I was wondering if someone here can give some feedback on changes to the Dal Lake article through (seemingly) SPA editing. An account with very few edits (likely assocciated with previous IPs doing the same edits just before) removed mentions to India and Indian administrative divisions, and it refused to give any real explanation of why it was doing that. That in itself it's not surprising, as the area is disputed. But it also changed language/text templates in the "Mazar-e-Shura Cemetery" section, apparently to further a Pakistani POV. I would like that someone knowledgeable on the topic check its edits there and make sure they are OK. It also did similar things in the Wular Lake article. --Urbanoc (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hi, i need help my draft that was declined by an account that is now suspended for sockpuppetry, the objections raised was notability, and that doesnt stand as the subject is a highly notable religious figure of India. Please help.
Shatbhisha6 (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
As I'm an Indian, I'm pretty sure he is a clearly a notable historical figure in India. I've learned and noted his revolution at school. Any opinion? VocalIndia (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
There is one article Non-vegetarian and also a wiktionary article Wikt:nonvegetarian. I tried translating the word to various Indic languages with the help of Google translate as below. Few are still remaining and some may need improvement, hence requesting help.
Hello all! This is more of stylistic question than anything, but is there an agreed upon rationale for when and when not to use Nastaliq script in articles, particularly pertaining to the Mughal Empire? I know that Template:Lang tagging anything in Urdu makes it display in nastaliq, but tagging text as Persian requires an addition nq tag. As far as I can tell, any time Persian text is used in an article that is primarily related to the Mughal Empire, it is rendered in nastaliq, but not all articles are. For instance, all of the Mughal Emperor articles use nastaliq to display the Persian titles and text, but some articles, for instance, Dilras Banu Begum, and all of the articles for her daughters, have the Persian text rendered in standard online Persian font, rather than nastaliq. Should the text in these articles be changed to nastaliq to reflect the convention as used for most other Mughal-associated articles, particularly those about royalty and nobility? Thank you! -Evansknight (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The MOS guideline is to avoid any non-Latin scripts in the lede section of India-related articles. See link for details, exceptions, and links to the related discussions but in short the reasoning is that given India's linguistic diversity, as your question illustrates, it quickly becomes difficult (and often heated!) to decide which languages and scripts to include, and how to label (Hindi?, Urdu?, Hindustani?) and order them. Hope that helps. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow, thank you so much for this! I did not expect that divergence, and I'm glad I know now. It seems like a HUGE number of India-related articles, particularly those mentioned that pertain to the Mughal Empire, seem to have thrown that out the window entirely. Is there a task force for this? -Evansknight (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I spot-checked Aurangzeb's edit-history and saw that the Nastaliq text was added relativelyrecently (by well-meaning editors who were likely unaware of WP:INDICSCRIPTS). IIRC, years back when the guideline were first formalized there was a systematic effort to remove the accumulated non-Indic scripts from article ledes of the relevant articles. However, there is no task force to keep those scripts out and that part relies on editors-in-the-know keeping an eye on their watchlists. I haven't been too active recently though and so will ping @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Fowler&fowler: in case they have any updates or thoughts. Abecedare (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, awesome. Knowing this and the MOS will actually give me a good project to work on, and I love a project. Another stylistic thing I had a question about was, for example, on Jahangir's article, his name is rendered as "Nūr-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Salīm" and "Jahāngīr" in the lede of the article. While technically correct, it seems strange to use diacritics in the lede, would it make more sense if they were in parentheses as "romanization" similar to the way they are used for people whose names are in Arabic, or does that only make sense since the MOS for Arabic articles IS to include the native script? -Evansknight (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Any help with implementing WP:INDICSCRIPTS would be great! Do remember to use an editsummary, such as 'per WP:INDICSCRIPTS', when removing the non-Indic characters, lest your changes be thought to be just a personal preference or even vandalism by page-watchers.
