I apologize if this isn't the correct forum for this request. In order to resolve a requested deletion it would be very helpful to have a review of Bhaktababa by someone in a position to substantiate or refute the author's assertions that the subject is notable. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you. – 7423:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
One editor insists that "Balyogeshwar" should still be presented as one of the names the subject is known under today, based on a 1992 American source that uses the name when discussing his history. The man's authorised biography, however, which appeared quite recently, says that the honorific "Balyogeshwar" was only used in his childhood. This seems to make sense, given that as far as I can see "Balyogeshwar" iiterally means "young Yogeshwar" = "young Lord of Union" = "young Krishna".
There is a WP article on Indian names, but given the variability in naming conventions across the country, there should be separate articles for names for each ethnicity. These articles would be in keeping with the conventions established at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Anthroponymy. I have used information in another article to start Sindhi names, but I need help from people of that, and other ethnicities. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism on Air India Page
Hi,
User:Faizhaider keeps adding a large gallery of old Tata Airlines timetables on the Air India page. I have tried to explain to him that this gallery is totally unnecessary because:
Tata Airlines timetables have nothing to do with Air India today
This same gallery is located on the Tata Airlines page, where it is more appropriate
Most articles do not have galleries because they are unencyclopedic
These time tables have no relation to Air India
The Air India article has not had this gallery for the last 7 years and he needs to get consensus before he can add this gallery
Tata Airlines related information should be on the Tata Airlines page and not on the Air India page
Noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts is showing errors. The recent changes to {{WP India}} may have caused this page to have problems, which seems to be the reason as per the history of the alerts page. I have asked the last editor to look into this. Meanwhile can anyone help fixing the problem with Article alerts? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
One user worked hard on this article and added a lot of referenced text. Have suggested him to raise a peer review to get suggestions from other editors mainly on organization and style point of view, so that the article can attain higher rating. Please add your comments/suggestions here. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's absolutely false. Supporting the LTTE is not a part of BJP's agenda. Please don't add it to the section on "Ideology". Yeah, BJP has only said that it does not want LTTE to be banned. That does not mean BJP is a supporter of LTTE. As far as I know, some Sangh Parivar groups like VHP have branches in LTTE controlled areas. I do not know whether individual politicians in the BJP support the LTTE but the BJP as a party has not officially declared it as a part of its policy. I strongly feel that the "Ideology" section should be written based on the BJP's official agenda declared in the party's official website and not should not be based on stray sources.-RavichandarMy coffee shop14:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Asian Academy Of Film & Television/ Sandeep Marwah
An anonymous user (contribs) has been adding/ creating articles related to Sandeep Marwah, Asian Academy Of Film & Television and allied business ventures; no references. Further, he has been inserting "X actor is also the member of International Film And Television Club of Asian Academy Of Film And Television, Noida Film City." into quite a few articles - Anurag Kashyap for one (I have marked it as dubious). Didn't find any such information except some visits made by actors/ directors to the institute ad prwires about them. The articles have been there for some time now; so have the edits to the actor/ director pages. What's to be done? Last Contrarian (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
We have an article about an Indian spiritual leader. Her followers generally call her "Shri Mataji" or "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi". Her legal name is Nirmala Srivastava, and that's where we have the article now. FWIW, her husband is also notable, Chandrika Prasad Srivastava. An editor has suggested that we should move the article to the subject's spiritual name. The Google hits are 375 for "Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi" and 245 for "Nirmala Srivastava". I'm confused by the various naming conventions and precedents, which indicate we should include honorifics, should use the most common name, and allow for articles like Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha. A thread on the topic is at Talk:Nirmala Srivastava#Rename. Any thoughts? Will Bebacktalk07:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia has decided long before NOT to include such honorifics. For example, when referring to Muhammad, no prefix ("Hazrat") or suffix ("PBUH") are added. I do not see why Nirmala Devi should be treated differently. Her followers may choose to use "Sri" or whatever honorific before her name, but that would still be a honorific. Just as there is a very large consensus against using honorific suffix/prefixes before Muhammad, we need to trim all such mentions, even if commonly used in the media of her country. --Ragib (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
India: start Roman Catholicism in India (as of October 2007), has more references and better organization than the class C (a higher grade) example Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008).
As you will notice at the top of the quality scheme, the assessment dept. is working to update the grading scheme still - this is near the top of the "to-do" list. I'm expecting we'll be ready to update the examples in the next fortnight. To avoid confusion however, I will remove the problem examples. Please also note that India will have its own article as an example for stub to B-class - Exetor was not approved by the dept. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If you have suitable references you can always add Kailash Joshi to TiE, yourself! As for India-related articles being less in number or less featured I would only say that we need more dedicated editors, pitch in! ;) --Ekabhishek (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Something must have happened to him. Otherwise, why would an editor with 17,000+ edits would write 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiE' rather than '[[TiE]]'?--GDibyendu (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Good catch! YM is right, I have signed above for the the IP editor 66.210.0.8 and seperated this topic to another heading section to avoid further confusion -- TinuCherian - 11:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I'm not exactly a project member, but I do a lot of WP:UNCAT which gets a lot of India articles written by brand-new editors (who don't know how to or bother to categorise), so our interests cross over.
I'm seeing this Maratha 96k Clans article, and to my American eye it looks the same thing as Maratha clan system, but the editors don't acknowledge any Discussion or messages on their Talk, and keeping adding POV and non-Wiki commentary about the various clans to the 96K article (which isn't as good at the "clan system" article).
Just thought you gents might take a look and maybe sort folks out, as I'm really unfamiliar with the subject. I don't envy your work here, as at a few points I've tried to help with new editors and hit major CoI issues where I have to explain "look, I'm not saying you're wrong for saying your group is descended from an avatar of a Hindu god, I'm just saying that it's a bit of a big claim with no easy way to prove." So kudos to you for tackling this very broad region, and for keeping up the quality of the Subcontinental articles that have been lacking up until now. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
From what it appears to me, the former article is a fork of the latter. The Maratha clan system encompasses the 96 clans anyways. Furthermore, the former article was started as early as 16 January 2009. Merge is the answer, IMHO. Mspraveen (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Recognition of Khudabadi Script for Sindhi Language
"The Sindhi is an ancient language, over seventy percent of sindhi words are Sanskrit. The fact, that the sindhi is mostly written into Arabic script, gives some people, the impression that it is a Persio-Arabic tongue. Even 300 years, after the Arab conquest, at the time of Mohd. Ghaznavi, Al-Biruni, the historian, found the sindhi in three scripts – Ardhanagri, Saindhu and Malwari, all of, variations of Devnagri. When British arrived, they found, the Pandits writing sindhi in Devnagri, Hindu women were using Gurmukhi, Govt. Servants, some kind of Arabic script and traders keeping their business records in an entirely unknown script called Khudabadi (which was later known as Vaniki or Hatvaniki or Hatkai).
In this connection, it is to be noted that the Khudabadi Sonara Community, while residing in Khudabad, around 1750, felt it necessary to invent a very simple script so that they can send written messages to their relations, who were living far away from them in their own home towns. This necessity mothered the invention/creation of a new script. The new script had no vowels and no grammar and to be written from left to right (like Sanskrit) and continued to be in use for very long period of time among Khudabadi Sonara Community. Due to its simplicity, the use of this script spread very quickly and got acceptance in other sindhi communities, for sending written communications. Because it was originated from Khudabad, it was called Khudabadi script. The sindhi traders started maintaining their accounts and other business books in this new script and therefore, later, the Khudabadi script became known as Vaniki, Hatvaniki or Hatkai script. Suddenly, the knowledge of Khudabadi script became an important criterion for employing new persons who intend to go to Sindhwark (overseas), so that their business accounts and books can be kept secret from foreign people and government officials. Very soon, the Khudabadi Script became very popular, in Sindh, to the extent that the schools started teaching the Sindhi Language in Khudabadi script. The British scholars found the Sindhi Language Sanskritic and said that the Devnagri script would be suitable for it, which the govt. servants, many of whom were Hindus, favoured the Arabic script, since they did not know Devnagri and had to learn it anew. A big debate started, with Capt. Burton favouring the Arabic script and Capt. Stack favouring Devnagri. Sir Bartle Frere, the Commissioner of Sindh, then, referred the matter to the Court of Directors of British East India Company, which directed that:
1. The Sindhi Language in Arabic Script for govt. office use, on the ground that muslim names could not be written in Devnagri.
2. The Education Department should give the instructions to the schools in the script of sindhi which can meet the circumstance and prejudices of the Mohammadan and Hindu. It is thought necessary to have Arabic Sindhi Schools for Mohammadan where the Arabic Script will be employed for teaching and to have Hindu Sindhi Schools for Hindus where the Khudabadi Script will be employed for teaching.
It proves the important significance of Khudabadi Script of Sindhi Language. But Khudabadi (also known as Vaniki, Hatvaniki or Hatkai) script of sindhi language could not further progressed due to absence of vowels and grammar, but, it still remained limited to the traders only, who continued to maintain their business records in this script till partition, 1947.
July 1853, Sir Richard Burton, an orientalist, with the help of local scholars Munshi Thanwardas and Mirza Sadiq Ali Beg evolved a 52-Letter Sindhi Alphabet. Since, the Arabic script could not express Sindhi Sounds, a scheme of dots was worked out for the purpose. As a result, the Sindhi Script today, not only has all its own sounds, but, also all the four Z`s of Arabic.The present script predominantly used in Sindh as well as in many states in India and else, where migrants sindhi have settled, is Arabic in Naksh styles having fifty two alphabets. However, in some circles in India, Devnagri is used for writing sindhi. Government of India recognised both the scripts." www.sindhilanguage.com/script.html and many other sites confirm above fact. I am 68 years old and had been the president of Khudabadi Sindhi swarankar (Sonara) community for many years. I had a golden opportunity to be with my father, uncles and grandfather and gone with them to attend many social gatherings, meetings and functions. There had been always discussion about the origin and history of the community and Khudabadi Script for sindhi language. I totally agree with above facts that the Khudabadi Script was originated from the community and was later known as Hatkai, when it was mainly used by shopkeepers.The meaning of Hatkai is "for the Shopkeeper".
Himachal Govt gets into trouble after using wikipedia map
I came across this article in yesterdays TOI about the Himachal govt using the File:India_roadway_map.svg in the official govt diary and coming under fire for not showing pok as a part of India. While this is the fault of the govt for not checking the map before publication as it is a criminal offense to print and distribute such maps in India (as well as a violation the creative commons license), i want to know the legal standing for those of us creating these maps. While we can argue that our maps are factually correct and show the truth, as a residing citizen of india, we must make sure that we dont go on the wrong side of the law. I have been checking with online texts on the law governing maps and also consulting a journalist to be sure. from what i was able to gather, 2(2) of the THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1961 is the most definite thing i could find:
2. Questioning the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in a manner prejudicial to the interests of safety and security of India. (1) Whoever by words either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, questions the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in a manner which is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) 1 Whoever publishes a map of India, which is not in conformity with the maps of India as published by the Survey of India, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may be extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
(3) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sub- section (2), except on a complaint made by the Government.
but this only deals with publishing which i guess would refer to a hard copy. Ive gone through the IT act of 2000 and there doesnt seem to be anything mentioned about maps at all. More research on the matter is needed --PlaneMad|YakYak10:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If Indian wikipedians are afraid to work on/touch such a map on WP, you can always ask anyone not residing in India to do that. --Ragib (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
PlaneMad you are lucky that you live in India, a democratic country with lax laws and no censorship. If it was China...by now you would have been abducted from your house and "disappeared"!!! BTW, you should post this at this at the WP Community portal or Jimbo's talk page to get a wider perspective. This is a serious query which pertains to all Indian Wikipedians. --KnowledgeHegemonytalk09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
In law, the term "publication" retains its original meaning, namely, making something available to the public. It doesn't have to be in hard copy, putting something online can also be "publication." See e.g. S. 67 of the IT Act, which specifically talks about pornography "published in electronic form". So putting a map on a website is definitely "publication" for the purpose of Indian law. The fact that the servers where the publication takes place are outside India is unlikely to be much of a defence. I suppose the comfort lies in S. 2(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961, which requires a complaint by the Government - this, usually, means either the Central Government or a State Government. -- Arvind (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thats a bit of a dampner to hear, but i guess there is still hope. An official survey of India map of Kashmir looks like this, so the maps here actually have all the details of the official maps, in addition to more information. when i have not hid any detail that is available in an official map, how can it still be nonconformance? btw does anyone have any idea of what exactly an official map of kashmir looks like, with district details? what do they show on the pok side? --PlaneMad|YakYak17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... when I view the picture in its full size in Firefox or Seamonkey, the dotted line separating POK from Pakistan (and Aksai Chin from China) isn't shown - i.e., POK and Aksai Chin are shown as being part of Pakistan and China, respectively. I've just noticed that it displays fine in Opera, though. That issue apart, I think the issue will lie mainly in the colouring, which replicates the colouring for territories not part of India, rather than being the same shade as India. I'm not sure exactly what view a court will take, though - I don't think this issue has ever come up for trial before. -- Arvind (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The grounds for proposal - Not News - seems flimsy, unless there exists some portal that has same content from which these pages have been copied (with only change being that it has been wikified). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems this guy, Yousaf, has no other job than spewing anti-India hatred. While it would be most welcome if he could recommend an increase in Pakistan related FAs being featured on the main page, instead, Yousaf only wants a decrease in India-related FAs. -RavichandarMy coffee shop06:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I never claimed he did. And I feel it would have been better if he had requested more participation in improving Pakistan-related FAs than complaining about a pro-India bias. Patriotism could be beneficial only if it fosters constructive competition.-RavichandarMy coffee shop15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a very interesting discussion, atleast one place which shows a little extra about India, unlike most other places, especially transport related..
