) Mujinga (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Zainibeast (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 03:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)