No firm thoughts on whether the diacritics should be retained or presented parenthetically at, say, Jahangir but at a minimum, any use of diacritics should be accompanied by an indication of which script/system is being used so that an interested reader can look up the key to decoding it. In Sanskrit-related articles IAST-use is common and indicated by {{IAST}} template. Not sure what the analogous system and template for the 'Nūr-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Salīm' would be. Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll make sure to include the edit summary to make sure people know. I also like the idea that WP:INDICSCRIPTS proposes of using IPA instead of Indic scripts for name purposes, but would it be English IPA or Urdu/Hindi/Persian/etc? -Evansknight (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps Evansknight you could give me an example where farsi nastaleeq with nq is rendered differently from that without nq. Of course Urdu does have some diacritics for sounds that are not available in non-Indo-Aryan languges. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
And Urdu has (redundant) vestigial consonants (such as se ث for sounds such as the voiceless th) it has inherited from Arabic but that Indo-Aryan languages don't pronounce. I think I have probably misunderstood you. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
having read up on WP:INDICSCRIPTS my original question was rendered moot, because MOS indicates that Persian/Urdu text is not to be used in lead sections anyway, so that settled that. Thanks for y'all's help! Evansknight (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that WP:INDICSCRIPTS refers to avoiding the use of Indic scripts in India-related articles, so any Brahmi-descended script is out of the question. However, there is no dispute over whether or not we should be adding Nastaliq in the infobox to the ruler's names, as they themselves didn't have named in Indic languages, but instead in Persian. Also, to properly answer your original question, no, there is no hardline rule regarding what things we should be adding the Nastaliq tag to. It's commonly used in Mughal rulers' names as that was their preferred style of writing, unlike in mainland Persia where Naskh was also a widely used script. ThatDohDude (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@ThatDohDude: I'm not sure that makes any difference. Persian was the official language in Company rule in India as well until 1837. MOS:INDICSCRIPTS applies to non-Latin scripts (as Abecedare states) on India-related pages which include historic South Asia-related pages, unless they are predominantly about what is today Pakistan or Bangladesh or Afghanistan etc. The Mughal Empire, as its page says, was preeminently an empire of early-modern South Asia, not of Iran or Afghanistan or Turkic-speaking Samarqand. Scripts are out, all, in my understanding. As for the emperors, non-Latin scripts would be out for all except Babur who was born in what is today Uzbekistan and spent only the last four of this 47 years on the subcontinent. Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Sadgop
Hello, can people chime in on what looks like a content dispute and claims over reliability of sources on Sadgop. I have no knowledge of the subject to make a valid call on this. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Madras Mahajana Sabha
To err (about calendar) is human or South Asian? before some weeks I could not tally a date of resignation of a Chief Minister on Wikipedia, after some days a criticism came about Government publication where in later born people were superimposed in times before their birth. But it is not necessarily limited to south Asian, some where date of marriage of a Indian Prime Minister does not tally mathematically with his age in western reliable sources. At some other south Asian articles I keep thinking how far secondary sources can stretch to invent what is not there in primary source, and Wikipedians too eager to cite them.
Let all that be, This time I went chronologically back too fast. A meeting of Indian national congress is in news so I casually browsed Wikipedia page from there I went to it's history relating Madras Mahajana Sabha. A paragraph there mentions events of 1930s there after a paragraph comes mentioning of Public meeting of Tilak who was not supposed to be there in 1930s. In Puranas Indian calendars were flexible but in modern times, too even on Wikipedia at times without sources at time with sources.
This article has been moved to Draft space and back. I'm not sure if he is considered a notable politician for Indian politics. If anyone knows how to reduce the size of his image so it's not taking up a quarter of the page, I'd appreciate you fixing it. I fiddled with the size parameters but they didn't have any effect. Many thanks. LizRead!Talk!02:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I really appreciate you looking this article over, MPGuy2824. It's great to find an active WikiProject like this one when I have a question. Many thanks! LizRead!Talk!19:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, trying to fix the defaultsort for Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan & realized I can't figure out which of his names is which. Vallabhaneni Balasouri seems to indicate that
"Vallabhaneni" would be the surname, but I can't confirm. Can any editors with knowledge of Telugu names help me out? ♠PMC♠ (talk)03:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
DaxServer, thanks for your quick response. Does that mean Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan should have the same hatnote that Vallabhaneni Balasouri does about the Telugu surname order? ♠PMC♠ (talk)09:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Attempt of Censoring of a Certain Article which is Apparently RS