An Indian TV channel is running campaign to select 7 wonders of India. In the process they have short listed the wonders of each state. [5]. These are fantastic lists. We Indian wikipedians should create at least a stub on wikipedia for each of the wonders if none existed. I wish I could see each of these wonders one day. Shyamsunder (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Yousaf465 can add Pakistani allegations of Indian terrorism to the article, but the tone must be strictly neutral. After all Pakistan's allegations aren't supported by any country in the world, including the USA. Maybe we should mention that they are nothing more than false counter-allegations as none of them have proved to be true-RavichandarMy coffee shop11:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well,Your constant removal can't restore people killed by Indian sponsored wepaons back to life.That is a truth with which all have to live with.There is no point in hiding that. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 February 2009 UTC
Hi. I was looking at the page, and while it's locked, another user, Lahore 2009 and Anwarma are pushing more POV in the India section, with a similar MO to the other user. However, while India should be up there as there are some reliable sources saying that India state sponsers terrorism, they give India several section, and have written the entire thing POV style. I have just removed one of the more POV and non source sections, but the entire India section needs to be changed. For example, they use this source [10], and that doesn't mention anything about India sponsering them, so I'm going to remove it. I also wish to add that looks like all the countries need to be rewritten. While India is the most obvious of POV, all the other countries have POV in them, as there seems to be accusations, but not any summary of the country's response to the accusations. Deavenger (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Even Indian editors support this.This title is well sourced and whole article needs a clean-up.User:Yousaf465
Hmm no word on the fact the user who started this particular section is a banned user. Or that he is continually making edits and no calls to "watch" him. Perhaps its because he is of Indian origin rather than Pakistani and thus POV from this quarter is deemed acceptable. I do hope I can be disproved. Pahari Sahib08:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I have already told yousaf465. But the section about which countries are accused of sponsoring terrorism needs to be rewritten in a NPOV format. Right now, it's all accusations, and no responses from the actual country, or saying something like "India has been of sponsoring terrorism due to __________, however, the Indian government denies this and points to the fact that ________ (there's not enough evidence, no other country accepts this, IDK). One, India should be up there as Sri Lanka and Pakistan accuse India of sponsoring terrorism, and as long it's reliable sources, then it should be up there. Also, there are still plenty of other countries that are accused of sponsoring terrorism. I know India has accused Bangladesh a couple of times, Israel has been accused by it's neighbors, we need to find reliable sources, and add the countries in a NPOV manner. Lastly, we all need to get rid of worrying who's Pakistani and who's Indian. This is not a battleground, this is an encyclopedia. If we all are just going to be fighting nonstop, nothing is going to get accomplished. Deavenger (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Here Deavenger (talk) is right,even other countries such as USA,need to rewritten in order to make them according to NPOV policy.User:Yousaf465
This is not of ethnicity or nationality. Nobody objects adding anything encyclopedic , backed up by reliable references that are verifiable. What is objectionable is when somebody tries to repeatedly add POV stuff on plain hatred. -- TinuCherian - 04:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Your are completely missing the point agian.User:Yousaf465
I'm unsure if this is OR / vanity or is properly notable. I thought you chaps might be best placed to help. I've also dropped a line at the Alternative Medicine WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Xghostfacexx insists on adding obscene language and superflous text to the page claiming he is the original writer. Keeps reverting cleanup edits calling them vandalism, even after User:Alansohn reviewed and declared the edits to be otherwise. Links provided in article do not match up to the information they are linked to. User has been warned twice, he removed vandalism warnings from his talk page. Request third party opinion. I've kept the page as it is after his latest revert, my version was
thisAnish7 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
An Enthusiatic newbie with blurred idea of WP - Vipingoyal (talk·contribs·logs) has created the article Dhani and villages. Don't know what it is about? But the pictures seem original and encyclopedic. Can someone with knowledge of Rajasthani culture sort this article out and help Vipingoyal in his stay at Wikipedia. Cheers! --KnowledgeHegemonytalk11:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Was browsing articles about Indian ethnic groups, trying to neaten up the Category:Ethnic groups in India. I realised there was something called the "Criminal Tribes Act" which sounded fascinating but had no article. Found an entire book about it online, so got some basic info and formed a stub here: Criminal Tribes Act. If anyone has more sources, or wants to dig into the e-book I linked for more details, it's a pretty intriguing aspect of legal and colonial history. I already went through and put wikilinks in the 12+ articles mentioning the CTA, added it to the CTA disambig page, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, please go ahead. At the same time, please try to keep it neutral. The CTA is a controversial thing and it is alleged that India's British rulers controversially classed rebellious, unsubmissive communities as "criminal tribes".-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service07:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, whilst checking out "what links here" there were some other articles with extremely POV statements like "The British, themselves a criminal tribe from overseas, had the unmitigated gall to label..." etc. etc. India issues aren't my forte, but as an American with no bone to pick I like to dive into WP:INDIA articles and bring "fresh eyes" to POV issues. There appear to be a ton of sticky political and cultural issues on Indian subjects, which is pretty fascinating to me as an outsider. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If there are still issues over the next few days, please make a note here - I might propose a probation measure for the community to enforce; I'm suspecting this article will become a prime venue for POV pushing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking for advice on how to handle the spam queue
A lot of articles show up in the {{db-spam}} queue that are about Indian educational or community service organizations. I'd like to get some feedback from some editors living in India on how to handle these; is there some website or some kind of search that would help us decide which institutions are notable? Would it be best to just take them out of the queue (so they don't get deleted too quickly) and list them here when I need guidance? For instance, New article appearing on wikepedia has a link to un.org that mentions the subject favorably; is that important? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 11:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Somebody more knowledgeable should have a look at the contributions of User:Panthkhalsa -- the user is making several unsourced changes to Sikhism/India-related articles -- I'm not sure if these are correct. Here are a few articles:
One thing I would want to point out is that many of his edits are POV. Like saying the greatest sikh warrior, greatest sikh singer of all time, and this guys words are undisputable. Deavenger (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of that goddess. I did a quick google search, and it had no results for this goddess. I'm thinking it's a hoax, as I never heard of this goddess, and the page does not cite any sources. But let's see if anyone else knows about it. Deavenger (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Your reactions are obvious and natural, but the fact remains. It is just that the facts were hidden from the public purview. What we like to point out is that the geographical area of the state of Goa is wrongly mentioned. The territory of Goa comprises of Goa State territory, the forests and The Comunidades. The State of Goa has trespassed the territory of Comunidades illegally to a large extent. Comunidades (self governing communes) existed much before the formation of states and the constitution. You can check the facts. It will be criminal not to mention of Comunidades on wikipedia.
Kindly allow us to publish a separate article on 'The Comunidades of Goa'. With our comprehensive literature and references the ignorant can gain more insight on the Comunidades.
If you have any questions please talk to us, we shall help.
--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Show a reliable reference which states that these comunidades are not part of the state. Unless you can do that, what you are trying is simply POV-pushing.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Foral of Afonso Mexia (the Magna Carta), dated 16/09/1526
2. Government Official Gazette, dated 15/05/1958
3. Preamble of the Diploma Legislativo No.2070, dated 15/04/1961
4. Gomes, Olivinho J.F. 1996. Village Goa. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Ltd. pp. 325-358.
5. Pereira,R.Gomes, 1981, Goa, Volume II : Gaunkari: The Old Village Associations, Goa, Panaji
6. Souza de, Carmo. 2000. “ The village communities. A historical and legal perspective”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 111-124.
7. Adv. Andre A Pereira, 2007 “The Gaunkaries Of Goa” – A brief Legal synopsis of the Comunidades of Goa.
8. Kamat, Pratima. 2000. “Peasantry and the Colonial State”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 133-158.
9. Menezes de, António. 1978. Goa. Historical Notes. Panaji: Casa J.D. Fernandes.
The first three references relate to very important Government declarations which clearly states the legal jurisdictions of Goa and the Comunidades. The State of Goa trespassed into Comunidades illegally violating even the laws of 'The Constitution of India'. For your kind information the State of Goa is in a real soup for it has to first establish legality for itself for which it is battling out in the court. You may check the facts. More references are available at disposal.
Now kindly ask State of Goa to provide references that prove Comunidades form part of the state. Till then kindly mark information concerning Goa's territory as questionable.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Murga Punishment
Came across this surprising article titled - Murga Punishment!! Prevalent in schools in India and Pakistan, and something both children and adults of these two nations can relate with, and find common ground in! After all, we have more things in common than not! --Ekabhishek (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Why the change I made was not reflected properly?
I made the following changes on the page of Narendra Modi but it spoiled the real output shown on the content page. Any ways, I undid my changes, and hence, the content page is as it was previously. But I should appreciate a help from somebody who knows why the following changes spoiled the infobox on the content page. I wanted to add the information that he is the 14th Chief Minister of Gujarat and his term started on October 7, 2001. for that I visited help page and made changes properly, but it resulted in chaos. So, I undid the changes.
Do not link the dates, better to write in the format 1 January 2001. The error was because of [[ ]] mismatch.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
An article on Indian Communist revolutionary Vempatapu Satyanarayana started recently. I went in and categorised, wikified, removed POV terms like "martyred" and "comrade", put in the IndCom template, etc. However the article still needs some expert checking, and all the sources are from the CPI(ML) website. Anyone well-versed in Indian Communism who wants to help integrate this bio? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked it over, it's not. Hell, atleast he could use the Daw or Daily times. However, for wars between India and Pakistan, seeing how POV they can get, we should use academic sources only, possibly from a neutral country. Even if they aren't from a neutral country, there are plenty of academic sources within India and Pakistan for war history. They might be POV a bit, but they're for the most part otherwise reliable. Deavenger (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on a search of Wikipedia's articles, I've found some India-related articles that I believe are about places, and could usefully have geographical coordinates added.
...and there are many more, as well. At the time of posting this notice, there were 7,710 articles in this category needing geographical coordinates.
Why add coordinates?
By adding coordinates, a Wikipedia reader can easily view the location on a street map, nautical chart, topographic map, by satellite photo, realtime weather map, and in many other ways. Coordinate data makes an article eventually appear in various services such as Google Maps' Wikipedia overlay, Google Earth, and Wikipedia's own internal map service. Coordinate data also helps readers looking for geographically-based data, such as locations near a reference point, or related information.
This article is in need of some serious attention. Lot of weasel lines, opinions represented as facts, etc., For ex: Take a look at this non-sense that was removed.Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I dont know about Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. Do you deny that men dont publicly urinate in India or women urinating in public is not tolerated socially? which one? agree it can be better sourced.... --Docku:What's up?21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Bye guys!