This RFC was initiated with the aim to censor a certain article from being included in the main Wikipedia article as a reference, specifically in the critical reception section. It is more of a concern to see the kind of arguments that are being placed in favor of censoring that article. To be precise, the arguments are largely appearing to be highly opinionated and subjective while having less connection with governing rules and guidelines. Such a case demands more participation from within the community so that a proper reflection of the consensus of Wikipedia community as a whole can be seen to reflect in the closing decision. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 04:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mamushir: While this board is the right venue to bring relevant discussions to the notice of editors knowledgeable about and interested in India-related articles, WP:CANVASSING participants through such a non-neutrally worded message is inappropriate. I trust that any editor directed to the discussion will look past your POV characterization of the issue, and judge the source and discussion for themselves. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Abecedare:, thanks for your comment but I don't think I have any certain position to preach to the other editors. If my notification was not clear enough, allow me to re-iterate: I have observed that the discussion has a tendency of putting emphasis on subjective opinions and is getting less governed by time tested rules - which made me think about inviting other editors to participate (I categorically avoided suggesting any position, didn't I?). My primary concern is that the consensus may not be proper or adequate as the participation so far isn't much and thus requires some greater attention. I believe my notification was very much acceptable in terms of WP:CANVASSING. The invocation of WP:INAPPNOTE was harsh. Any misplaced negative connotation will only create unwanted confusion, which anyone should avoid in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
PS: As you mentioned I also expect other editors to judge the source and discussion for themselves if they decide to participate in the relevant RFC at all. Though I don't think I have made any "POV characterization", rather would prefer to term it as a try to improve a community discussion in light of the last bullet point of Ideal Guideline on How to Respond to an RFC.☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Sikkimese cuisine, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team
Can someone with experience in copy-editing please take a look at Vijaya Tahilramani - right now it has been repeatedly edited by non-logged in users with inappropriate language more suited to pulp fiction novels than a Wikipedia entry (The lede contains the phrase "sensational bribery case", for e.g.). Given this is a biography of a living person I suspect statements in the article may require verification from the sources to ensure no BLP violations. Thank you. - Naushervan (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The Indian newspapers are increasingly going behind paywalls. Those of you that have access to The Wikipedia Library can access some (but not all) articles on ProQuest. I think at least the news articles are available, but the so-called "premium content" may not be.
You can include ProQuest links in citations by using |id={{ProQuest|NNN}} so that the rest of us can access them easily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@MB In the linked discussion, I have made a case for naming it as "Charthawal Assembly constituency" without bracket. The A in Assembly has to be capital because it is a definite Assembly, UP Assembly in this case. Rest is acceptable. Please see the thread below and support the proposal. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Stvbastian I think the older title Prannoy Kumar is appropriate. This is because "Haseena Sunil" are his parents name, and his own name is just Prannoy Kumar. Maybe @Lancepark: is more knowledgeable in this naming convention, but I believe a discussion before a page move should have taken place. zoglophie17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I will add the link to the naming convention for the subject under Malayali name section of Indian name, since the subject is from the southern India (Kerala to be specific). The conventions for Indian names largely vary for the people who belong to the Southern states where full names are often less used in public sphere/or are shortened to initials (Like in case of P. V. Sindhu). The convention followed is "Given name, Father's name", though additional village names, middle names or mother's name are also added as well. In this case, "Haseena" is the mother's name while "Sunil Kumar" is the subject's father, while the given name is "Prannoy", with no family name used. Thus the title "Prannoy H. S." used aligns with the naming convention (although H. S. Prannoy maybe used too) and is also the one registered on the BWF profile. Lancepark (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, he is 125 years old who is now conferred with Padma Shri, and our article says he died in 1963. Could someone with a knowledge about the person do the necessary updates? Thanks a ton! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There is reliable evidence that Swami Sivananda Saraswati died in 1963, indeed his own organisation the Divine Life Society published a booklet about his last days, confirming the date of his death, so it is agreed both inside the world of devotees and outside it. This other Yoga guru Swami Sivananda is certainly a different person. I'll put hatnotes on both articles now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
But the 125 should be taken with a bucket of salt. The Guinness Book says that the oldest man, reliably attested, lived to 112 (woman to 119); so this man is younger (for otherwise he would have been in it, they would have found some record of primary school etc). Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler I have read and removed puffery from the latter's page. Hindu says, his birth claim is based on Temple register. There will be many Shivananda in that register, assuming it is accurate (very big assumption). And it is quite easy to stake claim to an older DOB of a guy with same name. DOBious claims aside, puns intended, I dont believe he deserves a place on Wikipedia. Padma Shri (4th award) is not sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO, the only coverage are sensational age based and award. Venkat TL (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this and for the nicely written explanation, :). I can't speak to his overall notability, but the age claim, which may be a big part of the notability as you state, does seem a little far-fetched. Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
It turns out that the book was published by Bloomsbury and seems to have been well-received. So I went back to check more closely. Kwarteng cites Bose and summarises him. But his wording is still what we would consider close paraphrasing. Here is an example:
Bose: When released he [Ashfaq Majid Wani] had cigarette burns all over his body, sustained during interrogation. Ashfaq left home and “disappeared” shortly after being released. He never came home again. But during 1989 he emerged as a household name across his homeland as one of the HAJY group—...the nucleus of young Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) militants freshly returned to Srinagar with weapons and training from across the Line of Control (LOC).[1]
Kwarteng: After his release, he was found to have cigarette burns all over his body, and he promptly left home and ‘disappeared’. He never came home again, but in 1989 he emerged as a household name in Kashmir. He was now a leading member of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.[2]
It is regrading this kind of edits on ethnicity/caste. While this tweet coming from Bhatt's verified handle satisfies our self-identification criteria about him being a 'Kashmiri Pandit', this 'interview' source however, he claims to be a 'Gujarati'. It is possible that 'Gujarati' in the latter case may mean as a resident of Gujarat rather than ethnically Gujarati as in the case of this actor. KIndly provide your inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk His wife runs the Free Sanjiv Bhatt campaign and uses his twitter. She had mentioned this several times in tweets. He is a Gujarati by cadre and may be residence. Caste can still be Kashmiri Pandit. Bhatt is a typical kashmiri Brahman surname. So the twitter note is believable. The wiki article can attribute this. Venkat TL (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: I was maintaining the 'Gujarati' part till some IP came up with this verified handle. That was OK per our criteria. Now some IPs are trying to change it back to Gujarati. And yes many Kashmiri Pandits live in Gujarat, though Bhatt is a Gujarati Brahmin surname. I wonder if we can mention both attributing to the sources, and remove the ethnic part from the categories. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
If they are self identifying them as X why you want to question that? Attribute them for the claim and move on. Gujarati in the interveiw is reference to cadre and residence. It does not say ethnic Gujarati, if there are no other sources, then we should not mention gujarati in ethnicity. His Gujarati cadre is discussed in the career section. I believe this should be maintained and IPs should be reverted and asked to bring RS for their claims. Venkat TL (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Venkat TL: If you check the article history and my edit summaries, you'll find I am the one reverting such changes, not questioning it. I'm here to get a consensus on this thing after repeated changes to Gujarati especially when his Kashmiri Pandithood is being questioned in the social media, not to mention you said 'His wife runs the Free Sanjiv Bhatt campaign and uses his twitter' (something I was unaware of). As for the suggestion → "I wonder if we can mention both attributing to the sources, and remove the ethnic part from the categories", it is a way to let WP:READERS decide themselves in a contentious situation. Anyway, this thread will be used as a consensus in such case in the future. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk ok. The tweet even if coming from wife or himself should be acceptable about caste. I note that we have no source about Ethnic Gujarati claim. So there is not much to dispute. Venkat TL (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Once again requesting a more experienced editor to take a look at Vijaya Tahilramani, which is the subject of constant injection of inflammatory language ("sensational bribery case") by non-logged in IPs. Since we are nearing an edit war, if someone could intervene, I'd be grateful. Thanks. - Naushervan (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't know too much about this particular topic, but I agree that "Empresses of Shah Jahan" or "Empresses of Akbar" doesn't sound clear or unambivalent. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Durian
I have nominated Durian 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk17:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Sex ratio charts
Sex Ratio in Reasi District in 2011 Census.[1] (no. females per 1,000 males)
Religion (and population)
Sex Ratio
Muslim (pop 156,275)
915
Hindu (pop 153,898)
869
Sikh (pop 3,107)
924
Other (pop 1,387)
558
Total (pop 314,667)
890
Almost all the district pages of Jammu and Kashmir now have sex ratio charts like this one. This example is from the Reasi district. As far as I can see, none of the other districts of India have such charts. For example, the neighbouring Pathankot district or an arbitrarily-picked Pune district.