In response to the below (moved here from my talk page, which I intend to delete)
I have finally made up my mind to quit as an editor...Why??? -- Well coz I no longer wish to edit and be part of this project ... no no... .not quite...actually to move on...to embark on a new journey (Whoa!??!) . Now I'll rather enjoy watching how WP develops by being an outsider/ onlooker/ observer... I must state that I am satisfied with my stay here and would like to bid farewell now. (Maybe, coz I wanna to catch up wid real life). In fact I overstayed here by coming back in a new avatar KnowledgeHegemonyPart2(talk·contribs·count) after the initial KnowledgeHegemony(talk·contribs·count). My experience here was fantastic and I am gonna miss everyone here! I'll really miss the friendly interactions and bon homie I encountered here. Best WishesNot that I won't visit Wikipedia again, will definitely visit it for reference work! Adiós! --KnowledgeHegemonytalk16:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I could very well understand your concerns and wish you all the best in the life. The departure of some of our foremost contributors is sure going to have a impact on WP:IN. Well, I guess many of our biggest contributors have left. And of those who remain, most are inactive or on breaks. I find it extremely difficult when the necessity of contacting an India-related admin arises. However, I fully understand the concerns of people who have left. After all, there is life outside Wikipedia too. And contributing here is enjoyable as long as it does not harm our personal lives. If contributing here does have a negative impact on our day-to-day activities and responsibilities, then it is certainly time for a rethink. It is really been great working with you KnowledgeHedgemony. Keep in touch.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service06:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Wish you all the best buddy. It leaves me a sad feeling when a good editor leaves the WP project especially from India. I hope the more and more people join us to fill up the voidness created by your departures... -- TinuCherian - 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, do consider making minor edits here and there. One never has to stop editing completely to catch up with real life. My two paise. :-) -- Sundar\talk \contribs18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This is my first edit in more than a month now, just to say - you were awesome buddy! Yes, real life is very important but we can spare some time from it to hang around with our fellow good editors. It would also be nice to help maintain the articles on which we work hard. Don't throw them on the mercy of others. Your absence would be felt a lot, just like Nichalp & Dwaipayanc. Best luck for your endeavors in RL. --GPPande19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
As you transcend Knowledge, best of luck for your onward journey. May you return as wisdom - A new avtar - which shall always be anticipated! To make a few more sand castles on the beach! --Ekabhishek (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a huge page. Even with very good internet service it takes for ever to load. Is there any way it can be split by catagory? Sumanch (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow! That is one huge list. I concur that the list needs to be broken up into more easily navigable sublists, but am not sure how to go about it, since the list is populated by WolterBot. Any suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ya can anyone create a bot to go through the page and split the contents properly? That will be something great and people will be actually read the content and clean up the damn problems. Sumanch (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I believe this list has now a potential to be an FL soon. Need comments/suggestions to understand what it may be lacking and what other improvements may be required. Please see here -- TinuCherian - 09:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Caste articles
Well, I wish to raise the issue about cleaning caste articles here. I've found some unpleasant interference by caste-welfare organisations in Wikipedia related articles. These individuals, seem to promote a one-sided view of their community and seem to boil at everything which they don't like to see here.
Especially, consider the example of this particular individual. He has been fairly polite but his claims of "protecting" this article for the Nadar sangham (a caste-welfare organisation) and declarations like the one below seem disturbing.
"You are not dealing with a single person here. You are dealing with a caste." ([14])
"My job is just to protect. I am actually a memeber of the nadar sagham(association) and come from a prominent nadar family."([15])
I doubt whether edits made by such individuals would be neutral. This is just one example. There are many similar people lurking around. I just feel it would be great if a few of our admins monitor these articles. After all, it would not look good if Wikipedia deteriorates to the level of becoming a propaganda-piece for some caste or the other or a battleground like some of the online forums. Thanks.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service14:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there are worser examples of caste-based POV pushing on the web. By the way, please have a look at Nadar article infobox images. Except for, probably W. P. A. Soundarapandian Nadar which might be PD due to its age, I suspect all other images are copyrighted. The uploader simply claims that he/she holds copyright because he/she had scanned them from photos he/she had in his/her possession. But then, the uploader does not mention anywhere whether the photos were taken by him/her or were picked up from some magazine or newspaper. If at all these photos were taken by the uploader, then why not upload a full-size image instead of 200 X 200 images or 300 X 300 images, etc-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Ladakh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. AshLin (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
collaboration revamp attempt
The Collaboration department seems to be on a standstill for now. Also, many of our regular members are inactive now. Plus, the standard of FA is too stringent now to meet a goal of making an FA out of one page in a week. So, I am proposing that we change the goal to 'making articles with B or below to reach GA level' as part of the collaboration effort. Does it sound good?--GDibyendu (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Could someone help fix up the article related to this AFD. I specifically need help in determining whether the parts he had in the films and soaps are significant enough and if anyone wants to help translate foreign sources to English to help dig up info that is appreciated too. - Mgm|(talk)08:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Muhammad Iqbal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The situation with Maratha clan pages (already a source of much peacock phrasing, POV violations, constant edit wars, etc) has gotten pretty ridiculous, with three articles covering the same topic existing in parallel. What's the best, decisive way to resolve the issue without it becoming an edit war of Marathis undoing #Redirects so they can go back to honing three parallel articles: Maratha clan system, Maratha 96k Clans, 96K? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. Marry the three articles into Maratha clan system as the most suitable name as per subject manner. Fetch the refs, etc from the other pages. Be prepared to fend off trolls. AshLin (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I support the merge too, and expect that you'll have to fight off POV pushers to implement it. Ask an admin to protect the redirects after the merge, to prevent recreation of the forks.
These clan articles, exhibit the same problem seen in the various caste articles (discussed above): there is a a dedicated band of editors from the caste/clan/community who are ready to "battle" over the article content, even against wikipedia policies, while most disinterested neutral editors are understandably unwilling to wade into the cesspool. Don't know how this perennial issue can be handled in the long-term ... Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Merged. This one was pretty much a no-brainer, and Maratha clan system was marginally more neutral and the most complete listing. The intro isn't bad, but the listings are an utter nightmare of poor formatting, random prideful trivia about how many cricket players and Army officers come from each clan, and "wall of text" listings of names with no notability given. The listings make all but zero sense to a non-Indian, and I'm curious as to whether it makes much sense even to Indians. As someone with no ties to India, I have no dog in this fight, other than trying to iron out really, really, really rough WP articles. I hope my neutrality on the actual historical/political issues is of some use. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Tomar Rajputs is chockful of non-notable people. I had placed a message on the talk page. Since I have very little lknowledge of Rajput communities, could I request someone to clean it up please. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Syed Ahmed Khan
I have nominated Syed Ahmed Khan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
While checking some text of an article in an AfD, I found that not only was it taken verbatim from a copyrighted source, it was found on another wikipedia page (Jalandhar). Instead of flagging the whole article for speedy deletion, I'm attempting to go through the article to remove the cpoyvio info. The problem is that the more I look, the more I find. I asked an admin what to do and he suggested stubbing the whole article. I'm going to continue to try and be surgical about my removals but I'd like to get some help from whoever can provid it. If you're looking for something to do, I could use your help. Thanks for your time. OlYellerTalktome23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Indian numbering system in articles?
While editing Tata Nano I noticed numbers were written in the Indian numbering system. At first I did not realise and I thought they were simple typos, but Talk:Tata Nano#Indian English suggests that the article should use that system. As a temporary measure I have added a crude ref-note to the first few numbers to warn the reader.
For example;
When launched in March 2009 the Nano was priced at 1,23,000 Rupees (123 thousand Rps[11]), ...
The system SHOULD BE USED IN ALL ARTICLES PERTAINING TO INDIA. As per WP:ENGVAR,
"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Thus, Wikipedia gives a valid reason to use the Indian numbering system. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to replace all numbers in articles like Tata Nano, Bangalore, et all.
--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
SInce I'm unable to verify anything in this article, I thought it would be better if some people able to search in other languages and scripts could check this out, before I decide to nominate this for deletion. Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This was in the db-copyvio speedy deletion queue. I removed the copyvio part, but the remainder is pretty slim, and someone may want to rewrite some of this. Feel free to take to AfD if you like. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this chap for real?
Bhai Trilochan Singh Panesar. This guy reads like a saint - philanthropist extraordinary. If this is true, it should be very notable. Unfortunately, I can't verify it at all. But not knowing much about parsing Indian names, or what sources are valid, I'm reluctant to afd. Can someone look at it? Perhaps either put some sources and clean up, or nominate it for deletion if it is rubbish.--Scott Mac (Doc)21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
While I don't doubt he's a saint, and a good man, it doesn't seem like he's very notable. The only other page I found was this [21], and it's pretty much exactly the same. Personally, I think that it's not notable, but let's see what other members say. Deavenger (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
My Bad. I didn't notice that. While he might be a great man, I think it's non notable, and it was created by someone who might be close to the saint. I'll wait for some other members who might have heard about him in India. Deavenger (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I do know this gentleman. He's my friend's father. And he actually is a saintly person who actually does all these things, at least most of them. Unfortunately, to be 'notable' you have to have a media presence and unless this gentleman runs away with the collections (just joking) he wont be in the limelight. Thank God for people like him still being around, but unless we find something in the press or internet, he is not notable as per WP criteria. AshLin (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In that case, we should be able to find non-English language sources and it doesnt have to be online. what do u mean by "and he actually is a saintly person who actually does all these things, at least most of them."--Docku:What's up?15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Poor English? I unconsciously reverted to how we speak here in normal lfe. Well, I can personally vouch for some of the things Bhai Trilochan Singh did; feeding the poor and giving medicines I know about right from 1987 onwards. I cant vouch for the stray dog milk, bajra for birds, the newsletter and the latest activities mentioned in the article, but it sounds like just what he would do. He had spent his life savings long before on feeding the poor. When he is starvd of funds, he says that everyday God will provide the funds, and lo and behold, some philanthropher comes forth! His hearth has never been cold one single day! This gentleman personifies the 'service' or 'seva' aspect of Sikhism. Since I am definitely POV here, I'll stay out of this article and its decisions. If I find references, I 'll add them. AshLin (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
if that's so, I should wish to meet him next time I go to Delhi. It's not often you can meet an actual saint like him. Deavenger (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The article does cite this column by Khushwant Singh in The Tribune (also reprinted in The Telegraph (Calcutta), which verifies many of the details. Note that that articles call him Tarlochan Singh/ Sant Tarlochan Singh. Finding sources may be complicated due to the variation in name and possible lack of coverage in English media - but should be worth the effort. Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads-up for those interested, though I may wander back in a week or so to chip away at it (most busy now): the article Thugeee is quite lengthy while imparting very little content, bringing up some huge issues without really resolving them or properly citing the controversy (whether "Thug cults" was British alarmism over common basic crime). Further it builds up mystique rather than explain actual practices, and has scads of speculation and OR (musing on comparison to the Mafia, trying to guess what material/colour the thugee's strangling cords were). I'd say this article has deteriorated in quality over time and needs an aggressive jab to get it back on track. Going now to do at least a little bit myself so I'm not just whining, but would greatly welcome help from folks informed on the subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Category question
This is technically a question about category organization, but I figure people here could answer the question more quickly. Is there a reason that Category:Indian family namesand {{ccl|Indian surnames} both exist? The former is a subcategory of the latter, and moreover claims to be a list of surnames. I cannot see that there is a distinction between the two categories, and presumably all the entries in the former could be folded into the latter. But perhaps there is a distinction which I don't see... Thanks! -- Deville (Talk) 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It does not seem that all those who responded were Bengalis (assuming that if people who want to hide their identity, will choose some obscure names rather than choosing common names from another region). A lot of people think that Ganguly was the best captain that India ever had (not all of them are Bengalis). Personally, I think that Buchanan's move is not bad, it can be an additional incentive, unless it is decided beforehand who all can be captain. Also, it will be interesting to see how others can lead the same team, for example Ponting.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(also posted to the article's talk page) There seems to be some disagreement as to who exactly wrote the words to this song. According to the Tribune, it was Abid Ali. According to Rediff, it was "jointly done by Netaji and his close confidantes Abid Hasan, Mumtaz Hussain and Bhonsle." Fay's The Forgotten Army discusses the song (and I've used it to add some background on the song's history), but it doesn't say who wrote the words. I'd be grateful for any insight which anyone as to which of the two newspapers is correct. -- Arvind (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In Descriptive chess notation, there is a table purporting to give the names and standard abbreviations of chess pieces in various languages (including Hindi). I'm suspicious of the info currently shown in this table for Hindi and would like to ask some knowledgeable person to go check it. Not only are the Hindi names shown in Latin transcription (instead of in Devanagari), but the supposed Hindi abbreviations shown for the names of the pieces are the initial letters of the Latin transcriptions of the Hindi names (e.g., the Hindi name/abbreviation for the chess knight is shown as "G ghoda"). I would (naïvely?) assume that in Hindi chess literature, any abbreviations for the pieces would most likely be based on the Devanagari representations of the names — and that if Latin letters are used for this purpose at all, they would more likely be abbreviations of the English piece names (given the widespread familiarity with English amongst educated people in India). Thanks in advance for any help that anyone here can provide — either to correct what is currently in this article, or else to confirm that the existing material is correct as it stands. Richwales (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The Hindi names of the chess pieces are correct, and here is their transliteration in Devanagiri and IAST (which is a lossless transliteration scheme for many Indic scripts):
Pawn pyādā (trans. infantryman) प्यादा or mohrā (मोहरा)
Chess śatraṃjशतरंज
Check śahशह
Checkmate mātमात or kiśtकिश्त
Note that mohrā (मोहरा) can also refer to any chess piece. There are also some other alternative terms that are used in Hindustani/Urdu, such as śāh (शाह) for king; pharzī (फ़रज़ी) for Queen; rukh (रुख़) for Rook, that I have left out in the above list.