These charts are quite useless and take-up valuable screen space and mess up the formatting of the page. Can we agree that they should be deleted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, but I oppose this. Violence toward neo-natal and fetal females which the gender ratio in part encapsulate is a very important aspect of Indian demography, especially that of the Indo-Aryan speaking regions. After being documented in the British censuses, there was a gap after independence, but the Indian censuses finally came around to restoring them. They document not just violence at birth or in the womb (unrelated to the freedom of choice of the mother), but also through childhood by way of neglect of nutrition and healthcare, and indeed, through life, leading to early and more mortality. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
PS These charts also have other information. For example, in Baramulla_district#Demographics where the Hindu GRs are very low, they seem to indicate that the Hindu females have migrated out in great proportion. I think these tables would be useful in all districts of India, in Indo-Aryan regions for sure, but also other regions to demonstrate the contrast. Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Unless the article includes a discussion on the sex ratio, I think we should remove them. I agree with fowler that sex ratios are an important aspect of Indian demography, but I don't think we should include uncontextualized material (tables, images, graphs, etc.) in any article. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
But then by that logic all the illustrations in the demography sections of J&K districts pages should be removed because they have less discussion in the article body than the sex ratios do. You've hit on a very important point that there is not enough discussion in the article body for which the illustration would be an illustrative help or complement. But I feel the stress should be on increasing the textual coverage. Perhaps they can all be slapped with tags which enourage them to do so (rather than remove the illustrations). Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler:, the other charts are well understood and don't need explicit discussion. Everyone understands religion, historical populations, and language demographis and these are an integral part of standard demographic presentations. Sex ratios, on the other hand, are not usually included in demographics and need to be contextualized. Without some explanation, the lay reader would wonder why they're being presented with this chart and the explanation (that India has an endemic problem of female infanticide and keeping girls healthy) is probably too complicated to include in every geographical article. Not only that, as Abecedare rightly points out, both the disparity in sex ratios (cf. this), as well as the the causes for that disparity may be different for different districts and we would need sources that explicitly discuss, for example, that ratio in the Reasi district. A better idea would be to create articles for each state (particularly those north western ones).--RegentsPark (comment) 12:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: A few years ago I had seen the sex ratio results for the country (by state) and was perplexed the Kashmir numbers, which did not seem to fit the general trend: Indo-Aryan speaking caste Hindus (low), Muslims (mid to high), Dalits, Tribal. Dravidian-speaking Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists (high). After seeing these charts yesterday I finally understood. The low numbers for J&K seem to be affected by the Hindu numbers and to some extent the Sikh, not the Muslim, even though it is a Muslim-majority state. See, for example, Baramulla_district#Demographics, or Udhampur_district#Demographics). They will of course need to be double checked for accuracy. The problem with the general overview/perspective articles (on sex ratios, for example) that you and Abecedare are proposing is that they are almost never written. We shouldn't really be deleting information until the good intentions give way to a reality. Your link with the map is very useful. I would be especially happy if the districts that are brownish-maroon (e.g. in Ladakh) or red, i.e. ones of concern, have such displays. For the others, it is probably not that important.
On the other hand, I don't see much value in the historical trends K3 added to all the districts yesterday, right at the top, scrunching the others below. They all seem to be the same. They are perplexing as there was no census in Kashmir in 1951. I don't know how reliable it was in 1991, yet they both show exactly the same percentages, one from which there was a pandit exodus out, the other which saw in influx (see Baramulla and Udhampur).
I'm with RegentsPark on this. The topic is important and we should better develop (or create) India-level articles on this topic where the issue is discussed with comparison across time, regions/states, religion, castes, peer countries etc; I am pretty confident that there is ample literature to do so. If there is sufficient literature, it may even make sense to develop such articles for particular states and communities. But I see little justification to display essentially raw data along one axis (eg, sex-ratio vs religion) in district level articles. That raises WP:DUE concerns and frankly enters WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. In addition, without secondary sources sifting and analyzing the data, the raw data itself can be uninterpretable or even misleading, for eg, unaddressed questions for the Reisi district data above include: are the differences between the Hindu-Sikh or even Muslim community statistically significant? are the vastly different numbers for 'others' a result of sampling issues or something else? are the differences solely a result of selective foeticite/infanticide/neglect or, say, do employment-based migration patterns play a role? etc.
Still not seeing a case for only removing the colorful bar chart for the sex ratios. Until yesterday, if you had removed the raw data, (i.e. the collapsed one from the Census) the typical demographic section looked like this (to take Kupwara for example). It had a little bit of easily comprehended non-raw data. Then Kautilya3 chose to add historical population growth (very much mostly raw, with simple percentages) to each district. And now he wants one of the other illustrations to be removed. Why? The raw data is in his addition and the collapsed one. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
True, one might not be able to sort out the reasons for the various gender ratios by each religious community. But still, if you look at Kupwara (above), which as an overall gender ratio of 835, well below the Indian average, you can instantly tell that it is not because of the Muslims, for whom the GR is 912, which is greater than the Indian average, but like you said, we will not be able to tell why the Hindu ratios are so low (migration or other). Same with Leh district in Ladakh, which has one of the lowest GRs in the country at 690. If you look at the Leh_district#Demographics, you can see right away that the anomaly is not because of the Buddhists (the largest group) for their GR is 1018. It is not even because of the Muslims, which can be native, and whose GR is low but not that low, but mainly because of the Hindus who are not a native population. So most likely it is single Hindu men who are employed in the businesses. I agree that you will not be able to answer every question, but that is enough in the data by way of informing and intriguing, for a reader to then find better sources. The problem with the large overview pages is that someone who is only interested in Leh or Kupwara is not likely to go to them, unless something really intrigues them in the local pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The other charts are presenting raw data in a graphical form: proportions of religions or preponderance of lanuages in the overall population. But this chart is making a correlation and therefore calling for interpretation. Why not, for example, a nose-length-by-religion chart? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
To raise the question of why two factors are being correlated. You have a theory. Somebody else might have another theory, say Love Jihad, or, maybe something innocuous, like migrant labourers who don't bring their women in. Throwing up raw data without interpretation just encourages speculation.
Historical populations have become available from the Census of India a few years ago, and they have been added and continue to be added to a lot of district pages. They show historical development levels. Sometimes they are also useful for finding out whether a district as it exists now is the same as what it used to be some decades ago (because districts get constantly get reorganised, especially in J&K). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
First, "Sex ratios" or "gender composition," are very much on the front burner of populations statistics of the Indian government, for example, taking up more pages than any other chapter in the popular Provisional Results of the 2011 Census, 12 to be sure, pages 30 to 41.
Second, Religion might not be mentioned, but there is comparison between districts nonetheless. Leh district is mentioned among the districts with the two lowest gender ratios.
Third, People speculate no matter what information you give them. If you say, J&K is low, there are people who will speculate that the Muslims kill their newborns or unborns, but the way to discourage such speculation is not to remove information, but to add more, for example, in the form of child sex-ratios (between ages of 0 to 6). If those are also high for Muslims and low for Hindus, then obviously neither Love Jihad no labor-driven immigration of single men are adequate explanation, though they might constitute a share of cases.
Fourth, more information disabuses disinformation, which is what an encyclopedia is about.
A look at information contained in Table:1 shows that during 2010-13, information regarding the sex ratio at birth in J&K is available for 5665851 live births. Of these births 296591 are male and 269260 are female. Thus the sex ratio at birth for the State works out to be 110. The sex ratio at birth in Kashmir is 106 and it is 105 in Ladakh. Jammu region in general and districts which have a huge concentration of Hindu population have an abnormal SRB of 117. This means that though some couples in J&K are avoiding the birth of girls while ensuring the birth of boys but this problem is much more acute in Jammu region and not in Kashmir Valley. A SRB ranging between 115-124 in most of the Hindu majority districts, clearly bring out that sex selective abortion is much more prevalent in Jammu region than projected by Census-2011. Besides, contrary to the Census findings, Kashmir and Ladakh region have a normal sex ratio.