I don't know what abbreviations are used for Chess notation in Hindi. Hopefully somebody else will know that; and also will double-check my IASTization Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC) (A trans. error corrected Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
"Bishop" should IAST-ise as ūṃṭ, not ūṃṭh. ALSO, at some stage we need to really decide whether to use IAST or ISO 15919 for transliterating Hindi. IAST does not distinguish between ड़ and ड, for example - it doesn't need to, since the former doesn't exist in Sanskrit. This creates issues when it's used for Hindi - the transliteration for "knight" above could represent either घोड़ा or घोडा in Devanagari. We should be more accurate than that on Wikipedia. -- Arvind (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction Arvind; the ūṃṭh was my error.
You are right that ISO 15919 may be preferable to IAST, especially for Hindi; I didn't realize that it had a symbol for ड़! Do you know if it, or any other transliteration system, has a symbol for ज़ ? I used z in vazīr, but that is not truly IAST compliant. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
ISO 15919 uses z for ज़ (in Devanagari only - Bengali distinguishes between the various Perso-Arabic voiced sibilants, so ISO 15919 uses a range of different diacritics (ż, ž, and so on) when transliterating Bengali). I quite like ISO 15919, actually - it even covers relatively obscure characters like व़ (w), ग़ (ġ) and त़ (t̤). My own preference would be to use IAST for transliteration of Brahmi-derived scripts only when the language we're dealing with is Old Indo-Aryan & Middle Indo-Aryan, and to use ISO 15919 otherwise. -- Arvind (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The nomination was withdrawn, though the article needs more then a single sentence. Someone needs to translate the Talamana page (if there is one) from the Hindi wikipedia. Deavenger (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
COTW
Some of us are trying to revive COTW. As many of our prolific editors (read 'strong individual contributors') have left recently, this is one thing we can do collectively to improve articles as necessary: through collaboration. Please vote and nominate. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have some suggestions to revive the COTW:
Change it to Collaborations of the Month (COTM).
Pick 5 articles from different areas of interest for collaboration. This will interest more people to participate.
Have people nominate any number of articles in sections seperated by areas of interest (allow others to add comments to the nomination). The coordinator will pick a random 5 each month (no voting is needed).
Provide a page in the COTM for participants to add notes on the updates they did to the article (Edit summaries in history are not readily visible). This will provide the motivation for participation and a discussion area.
I like the COTM idea. I'm not sure if 5 articles is a good idea though because the collaboration won't be focused enough but I'm ok with giving it a try. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I also support the COTM idea. However, let it be a 'maximum 5' (can be 2 or 3, depending on # of nominations).--GDibyendu (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
it is an excellent idea. While, i may end up spending all my time here in wikipedia, even a minor commitment would make me feel like my freedom is taken away. I may chime in, but not commit. again, a great idea. --Docku:What's up?16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see the positive responses. I agree with GDibyendu's suggestion of setting a maxium of 5; the number of articles picked can be left to coordinator's descretion (based on the number of nominations received). I came up with the following areas of interest (based on active workgroups):
Please start the COTM, with 5 max limit. Please consult some admin (you can help, Ganesh)how to archive the present COTW page, if needed.
India-related FACs have become rare nowadays. Adiitionally, many India FAs are facing reviews. Hope COTM will be able to generate some FAs. In fact, some recently dethroned FAs can be listed in the COTM for revival. And FAs that are on FAR can also be included, so that those can be retained. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
TOI have done it again, this time they used my pic of File:Taj_Mahal_Palace_Hotel_at_night.jpg in the front page of all their SundayTOI edition without any attribution. Thats over 2 million copies throughout the country. does anyone have the emailid of the editor, or know someone in the paper so that i can take the matter up? This has happened to me on numerous occaisions with almost all newspapers but i thought it was too small to follow up, but this time im really fed up with the attitude of the media. Im sure a lot of commons images are used by violating the sharealike license and i propose a template/category for these images that prominently show by which organisation it was stolen. its only untill their brand name gets damaged do companies in india take notice. can someone help out by editing commons:Template:Published to include one more parameter legal=yes/no that will change the styling depending on the legality of its use --PlaneMad|YakYak05:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You released it under this "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".--yousaf46506:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
@Yousaf465, releasing something under GFDL does not make it public domain. Attribution is not optional, but required. If TOI has used the photo without attribution, it is breaking copyright, and under Indian Copyright Act, that is a breach of law. --Ragib (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think that they have used your photograph. If another guy takes the photograph from same angle, it will look the same, isn't it?--GDibyendu (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that it is the same photograph: compare the windows that are lit.
Incidentally, GFDL makes it practically impossible for print publications to legally use the photograph, since besides attribution they are required to quote the multi-page GFDL license. However Planemad's photograph was also licensed under CC_BY_SA, which makes reuse easier (although I wonder how the "share-alike" part is to be interpreted ? Is the whole Sunday TOI issue now a derivative product, that we can use freely ? :)). See GFDL (especially the Burdens when printing and Enforcement sections) and linked articles. Abecedare (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Does Indian copyright act have provisions for Cease and Desist letters? In the USA, usually a mention of the C&D letter does wonders in such copyvio incidents :). --Ragib (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we come up with a letter template here and each of us personally send it out to the editor? I hope that way we will get noticed. We can do this each time a copyright infringement happens. Comments? Regards, Ganeshk(talk)20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
They've also used this file without complying with the terms of its license. I was annoyed enough about that to give their legal department a call, but they're excellent at stonewalling. This is pretty standard for the ToI anyway - they seem to treat anything on the internet as fair game, and there's not much that can be done about it unless someone's willing to spend a huge amount of time following up. -- Arvind (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio taggings
Yesterday, User:Jayantanth has tagged about a dozen images uploaded by User:Kumarrajendran for deletion. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 6#File:Jjj.jpg. It appears that User:Kumarrajendran is a grandson of film actor and politician M. G. Ramachandran and from what he appears to claim, these images are all from his personal collection. The uploader is not a regular at Wikipedia and is not aware of the project's functioning and discussion processes. So, I request someone to negotiate with him and obtain details to this regard. Now some of the images that User:Kumarrajendran are highly valuable to the project and their deletion would affect us a great deal. Thanks-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at this. The abundance of images relating to MGR, Janaki Ramachandran and some past and present film stars and politicians of TN seems to lend credence to this claim. The images are very valuable and irreplaceable. Now think of it. Would it be possible for any one of us to upload a PD-image of J. Jayalalithaa, Kamal Hassan, or other important politicians and film stars.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that the editor had created an article on his mother (MGR's niece/adopted daughter) which was deleted per Notability/COI/BLP. I had done some digging at that time to try and establish notability and the results and links to the related newspaper articles are at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latha_Rajendran. I won't repeat them here out of BLP concerns, but may be worth reading. Abecedare (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
With general elections around the corner, it will be great if regular contributors add some of the national and regional parties to their Watchlists, to ensure WP:NPOV. I'm going to start doing this myself, but being only semi-active on Wikipedia these days, any help from regular contributors will be great. Thanks AreJay (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Just did a bunch of basic Wiki cleanup on Bhoite. I think I've taken it about 90% as far as it can go without someone knowledgeable on Maratha issues taking a shot at it. Had to remove a ton of unencyclopedic assertions "96K is supremest of all royal houses!", correct "Bhoite's" to "Bhoites" everywhere, etc. I think the whole thing is a ton more legible now. The current problem is that I have zero idea what assertions are really ahistoric, just puffery to make Bhoites look better (major CoI issues), etc. Half the intro is spent on just listing "titles" associated with Bhoites, but I've left that because I have no idea if that's notable in Indian culture. Again, I'm a non-Indian who just likes editing for clarity, and have no dog in this fight. I think the article could be greatly improved by a more expert eye. If it goes well, I'd be interested in doing the technical cleanup of more articles by the (very prolific but very non-Wiki) creator of this one, if there are experts willing to do the detail work after I slog through the basici wikifying. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of other territories of india - The Comunidades of Goa
Your reactions are obvious and natural, but the fact remains. It is just that the facts were hidden from the public purview. What we like to point out is that the geographical area of the state of Goa is wrongly mentioned. The territory of Goa comprises of Goa State territory, the forests and The Comunidades. The State of Goa has trespassed the territory of Comunidades illegally to a large extent. Comunidades (self governing communes) existed much before the formation of states and the constitution. You can check the facts. It will be criminal not to mention of Comunidades on wikipedia.
Kindly allow us to publish a separate article on 'The Comunidades of Goa'. With our comprehensive literature and references the ignorant can gain more insight on the Comunidades.
If you have any questions please talk to us, we shall help.
--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Show a reliable reference which states that these comunidades are not part of the state. Unless you can do that, what you are trying is simply POV-pushing.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Foral of Afonso Mexia (the Magna Carta), dated 16/09/1526
2. Government Official Gazette, dated 15/05/1958
3. Preamble of the Diploma Legislativo No.2070, dated 15/04/1961
4. Gomes, Olivinho J.F. 1996. Village Goa. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Ltd. pp. 325-358.
5. Pereira,R.Gomes, 1981, Goa, Volume II : Gaunkari: The Old Village Associations, Goa, Panaji
6. Souza de, Carmo. 2000. “ The village communities. A historical and legal perspective”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 111-124.
7. Adv. Andre A Pereira, 2007 “The Gaunkaries Of Goa” – A brief Legal synopsis of the Comunidades of Goa.
8. Kamat, Pratima. 2000. “Peasantry and the Colonial State”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 133-158.
9. Menezes de, António. 1978. Goa. Historical Notes. Panaji: Casa J.D. Fernandes.
The first three references relate to very important Government declarations which clearly states the legal jurisdictions of Goa and the Comunidades. The State of Goa trespassed into Comunidades illegally violating even the laws of 'The Constitution of India'. For your kind information the State of Goa is in a real soup for it has to first establish legality for itself for which it is battling out in the court. You may check the facts. More references are available at disposal.
Now kindly ask State of Goa to provide references that prove Comunidades form part of the state. Till then kindly mark information concerning Goa's territory as questionable.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems like you have suitable references. Go ahead with the article but be balanced and keep it in reasonable length. Don't troll war at Goa aside from a short mention and 'see also' reference to the comunidades. AshLin (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody can deny that Comunidades exist, but if someone wants to establish that 'some part of Goa belongs to communidades and NOT to State Government of Goa', that is a clean case of POV-pushing. There is no point in providing 400-year old reference for that. If Gaunkaris want to fight with Government, they should move to Court, Wikipedia is not the right place for that purpose.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with GDibyendu. The Comunidades (also known as gaunkaris/gaonkaris) article can be expanded based on the listed sources and others; but care should be taken to comply with NPOV, not make redflag or soapboxy claims, and use primary and secondary sources appropriately.
Aside: This unpublished article (pages 4-15), although not usable as a source yet since it is in draft form, provides some useful background information on the topic. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanking you all for considering our request and permitting us to write a comprehensive article on 'The Comunidades Of Goa'. We will start with the article but may need your help now-and-then for editing. Kindly edit 'India' page and create a link 'The Comunidades Of Goa' under 'OTHER TERRIRORIES OF INDIA'. By the way there is no need for us to troll war or fight this way because our battle is already ON in the court. We just want to create awareness among public at large.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you did not get it clearly, (1) nobody here supported your claim that the comunidades of India can be considered a separate Indian territory outside the state of Goa, (2) WP is not for creating awareness for your battle, any such attempt will be summarily reverted, and (3) given that the article comunidade exist on this topic, any attempt to create another article on the same topic will surely be thwarted as a POV-fork. Having said that, if you can establish your claim by winning the court case, we'll update information appropriately.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
My dear friends, I thought WP was a information website. Now I Know I was so wrong! All I want to tell the world is that Goa is a territory, comprising of the Comunidades, formed by the comunidades (B.C. 400), having it's own Constitution (Code Of Comunidades), local self governance, judiciary and jurisdiction, independent of the State and the Constitution of India. What I am also trying to point out is that most of the matter on WP:Goa lacks credibility, basis, and is incorrect and needs to be rectified immediately. All that is on WP:Goa (except the legislature) has more relevance to Comunidades than to the State of Goa. The following is only for your information (not to create awareness on WP or to fight with State, because we too know these type of arguments have no place on WP); The State of Goa has trespassed into the Comunidades and has no legal standing as far as Constitutional laws (to form a state) are concerned, because then the Comunidades were already in existence.The Comunidades don't have to prove anything, it is the State that is trying to prove everything in vain. On the basis of above we feel WP:Comunidades should have equal opportunity on WP. I further suggest you to collect all resources and references that are true and credible before you post anything on WP. We hope you understand. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"Why is WIKI so slow"? Can you clarify - is the software slow? Or is the community slow in responding to you?
With respect to your view, in case it has not been clarified earlier, I would like to add something with an example. There could be lot of people who believe that the Taj Mahal is an old Hindu temple (see Myths about Taj Mahal). Look at it from the view point of someone who believes in his heart true, while the consensus among the majority is documented in 1000s of reliable sources (or if we want to be cynical, what the majority has decided to be reliable).
The article on Taj Mahal gives "appropriate" weightage to this view. Similarly appropriate weightage could be given (not a 50-50 weightage of Communidades vs State of Goa) by whatever is found in Reliable Sources that is acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Hope the example gives an idea of weightage that should be given to your view. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My dear friends, I am precisely trying to tell you that. If people wear green goggles and look at you, will it mean you are green? If the State hides the fact from you does it change the fact? Why don't you understand. This is the very reason I want people to know about the existence of Comunidades. Is this not the reason why Wikipedia is born? After having given all references what are you now arguing about? Do you need the most authentic proof? Then you need to come down to Goa and find for yourselves. The Govt. of Goa does not have enough land even to stand. When it needs land it requests and pleads the Comunidades to grant some. You can have a million proofs of that. The Govt. of Goa is at the mercy of the Comunidades. My objection is on the geographical area of Goa State which is erroneously entered on WP:GOA , please rectify it immediately rather than making a issue out of it. Also, thank me for bringing this important fact to your notice otherwise you would continue to be ignorant as ever.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope the following news articles might open your eyes;
May I know what is taking you guys so long to decide? Let me make myself very clear. The topic on Comunidades shall not be restricted to a small article that it is now, because Comunidades are geographical territories of India and a page similar to Wp:Goa or WP:Daman_Diu should be designed for Comunidades with comprensive information added. We need equal weightage if not more.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The geographical area of Goa state has nothing to do with whether or not the Government of Goa owns the land or not. The links you've provided (yes, I've checked every single one) at best suggest that the Comunidades hold allodial title over their land. That's great, but it still doesn't mean they're not part of the territory of Goa. They're not State-owned lands, but that's something completely different. -- Arvind (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friend, I know you are confused on the concept of territory, I will explain. Comunidades are very much a part of the territory of Goa, but not part of the State. Please do not confuse between the State of Goa(part territory of Goa) and the territory of Goa (whole territory called as 'Goa'). Illustration; Suppose there is a village with two landlords. You and I are the landlords having clear demarcations. The area within the boundry of the village becomes the Territory of the village. Here the village is Goa, you are the State(landlord), and I am the Communidades(landlord). Both cannot exist under one umbrella because both have different Constitutions (laws), governance styles, jurisdictions, and work independently, and are thus separate entities. I guess my efforts have solved your confusion. Now please, let the Cominidades have their rights on Wikipedia. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, the sources you've provided only say that the State Government of Goa does not own the land that is owned by the Comunidades. They do not say that the land owned by the Comunidades is not part of the State of Goa. Land does not have to be owned by a state government to be part of a state. You'll need to produce reliable, academic, peer-reviewed sources which say that the land owned by the Comunidades is not part of the State of Goa if you want Wikipedia to say that. -- Arvind (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Arvind, there you are, it is a Constitutional obligation for any State to obtain land ownership titles (proprietorship titles) or to sign land tenure contract with the absolute owners of land (in this case the Comunidades) if it has to make the land part of the State. So by simple logic, when State does not own land of Comunidades, how can the land/Comunidades be part of the State? You can consult a Constitutional lawyer for your satisfaction. I personally request you read all relevant sources thoroughly and also not to make any statements without knowledge. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with the Constitution of India, thank you. Perhaps you could cite the article of the Constitution of India which requires a State Government to "own" or have "tenure" over all land that forms part of it? No author of any treatise of the Constitution of India seems to be aware of such a requirement, but it should be quite easy for you to cite the relevant article if it really exists.
Once again, what you're talking about concerns title to land, not its incorporation within a State. There is, as I've said before, a huge difference between land being part of a State and being owned by a State government. Nobody's suggesting the Goan state government owns the land of the Comunidades. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether the land is part of the State of Goa or not. State governments do not "own" all land within their territories, nor do they have to. The principle that the State must be the ultimate holder of allodial title of all lands comprised within it - which, ultimately, is what your argument boils down to - does not, and never has, formed part of Indian law. Any jurist who knows anything about the theoretical basis of legal estates in land in India will be able to tell you this. -- Arvind (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear friend, You seem to be familiar with law. But you are overlooking something else. There are two things here, land ownership and Constitution (law). Comunidades just cannot be part of State simply because Comunidades have their own Constitution(Law), and the Constitution of India clearly states that no Constitution(law) can be superceded that was in existence before the formation of a new State. So how can both State and Comunidades having different Constitutions, Judiciary, and jurisdictions be a part of one entity? This is another very important Constitutional obligation, because had this not been mentioned than any State would trespass into any other territory/State. Your point is only valid in such cases where territories/private landowners had no Constitutions/Laws of their own. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Constitution lets Parliament alter the boundaries of any state as it wishes. And, in point of fact, most princely states were dismembered after accession, in many cases against the wishes of their rulers. In the case of Goa, when Goa was admitted to the Union, the Government created a new Union Territory which included all of Goa (see the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Act, 1962) - not just the territory of the erstwhile Portuguese administration, but all of Goa. As you've yourself admitted, the Comunidades are part of Goa. So, even if the Portuguese did treat the areas administered by the Comunidades and the areas administered directly as part of the overseas department as two distinct entities, the Constitution did not. All of Goa was incorporated into the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, and all of Goa was then hived off into the present state of Goa. As a result, Schedule I to the Constitution recognises only the State of Goa, whose territories include all of Goa. -- Arvind (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In India, states don't necessarily hold allodial title. Legal estates and title in land is a lot more mixed than that. -- Arvind (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Arvind, you are again making a basic mistake. The laws you are referring to are the Constitutional laws of India not applicable to Comunidades. Comunidades are independent of the State/Constitional laws because the Comunidades and it's Constitution/law/legislature were in existence prior to the formation of India and it's State. No newly formed Constitution/law (in this case Constitution of India)can supercede or impose on existing laws of the any land (UN/International Declarations). So Comunidades become separate entities, separate independent territories which can form into a separate state or country, if need be. Presently the obligations/relations of the Comunidades to/with the State/India is only limited to the administrative services provided by the State/India to the Comunidades which at any point of time may be terminated if Comunidades so wish. The absolute ownership titles Comunidades hold are much powerful than the Allodial titles you mentioned. --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying the Comunidades are not bound by the Constitution of India? That's quite a claim - and, in my opinion, it's a position that is quite contrary to both the standard interpretation of the Indian constitution, and the rules of international law relating to acquisition of territory by conquest. Be that as it may, if you want your claim to be taken seriously, you'll need to find a reliable source which expressly says that the Constitution of India does not apply to the Comunidades, and we'll take it from there. I'll warn you that in my view, you're extremely unlikely to find a source that meets Wikipedia's policies / guidelines on reliable sources and citing exceptional claims. -- Arvind (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a short discussion on the concept of 'sovereignity'[22] might help.
STATE TERRITORY: State territory is that defined portion of the surface of the globe which is subjected to the sovereignty of a State. International law recognises the supreme authority of every State within its territory, this is known as ‘territorial sovereignty’.
THE ACQUISITION OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER TERRITORY(TITLE TO TERRITORY): There are five traditional modes of acquisition of sovereignty over territory: (1) occupation; (2) prescription; (3) cession; (4) conquest; and (5) accretion.
OCCUPATION is the intentional acquisition by a
State of sovereignty over a territory which is at
the time not under the sovereignty of another
State (terra nullius means belonging to no one).
PRESCRIPTION can be defined as “the peaceful
and continuous exercise of the State authority
for a long period over territory subject to the
sovereignty of another”.
CONQUEST AND ANNEXATION, this was the law in the past. In the 20th century, as a result of the provisions of the Pact
of Paris of 1928 and the UN Charter, international law restricts the right of States to go to war (India is a party to the pact [23]).
The war between Portugal and India was declared illegal by the United Nations.[24][22]
CESSION is the transfer of territory, usually by
treaty, from one State to another. The situation
is rather like the transfer of property in municipal
law. Therefore, there may sometimes be
exchange of territory. The treaty signed between Portugal and India bears no importance because Portugal neither had Sovereignity title nor owned any real property of the Comunidades as per the treaty signed with the Comunidades(only administrative services were provided by the portuguese)[23][24][25]
ACCRETION AND AVULSION. A State may also attain sovereignty over
new land as a result of natural forces. This
may happen slowly (accretion), for
example, by the gradual movement of a
river bed or suddenly (avulsion), for
example, by the creation of an island in
territorial waters by volcanic action.
[25].
None of the above modes are applicable to Comunidades because Comunidades were independent sovereign territories.
Hence the Constitution of India cannot be applicable.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The Portuguese government claimed sovereignty over the Comunidades. They may have given them title over land, but they were always treated as a territory of Portugal subject to the power of the Portuguese state, as evidenced by, for example, the enactment of the Código das Comunidades. They were had sovereignty in any sense recognised by international law. India annexed the territories of Goa formerly held by the Portuguese, including the Comunidades. -- Arvind (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For the purposes of Wikipedia, it should have nothing to do with whether we're Indian citizens or not. In articles on Kashmir, for example, we formally mark the disputed status of the territory and the fact that part of it is controlled by Pakistan, even though that contradicts India's position. That really isn't the issue here. The real problem is that he is pushing a particular point of view in relation to the nature of India's sovereignty over Goa which contradicts the standard understanding. As such, it isn't something we can include on Wikipedia. Plain and simple. -- Arvind (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have already tried talking from that point of view: that Wikipedia is encyclopedia and it discussess about establshed facts, it is not the place for claiming lands. If it is proved in courts that comunidades are not part of Goa, there is no point ignoring that fact in Wikipedia. Till it is proved, there is no point in arguing about it. I don't think this is comparable to Kashmir map, India claims the whole of Kashmir as its land, but at the same time it does not make the false claim that it has control over the whole land. And, there is no reason for Wikipedia not to acknowledge the actual controls. What our friend is looking for is support from members of WP India so that he can make subprojects and articles for comunidades etc. His attempt to create one such article was wiped away in AFD. From that, it seemed that he is claiming it to be part of India, but not part of Goa. Now, he claims that constitution of India is also not applicable in comunidades. So, there you go!--GDibyendu (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You guys are committing blunders over and again. I have never said Comunidades are part of India, but when I say 'located within the territories of India/Goa' is only to give you a fair idea of the location of Comunidades. Now, your justifications are valid and applicable when they concern the territories outside the Comunidades. Comunidades always signed treaties/pacts with their rulers (i.e. kings or Portugal) and never gave any rights to titles, except allowed administrative tutelage (guardianship). A guardian cannot own or assume any titles. So the Indian conquest of Goa through force does not allow India any titles or claims on the Comunidades. In the present scenario, India can act only as a Guardian to the Comunidades until it establishes it's legal soverignity over the territory of Comunidades, through legal modes available, if any. But don't create blunders on wikipedia, that is the whole point. But by now through our many discussions you have come to know a lot about the Comunidades and it's existence, now it is time for the world to know about Comunidades since it is a piece of information which cannot be ignored/hidden. The present article wp:comunidade, though throws some light on the Comunidades, does not give comprehensive information/facts. Also the article has multiple issues as per wikipedia norms and needs to be rectified. I feel Gaunkars of Goa are more competent to do the needful.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to expand the article on the Comunidades with information from reliable sources. Your views on sovereignty and guardianship, however, are a classic example of what Wikipedia considers a fringe theory. If that's the type of view you want added to the article, I don't think you're going to have much joy. --Arvind (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I shall adhere to all wikipedia policies. It's when you tagged it as vandalism we had to take the discussion to this level. I am aware of the quality and contents wikipedia accepts. If you feel some content does not match wikipedia's norms, we can always discuss.--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone created a new article about this politician, who appears to be a candidate for state office. I'm not familiar enough with Indian government structure to figure out what office she is running for, but I found two references:
This seems to be a propaganda article on the eve of elections. Given that she has never been a member of parliament so far and also from the text of the article, notability is not established.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Missed this since I don't have have Upper cloth revolt watchlisted. I am not personally knowledgeable about the subject but have checked out some good sources on history of TN and Nadars in particular; will add from them as my reading progresses. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There are three sets of IPs, 122.164, 117.193 and 59.92. Before Bake1987(talk·contribs·count) was blocked, 59.92 IP hardly edited the article. Therefore, I believe 59.92 is Bake1987. blocking these guys is no use, unless rangeblock them.
Semi-protection is the way to go with this, per User:Abecedare. Rangeblocking based on network ID would be useless for regional articles such as this. If they assigned static IPs to everyone, we'd run out of addresses before you can say 192.168.0.0 :) AreJay (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have two questions regarding the blocking of IP addresses. If I am accessing from office, then probably some of my co-workers are also using the same IP (the IP of Proxy which is visible to external world). Now, if that IP gets blocked for editing in WP, I would still be able to login and do usual stuffs, is it correct or not? Another one: if I am using dynamic IP, does it matter if I am logging on all the time? Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. So, answer to my first question is that I'll get blocked. Second question was similar: basically what is problem in using DHCP (rather than static IP)? It follows from the answer to the first one: if the IP today was autoblocked as some user who used that IP was blocked, I'll get autoblocked. Hmmmm...--GDibyendu (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Whenever there is a discussion regarding an issue on Wikipedia, the article is kept in the original form until a decision has been made for changes to be implemented.
Despite my repeated requests to keep the Mumbai page as it is until there is a decision on the talk page, User:Adam.J.W.C. & User:Lalit Jagannath have kept edit warring with other editors and trying to add their own images without waiting for a consensus in the discussionon the talk page.
Many editors have been trying to keep the original page as it was until the changes they propose can be decided upon. But User:Adam.J.W.C. & User:Lalit Jagannath have kept reverting everyone and trying to add their own images even though there has been NO decision or consensus reached in the discussion.
User:Adam.J.W.C. added his own images, stating that it should be changed because "so far two people preffer this version."
I need to point out that some of these edits are not edit waring. The edit that I have listed below is not a revert of Abecadares verion. It looks as though he reverted something that an ip did and then in the next edit Lalit simply reformated the article.
In the next edit that I have listed below Nikkul states that I have reverted Ottre, this is simply not true, Ottre reverted Nikkul with a partial revert and in the next edit I changed a photo. So this is a false and misleading statement on Nikkuls behalf.
In the next edit that I have listed below Nikkul states that I am reverting Deavenger when in fact Deavenger reverted another editor, I then came in and undid Nikkuls disruptive edit and a push to use his own image
In this next edit that I have listed from Nikkuls false and misleading statements from above it looks as though the editor Hnsampat made a change of his own, I then in the next edit added the upright format to a few pics and deleted a couple that are not needed
Once again Nikkul has reverted a version preferred by at least two to three editors and stresses that those two editors are being disruptive when in fact it is he that is possibly being disruptive
I have been trying to clean up the Mumbai article and try to give it a new and refreshing look whilst also formatting to Wikipedia:Mos but every time I try to make the slightest of changes Nikkul comes along and reverts my edits and every other edit after it to get it back to his version. I think this has something to do with Nikkul owning most of the images in the article. Adam (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I also need to stress that since the 5th of March and more so since the 1st of April that the only edits [26] that Nikkul has made to and article (excluding talk pages and project pages) is to revert my edits and a few others in the Mumbai article. Adam (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, it is an outright lie that I own the images on the Mumbai page! Almost all the images are owned by Flickr users and other Wikipedia editors. The only image I "own" is the one in the Name section and that too is in the public domain!!!
Second of all, User:Adam has been making major edits to the article without discussing them! I have requested him many times to discuss it, but he has continued to ignore me. He has removed charts and other important images without any discussion. This is uncivil behavior! Nikkul (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Nikkul you own quite a few. You also have a sock called Indianhilbilly that is being used on commons. Even though they are from flickr you still favor them because you uploaded them. Also adding the upright format and changing a few photos here and there is not major editing, also other Indian editors did not object to what I was doing, you were the only one. I am just giving the article what you may call a poor photo removalist job. This has got nothing to do with pov in India on my behalf and I don't know about Monkey gate or Matt Hayden, I don't Nikkul knows anything about cricket anyway coming from the USA as stated on his userpage. Also Yellow Monkey do you think this is worth taking to Wikipedia:Featured article review. Adam (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No...I don't "own" any images on the Mumbai page except 1. And my username on Commons is Indianhilbilly...how is that a sock?
When you remove key charts and important images, you need to discuss that first before changing. You have not done this despite many requests. Stop being disruptive. Follow Wiki policy. Whenever there is a problem, it's always better to discuss on the talk page. How hard is this to understand? Nikkul (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Indian hillbilly is a sock puppet that you were once busted for using on this website. I have discussed my changes and you have already been told that you have not argued you case well enough in that discussion. It seems as though most people are in favor of removing the images in question or replacing them . Adam (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Cherthala
Hey, I'm not too good at assessing how good or how important a page is, so can someone who is more experienced assess the Cherthala page, as I'm going to start some work on it to try and get it to B or Good article class by July or August. Deavenger (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The article look much better than articles for most Indian taluks and small cities; but it would be difficult to bump it above Start class, mainly because it is almost completely unreferenced. Some suggestions on improving the article:
Reduce the emphasis on famous tourist spots, industries and personalities, and increase coverage on the place's history, geography, climate, culture, demographics, transport etc
More images and figures would help, but are not critical.
Add references!
Besides these, there are a few typographical errors and MOS issues (example, section headings should follow sentence case), but these issues are relatively minor in this article. Wish you success in getting it to GA! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'm hoping that my dad has stuff to help me on this, as he was born in Cherthala, and we go to Cherthala every year. Deavenger (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that if you are from south India you have heard of chinna jeeyar. I could not find an article on him or his life and would like to ask your help to start one. I had the opportunity to hear his lecture as a teenager and was impressed by his view of the world. Let me tell you that I don't believe in God before you jump to any conclusions. I believe in wiki being the fountain of information and was surprised to find nothing. Help me to start this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc27 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Before you start an article on him, you have to have serveral reliable non OR sources, as well as proving his notability. Otherwise, the article can be up for speedy deletion. Deavenger (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In the last couple of days Redheylin has removed many categories from articles. Some of them related to Indian classical music were on my watchlist and noticed these changes. In my opinion about 75% of the removals of categories is inappropriate / unwarranted. Hope some folks in this group can review and let us all know your views. NOTE: Granted that sometimes there is over-categorization, but does not warrant a whole scale removal of categories, to the extent that some of the articles are now part of just 1 category each.
Can someone take a look at a whole raft of similarly named articles, under WP:Requested Moves, and being moved around while at the same time being discussed?
Hey, small suggestion for when we do collaborations. For each collaboration article, we should have a to-do list to help users identify what each article needs to be GA or FA. Deavenger (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to add it. BTW, some of these articles have gone through peer review, FAR etc. where some shortcomings were noted which are not fixed yet. We can work on fixing those. Plus expansion, copyediting, referencing, improving supporting articles etc. are needed. For Geography of India, some maps need to be updated/corrected/replaced-by-svg etc. For some articles, reorganization of sections and references is needed. Lets discuss these things in INCOTM talk page or article talk pages.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen the term janau in a few articles online. Is that the same as Yajñopavītam or are the two different? If the same, I suggest a redirect. If different, an article would be great, and I can go dig up some stub info. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK those are just regional variations of the same ceremony, although there are possibly also variations in eligibility and rituals. Note that the article Yajñopavītam is just a cut-and-paste of a section from Upanayana, and perhaps should be directed back there. Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"janau" is probably a typo for "janeu" (Devanagari जनेऊ, janēū in ISO 15919 transliteration), which is the Hindi word for the sacred thread. Yajñopavītam is the Sanskrit name. Upanayana is the ceremony in which a child is invested with the sacred thread. I'm not sure if the article on the thread should redirect to the article on the ceremony as a permanent solution - I think both should properly have their own articles. But I'd be OK with a redirect for now, until someone takes the time to write a proper article on the thread. -- Arvind (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Dispute about Alexander the Great
A message has been posted on the talk page about Alexander the Great. I have reproduced it below. Unfortunately I don't have the sources to deal with this issue. Being unwell, I don't have the psychic energy either. Can any one help? Sorry in advance if this sort of request is against policy and I do not intend that we get into a Indo-Pak war either. User Wandalstouring is a worthy editor and I just hope she can get some help. Thanks in advance. AshLin (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a lengthy dispute here whether Alexander the Great did really enter India and did really win against Porus (Battle of the Hydaspes River. Unfortunately, we aren't that familiar with Indian historians and their opinions. Can you help us establish whether there are any relevant scientific opinions doubting this or whether it's about some nationalistic rambles? Feel free to invite other editors who might be able to help. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you guys do search on google, google books, or google scholar for some reliable non-OR sources looking on what Indian historians think of the Alexander the great. But I'm pretty sure Alexander won the battle, and became friends with Porus. He went on for a little while more before stopping. However, Porus lived in what is currently Pakistan. However, historians classify the area that is now India, Pakistan, Bangledash, and possibly Nepal. So in a way, he went to India, though I'm not sure if he went to modern day India as I don't know Alexander the Great that well. Deavenger (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This was brought to my attention only today. I am one of the parties to the 'dispute' and I believe there are others (including a Pakistani editor, namely, Akmal Makhdoom) who is arguing a position akin to mine. Some of them are not posting there at the moment because we arrived on the article at different times although holding somewhat similar positions. I see a nationalistic , passionate and ad hominem zeal on both sides on this issue. So just to accuse one party of a particular bias is not balanced. Alexander has been a symbol of Western (Greek, Macedonian, and what not) cultural nationalism/imperialism for a long time , to the extent that both Napolean and Hitler wanted to emulate his example as they understood it from Greco-Roman bards. So to regard the European editors totally free of an ingrained cultural bias and indocrination on the issue shows a lack of balance and some ignorance of the issue.
There is no point in airing personal opinons and theories about Alexander/Porus when Wikipedia has clear editorial policy for such issues. I definitely intend to work with those rules and thus can only welcome increased editorial scrutiny of this issue. Going forward the issue is not going to be of weight of one theory against the other but that of interpreting wikipedia notability guidelines. I encourage and welcome increased scrutiny of the issue. We will all learn from it as wikipedia editors. Thanks.--Internet Scholar (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Acts - how to name?
Okay, stupid question here.
Are Indian Acts formally titled as the "XYZ Act, 1950", or the "XYZ Act 1950"? I know that British ones are standard without the comma, but I seem to see both used for India. It'd be helpful to know when making redlinks! Shimgray | talk | 19:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The short title for Indian statutes is always given in the form "XYZ Act, 1972" with a comma separating the statute name from the year (this was also how English statutes were formally titled in the 19th century). The comma is frequently replaced with an "of" informal and informal speech, but article titles should follow the written form, not the spoken form. --Arvind (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
We have to do something so that more people volunteer. Question is what can we do? Should we arrange for meets where general public is also welcome? --GDibyendu (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Some haven't exactly retired...Mspraveen is just inactive due to RL committments - I heard words to that effect from him both on-wiki and off-wiki. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
we also have to hold on to potentially good new wikipedia editors who often shows up on some pages only to never return back. But, I dont know how... --Like ICare15:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's news to me too! And I have my fingers crossed that the other retired/inactive editors are just recharging their batteries. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, I think people in early half of the year are usually tied up due to office work. If you see 2008 also, contributions rose sharply in later half of the year. So may be those who have not officially retired might come back in second half of 2009. user:Kensplanet is an example. --GPPande11:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Nichalp is in a completely different league than someone like Dineshkannambadi who has been pushing borderline Hindu nationalist/Kannada nationalist edits in his recent FAs. None of the FA-related work that he has done since December of 2007 (when I became aware of his work) is worthy of praise. He stopped editing because during his last FAC review, it became clear that his jig was up, that the two sources he has been relentlessly pushing on Wikipedia (the Hindu nationalist historian Suryanatha Kamat and an little known historian of music, whose name I can't recall just now) wont pass muster any more. Some of his pages such as the bogus Kingdom of Mysore will have to be rewritten in their entirety. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
A user Ckatz who is an adminstrator is on a vindictive mode. She/he is continously removing any articles and reference associated with Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute [27] situated in Phaltan, Maharashtra. Articles that are published in reputed international journals are removed with the pretext that they are spam. An entry in Phaltan article by a genuine intern was also removed and that intern blocked. I think this is a very destructive behaviour and not good for Wikipedia where information should be available and has to be sourced.
At least Anil K. Rajvanshi may be notable enough for his work in rural development, for which he won the Jamnalal Bajaj Award. [29], [30], [31]
The two persons have been using sock accounts to spam wikipedia. See discussions here and here. I also think they have been astroturfing on the web, although this is hard to establish, and not an immediate concern for us.
I found, to my dismay, that several articles on the India project were using the above source as a reference, which seems to have POV issues, particularly in matters relating to the history of the sub-continent. Also, the WP article on the Encyclopædia mentions the fact that it has other issues of content reliability. Would it be a good idea to still use it on articles in the India project? Opinions and consensus solicited. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that when a POV is spotted, if other reliable sources found, such sources can be used. Otherwise, as it is.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we use it selectively for general purpose information but filter out any value judgements of that time. AshLin (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys 'n gals. I came across this article, which seems rather interesting but is blighted by a massive lack of sources. However as this isn't my area, all I can do is try to cut out some unnecessary text, re-write existing sections, etc. I would hope some of you, who have access to decent texts, could look to improve it. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
FAR on Mumbai
I have nominated Mumbai for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that there are a lot of wanted categories associated with this WikiProject. I'm happy to create these, but I wanted to make sure that they're really wanted. Here are some choice examples:
I guess these categories are not needed immediately. These fields like school, railways, religion etc. are used, so that if some people are interested to form a subproject under WP:India on these topics, then it will be easier to mark the articles that should be of interest for that subproject. But, then the exact name of required category will change.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure... And there was a discussion long before and some steps were taken... but not completed, reason not known. Of course, not all of above may be in that list. It is better for people to view that as well. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I know the reason. Basically, if at least some 4-5 people are not interested, for example, what is point in making a task group for Indian schools? A lot of people (and ip users) update their own school info etc., but a task group should try to improve all articles under that subproject. If people show interest, then such groups can be formed. But then these category names will be changed: no brackets will be there. Then, as categories cannot be moved and the old unused ones has to be deleted and all. That is what I tried to mean. For now, even though category page is not there, one can see the pages listed under that cat by clicking the red link. So, once such a project is formed, it won't cause a problem if these category pages are not created now (the info formed using the 'field' parameter can still be used to find out the articles which should be under the project for that particular field).--GDibyendu (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the situation. I'll leave these uncreated for now. I encourage the project to decide which task groups have adequate interest and then disable the remaining parameters. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
UK or US English for India-related topics?
Apologies is this has already been discussed, or discussed elsewhere.
Having browsed the article on Kerala (a featured article), I noted that it had been written in American English - which slightly surprised me as a UK malayali myself. Would UK English be more appropriate? It is the form of English used in India, and the form of English most appropriate to the country.
Should all India-related topics be written in UK English?
According to the Manual of Style, yes: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used." I'm personally a big fan of this quote from the same place: "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial." Priyanathtalk00:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Though id argue that some poor soul should convert all pages to Indian English for consistency (and get a star for it!) Macarism (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Just an aside - since Indian English is derived from British English, I think it would be a better idea to stick to Brit rather than American. BTW, Deavenger, feel free to contribute in American - one of us will gladly convert it for you. After all, isn't style incidental to substance? ;-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Indian English please, which is derived from English English (with our own nuances, of course), then that's what we should follow.Jasepl (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have talked about this earlier too. Delhi has been written completely in American. I wonder what happened to the Wikiproject:India policy of using English for India articles. Maquahuitltalk!04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I was reading the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page and found some very weird tilts that extol Pakistan, especially in the "The War" section and "Losses" section. Can someone please check the facts on this page? Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That article, like most India-Pak war articles is frequently edited by people introducing slants towards India/Pak. What specifically are the weird tilts that you noticed? AreJay (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where to even begin with this article: Moothanthara. Is it about a region populated by a specific ethnic group in Kerala? In any event, it seems notable but as a non-Indian I can't even quite grasp what's going on in this article. Suggestions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the Suryavanshi article should redirect to Suryavansha. "Suryavansha" refers to the clan/dynasty, whereas "Suryavanshi" refers to a member of this dynasty. It makes more sense for the main article to be named after the dynasty itself rather than the adjective describing a member of it. Having it the other way is like redirecting the America article to American. Please discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Shruti14talk • sign01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. We have a DYK event for Buddha's Birthday just like Christmas or April Fool's day. Buddhism originated in India, so once you guys create or five fold expand Buddhist related articles (famous temples, monks, movies, literature, paintings, foods, etc) within 5 days, and then nominate it to the below place. After a review, your article can be featured on the main page. So be hurry if you are interested. :) Thanks.
I just found this video on YouTube, and I am keen to find out exactly who the person is an what happened (as you can see the broadcast seems to be from an Indian new channel). I wondered if anybody could identify who the person was, and perhaps provide any further information on what happened. Just a quick warning before you view the video, it does appear to show somebody dying (or at least falling unconcious).
Recently, I have created a WikiProject myself - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bollywood. I would like WikiProject India to consent being one of its Parent Projects.
Also, anybody who is interested, plz see my project page!
The above are some new articles I ran across. I prodded the first, and the second one needs some attention from someone who can sort out the importance of it. I don't watch this talkpage, so please drop me a line if something needs my attention. tedder (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
These two articles seem to be about the same place. Can knowledgeable editors check and if this is so merge the articles together under the correct anglicised name (and create a redirect from the other name). You may need admin assistance to merge the histories - check first if this is required. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The Barrage (tidal) article does not list the Farakka barrage. As this barrage has contraverial ecological and international issues and was built by India near what is now Bangladesh, I think it should be listed and have links to recent information and data.
The one link I found was www.ibaradio.org/Rudra.pdf.
What other links give current views and supporting data?
Both words, barrage and tide are defined in the dictionary. I've just done my OR by looking up the word barrage. The adjective is there for a good reason, and Farakka is around two hundred miles from the sea. Is there a reference for the link from barrage to tidal barrage? (Conjecture - non tidal barrages have no article since most of them are minor structures. ) Imc (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't tell about this one; I downgraded from speedy to proposed deletion. Just a reminder, note that there's a link to your WP:Article alerts page right under "Collaboration dashboard" on your project page; that's a good place to keep an eye on proposed deletions. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
improve artricals about indian defence
I request you to improve atricals about indian defence which are being target of large scale vandalism, anti-india and anti-indian forces/technology comments with non-neutral referances. since they have some referances which are not neutral at all wikipedia doesnot allows non-india project users to correct those statements. Request to all wiki-india project users to have a look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushilkumarmishra (talk • contribs) 10:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope someone will have a look. This was tagged as db-spam and I deleted it, but by request, I've restored it to my userspace and added {{noindex}} pending a second opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that some bots sometimes try to add some text on Wikiproject India talk page, without checking that it is a redirect. Dumping the two like that below. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The kashmir article says, "kashmir" used to refer only to the Kashmir Valley (a redirect) but sometimes refers to jammu and ladakh as well. Should we accept this? (Other cases like Delhi refering to NCT of Delhi are quite justified) And Then what content should stay valley or valley+adjacent regions or valley+POK? Otherwise whats the purpose of an article on Jammu and Kashmir? Hometech (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Kashmir Valley (which redirects to Kashmir at present) is actually the name of a region, like Ladakh or Jammu. I sugggest that the Kashmir and J&K articles remain as they are, but a separate page be created for the Valley (instead of the present redirect). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be sad. I am not aware of the dispute history but from a glance at the discussion on your talk page this does seem to have been a major escalation of a minor dispute. Is there anyone who can communicate with Shshshsh (perhaps by email) to understand what his concerns are and if a wikibreak would be a better option than retirement ? It would be unfortunate if we lost a good editor over a minor tiff. Abecedare (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate escalation of events. I think a wikibreak would be beneficial here, but now it'd be a matter of convicning him to return after taking that break (rather than leave for good) - hope you can help in achieving this sort of outcome, which benefits both him, and of course, the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
We have/had lost a good no of WP:INDIA contributors in the near past. I suggest everyone to keep offline contacts ( if possible) each other to encourage each other in difficult and stressful times in WP -- TinuCherian - 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a (non-OR) way to organize/classify the organizations to make for easier reading ?
-- How about say 'UN organizations', 'Pan-Asian organizations', 'South Asian organizations', 'G-n organizations' etc.? :) --GDibyendu (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Should we list the major treaties India is a signatory of in this (or another ?) template ? Does anyone know where we can find such a list - CIA factbook lists the relevant environmental treaties.
The "UN organisations", "Regional organisations" categories could be useful, but will still leave quite a few "Others" - let me think about the suggestion some more. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that we need to organize it first. Like Abe said, we could do UN organizations and Regional Organizations. We could also do it by economic organizations, the development banks, military organizations, etc. Deavenger (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This issue has got resolved, probably he was blindly doing copy-paste and the changes pointed out above were probably unintentional.--GDibyendu (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, this one is nominated for deletion (was PROD before), on grounds of notability. If anyone at WP:INDIA can shed some light on the importance or lack thereof of this NGO, please do so. MLauba (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
After reading Yellow Monkeys comments, I think the article needs some more work to retain its FA standards, especially with Prose and MOS. What's going to happen to other Indian City FAs now KensplanetTC04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Attention! Article for possible reassessment
In view of the recent major revamp of the article titled Afro-Asian Games, I suggest that the said article's quality scaling be promoted, as it does not deserve to be classified as start-class. I request an interested editor of the WP India group to please reassess the article.
Suggestions, advice and actions are most welcome and wanted.
I declined the speedy on this one per the hits at [[34]] and some of the statements in the article, but ... ugh. Needs help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont know about the chairman but the company definitely is notable. Amar Raja group is quite large and Amaron batteries are their most visible product. --Deepak D'Souza18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been raised once. What's to b done with those sunset images? There's better Elephanta and wada pav behlpuri to replace them. Hometech (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject Pakistan has started a new feature, Adopt-an-Article, it seems very useful, does the India project have something like that, or any such plans, i thought it a great idea.Lilaac (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes to rename. As for the rest, I would say no. Mostly frequented by hardcore government supporters and minority group POV pushers. For developed countries they would be better, but for not-yet-developed countries, there are a lot racial and religious divisions there among a large amount of people. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Abecadare's suggesstion that we can redirect this to Human Rights in India and expand it there. Not that notability is an issue. It just that anyone can spawn 100 such "Human rights in X, India" articles which will become battle grounds for POV pushers( pro and Anti-govt) . In a single article we can control the POV. Any agreements/disagreements ? --Deepak D'Souza04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. Plus, I think the Punjabi Human rights creator's edits might be POV. But someone else can check to be sure. Deavenger (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. I have delete tagged Mass cremations in India, but it may probably be declined and come in AfD. Mass cremations need not neccesarily occour after massacres. They can happen in case of accidents or natural disasters. Something this article conviniently doesnt mention. --Deepak D'Souza04:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is a doozy of creative fabrication - and the main source for the allegations is not a reliable one. If kept, the title needs to be changed to include the word 'allegations', etc. I'll be away from teh internets for a few days, so I put my comments here. Priyanathtalk05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing to the notice. The page has been restored by me. I think strict patrolling should be done to prevent such changes. AmartyabagTALK2ME05:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I found some vandalism in Iyengar and Vadakalai articles. I had to reinstate the removed contents. Hope this doesn't happen again. Svr014 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
Old Goa / Goa Velha / Velha Goa
There is some confusion about these places. There used to to be one entry, Goa Velha, with redirects from the other two names. Some time ago, somebody claimed at Talk:Goa Velha that Goa Velha and Velha Goa are two different places. Two weeks ago, 216.165.95.70 (talk·contribs) changed the redirect from Velha Goa to Goa Velha and started a new article ([36]). At the same time, he changed the redirect from Old Goa ([37]).
I am confused here, are Goa Velha and Velha Goa two different places, and if so, which is the one often referred to as Old Goa? --Kjetil_r10:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As if Goa Velha and Velha Goa were not confusing enough there is also something called Vhodlem Goem which one editor says is the same as Goa Velha See User_talk:Jozue1#Goa Velha. I have given up trying to find the difference. :-) --Deepak D'Souza11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look at this map, you'll see that there's a place called "Goa Velha" towards the southern end of the map. Old Goa itself is towards the northern end, near the Karmali railway station (if you zoom in on that area, you'll see all the landmarks associated with Old Goa). -- Arvind (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. But St. Andrew's Church (built 1583) is located in the south, in Goa Velha, so that there are historical landmarks of Old Goa in both Goa Velha and Velha Goa. Could it be that the old colonial city (pop. ~100.000) was covering both the present Goa Velha and Velha Goa, and that the remnants of Old Goa split into two towns/villages some time after the Portuguese abandoned it? --Kjetil_r17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh, if only it were that simple. Basically, when the Portuguese arrived, there already was a city called Goa ("Govapuri", to be exact) on the banks of the Zuari. I'll call it Goa-on-Zuari for clarity (it's never been called that, but it'll make the explanation clearer). Goa-on-Zuari was founded by the Kadamba dynasty in the 11th century (as "Gopakapattana"), and was one of the main ports first of their kingdom and then of the Vijayanagara Empire. In the 15th century, a number of wars were fought between the Bahmani Sultanate and Vijayanagar for control of the Goa region. These wars devastated Goa-on-Zuari, and if memory serves, the Zuari had also started silting up and receding from Goa-on-Zuari. So, the new Adilshahi rulers built another city some distance to the north, on the banks of the Mandovi, which I'll call Goa-on-Mandovi. Goa-on-Mandovi was captured by the Portuguese and became their "Goa". Because this was the main Goa now - the young, vigorous Goa - they called Goa-on-Zuari "Goa Velha", or Old Goa, as opposed to their Goa which was thriving. It was still an important settlement which had historic symbolism, so they built some things there, such as St. Andrew's Church and (I think) the Church of St. Anna.
A couple of centuries later, Goa-on-Mandovi was also abandoned because the Mandovi was also silting up and because of a number of epidemics of this that and the other. The Portuguese now moved their capital to Pangim on the Mandovi estuary, which they called "New Goa" or Nova Goa. Goa-on-Mandovi, which had been totally abandoned, came to be called Velha Goa. So that's why there are two places with Portuguese names meaning "Old Goa". When one speaks of "Old Goa" in English, though, it's Velha Goa (Goa-on-Mandovi) that's meant, and it's Goa-on-Mandovi that's the heritage site. Goa Velha (Goa-on-Zuari) is an insignificant village which is really only important because of the festival at the Church of St. Andrew. So, in my view, the present article (which is about Goa-on-Mandovi) should be moved to Old Goa, Velha Goa should become a redirect to Old Goa, and Goa Velha should become an article about the historical port of the Kadamba and Vijayanagara kings (Goa-on-Zuari).
I've not read the history of Western India for well over 15 years so I may have gotten a few dates and details wrong, but the general narrative should be more or less right. All this should go into one of the articles, if someone can check it against a source (I'll do it in a couple of weeks if no-one else has before then). -- Arvind (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow! This was perhaps the most detailed description on this issue. Thanks, it cleard up things for me. I have also asked three Goan editors who are currently active to weigh in their opinions. Just to make sure that we are on the same page. --Deepak D'Souza04:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Goa Velha is a village somewhat to the south. St. Andrew's church is its parish church.map It is famous for its yearly 'procession of saints'
Velha Goa is the portuguese name for Old Goa, but this name is not commonly used today. It is rare enough to cause ambiguity as to which of the places it refers to.
So, Velha Goa should be a redirect to Old Goa, with a clear note that the person may also be searching for Goa Velha.
For the record, Old Goa is known in Konkani as Vhoddlem Goem, Saibachem Goem, and less commonly, Pornem Goem and Adhlem Goem. It's a very important place, so it's got a lot of titles!
(unindent) I'd like to fix this, but I need assistance from an administrator. Could an admin please move Goa Velha back to Old Goa? Most of its content is about Old Goa, not Goa Velha, so it needs to be moved to preserve the page history. I'll fix the articles once that's done. --Arvind (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Goa Velha isn't Old Goa. But the article currently at Goa Velha used to be at Old Goa (also known as Velha Goa) and be about Old Goa until someone (mistakenly) moved it to Goa Velha. As a result, except for the sections on geography and demographics, the article is still about Old Goa, not Goa Velha. The way to fix the current mess is to move it back to Old Goa, restore this version, and recreate Goa Velha using the sections on geography and demographics from the present article. And when that's done, turn Velha Goa into a redirect to Old Goa. I hope this makes sense. -- Arvind (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Poverty data is incorrectly mentioned in the article...
Hi Sir/Madam,
I must tell you that I disagree with the data estimate presented by the World Bank (WB) which tells that more than 42% of Indians live under the global poverty line earning less than $ 1.25 (PPP) and also the other claim that says that more than 75% of Indians are living on less than $2.00 (PPP). There is no evidence that the WB collected these data by sending officers to India or any other country in the past 12 years. I have talked with a pal who has relatives in India that work in the Central Government (Govt. of India). They all stand with the National Planning Commission's (NPC's) data which states clearly that only 27.5% of Indians live under the national poverty line.
India is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations organization (all branches but the UN Security Council), G8+5 (Industrialized Countries and Leading Emerging Economies), and G-20 (Major Economies). India is Asia's third (3rd) Largest Economy, and World's fourth (4th) Largest Economy when measured in terms of GDP (PPP)(Source: The CIA World Factbook). Every year more than three million Indians graduate from Colleges and Universities across India which is considered strongest among emerging economies (Source: The Times of India). Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) augmented by about 78% between 1991 and 2001 (Source: The Indian Express).
The sources (World Bank/UN) does not say how it made that estimate.
Believe me, in small villages and towns, Indian government rations offer food for families at less than Rs. 10/month. Vegetables and meats are available at very subsidized rates in villages, farms, and small towns who make up more than 88% of India. Monthly rent for houses cost less than Rs. 25 which comes to less than Rs. 40/month worth of expenditure. Many construction workers earn about Rs. 300/month and are given allowances to buy basic necessities at subsidized rates across towns, villages and some cities like Chennai, Mumbai and Bangalore. Also, making estimates in terms of US dollars is inappropriate as Dollar is the currency of the USA and NOT India. Let's say I visit India or any other foreign country and ask a lay person "Do you live on less than $ 2.00 a day?" Her (that person's) reply will be a cut-and-dry NO. If I give her Rs. 100 (little over US$ 2.00) and ask her to buy any of the basic necessities at stores operated by government, she will be able to cover more than 89% of the items (Source: The Hindu). So, please do not try to tarnish the image of India on the global stage by talking about erroneous calculations about poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition from any non-credible sources. Thanks for your time. Please work for a consensus and remove erroneous data from the articles 'India' and 'Poverty in India'. We Americans must try to be neutral and meritocratic in evaluating all data presented by the Govt. of India and accept them like the way the CIA World Factbook welcomes them (the data) every year. Svr014 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.
Is there any type of guideline on the preferred way to write Indian rupees. Is it Rs 100, Rs. 100 or INR 100? Or is no one style preferred? Copana2002 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You can use AreJay's {{INRConvert}} template for displaying rupee values (with dollar conversion). Example: ₹500 (US$6.00). Based on the style used on the template, it would be Rs. 100. Hope that helps. Regards, Ganeshk(talk)13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Sikkim for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone has been repeatedly using the aricle 49-O for promotion of their website '49-O.Info' for the past 6 months. The person edits without a login, and from various IP addresses. The link to the website and the special section about the website have been removed more than 10 times by several editors, but it keeps reappearing. Can someone please deal with this strongly?
117.195.97.62 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering the amount of website and blog promotion this article is used for, maybe it should be locked for editing.
^Preamble of the Diploma Legislativo No.2070, dated 15/04/1961
^Gomes, Olivinho J.F. 1996. Village Goa. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Ltd. pp. 325-358.
^Pereira,R.Gomes, 1981, Goa, Volume II : Gaunkari: The Old Village Associations, Goa, Panaji
^Souza de, Carmo. 2000. “ The village communities. A historical and legal perspective”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 111-124.
^Adv. Andre A Pereira, 2007 “The Gaunkaries Of Goa” – A brief Legal synopsis of the Comunidades of Goa.
^Kamat, Pratima. 2000. “Peasantry and the Colonial State”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 133-158.
^Menezes de, António. 1978. Goa. Historical Notes. Panaji: Casa J.D.Fernandes.
^Preamble of the Diploma Legislativo No.2070, dated 15/04/1961
^Gomes, Olivinho J.F. 1996. Village Goa. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co. Ltd. pp. 325-358.
^Pereira,R.Gomes, 1981, Goa, Volume II : Gaunkari: The Old Village Associations, Goa, Panaji
^Souza de, Carmo. 2000. “ The village communities. A historical and legal perspective”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 111-124.
^Adv. Andre A Pereira, 2007 “The Gaunkaries Of Goa” – A brief Legal synopsis of the Comunidades of Goa.
^Kamat, Pratima. 2000. “Peasantry and the Colonial State”, in: Borges, Charles J. Goa and Portugal. History and development. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co. pp. 133-158.
^Menezes de, António. 1978. Goa. Historical Notes. Panaji: Casa J.D.Fernandes.
^Korman Sharon. "The Right of Conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice. Edition: illustrated, reprint Published by Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN0198280076, 9780198280071 p
^Foral of Afonso Mexia (the Magna Carta), dated 16/09/1526
Done : Reassessed as C-class. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