The paper, among other things, shows how much of a public health effort is being waged to discourage sex-selective abortions. So I would even add the child sex ratio tables, but adequate textual explanation, of course. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, to round off this discussion, I will leave the sex ratio charts in, and try to place them in a reasonable place. But in the long run, we need an article on the sex ratio in J&K and perhaps other neighbouring regions that share the problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference census2011-C01 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Detective Boomrah
I was wondering if anyone could weigh in on the AfD for Detective Boomrah. There are a lot of sources in the article so it seems like the character/topic should be notable, but I thought it would be good to have a bit of a wider opinion, as well as people who are more familiar with the sources. I'm generally OK with Indian newspapers but I've not delved into them as much as I used to so I'm a bit out of touch with which ones are usable and which aren't. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, it is regarding this revert situation. Is Koli a caste, community or an ethnic group? The source quotes added seem to mention that it is indeed a caste. If it is a caste or a community, then I believe self-identification would be necessary and additions like these have to be removed. Pinging @NitinMlk, Ekdalian, and Kautilya3: - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems the statement that it is a "caste-cluster" (a group of related castes) seems accurate. It is equivalent to a large caste that has gotten subdivided. The caste policies do apply to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Since caste is quite political, especially in this case, there are sources (this one atleast) that calls him a Rajput, while this one calls him an "OBC leader". Making it contentious per general WP:BLPPRIVACY policy, even if we don't take our "caste policies" into consideration. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Fylindfotberserk Although self identification is a different issue, I think both the sources which are given for Koli claim don't say what it is claiming. Franco, Fernando's book says quite the opposite of what is claimed in the quote, the second source of Chaitanya Krishna seems to be added with malicious attempt too because in the snippet view I couldn't find any part of the quote given in the citation. There has been sudden increase in disruptive editing by two three IPs in support of Koli caste pov, they tried changing the redirects Chouhan and Chavda, and doing disruptive editing at Parihar, Parmar and Rathore (surname) etc. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not know much about this caste cluster. I can't help noticing though that as time goes by more and more, novel and yet more novel, caste-like names are appearing in Hindu India. The first censuses of the late-19th century had the effect of the upper castes beginning to use their caste identifications as their last names (Singh, Thakur, Doobay, Caubay, Rai, ...) By now all sorts have appeared, not just "Yadav," "Pal," and "Kashyap," ... but also "Rajput," "Maurya," ... India might be going through a new sociological phase in which the aspiring classes are adding ever new caste-like names to their more common older names. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Sajaypal007: Yeah, I've noticed that something is off with the quotations (the writing style mainly). So, I've used different phrases in the search field and it was not matching with the content. Yes, I too have noticed IPs (and new users ) POV pushing 'Koli' recently. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Fylindfotberserk, these are BLP violations. Kolis are mostly classified as a Scheduled Caste, although few of them are classified as a Scheduled tribe, and they come under Other Backward Class status in Gujarat.[1] That's the reason a Koli politician like Ram Nath Kovind is known as a Dalit president of India,[2][3] whereas those from Gujarat are known as backward caste, rather than Dalit. I guess the "caste-cluster" classification is mainly applicable to Kolis of Gujrat, where their caste status is unclear, as some of them have mixed with Rajputs. According to a scholar, they are known as "half-caste" there.[4] The Rajputs' relationship with Kolis can be explained by the fact that many Rajputs of Gujarat are struggling with poverty, e.g. around one-fifth of them are landless labourers.[5] BTW, the present version of the Koli article mainly focuses on the Kolis of Gujarat. I guess the reason for that may be the paucity of modern scholarly sources focussing on the North Indian Dalit Kolis.
As far as the recent Koli-related disruption is concerned, that seems like the work of the highly disruptive Koli sock master. I have filed an SPI about them: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. But there is no point in fixing articles like this one, this one, or this one unless they are under the extended-protection. Sitush has wasted a lot of time on this sock master in the past, but their socks keep on mangling everything.
References
References
^Vemsani, Lavanya (2015) [2013]. "Koli". In Danver, Steven (ed.). Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues. Routledge. p. 542. ISBN978-0-7656-8222-2. Traditionally, the Koli were classified as a tribe, a status that entitled them to special privileges (called reservations) in education and employment under the Indian constitution. Today, however, the Koli are recognized as a Scheduled Caste, a designation that denies them such privileges; only one group, the Mahadev Koli, is designated as a tribe and thus receives reservations. The Koli are considered a "pure tribe," meaning that, unlike the so-called untouchable caste of India, their touch is not believed to be polluting to higher castes. Nevertheless, they are among the most historically disadvantaged peoples of India.
^Wu, Huizhong (20 July 2017). "Man from India's lowest caste elected president". CNN. Archived from the original on 26 July 2017. Kovind is the second Dalit to become Indian president, after K. R. Narayanan, in office from 1997 to 2002. ... Kovind is also a member of the the Koli ethnic group, an important voting bloc in Modi's home state of Gujarat. A survey by the Centre for Study of Developing Societies found that members of the Koli community, many of whom are Dalit, switched their support from the Congress Party to the BJP between 2007 and 2012.
^"BJP leader appointed Bihar guv, Nitish says Centre didn't consult". Hindustan Times. 9 August 2015. Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ram Nath Kovind, a Dalit politician from Uttar Pradesh, was on Saturday appointed the new governor of poll-bound Bihar, ... Kovind comes from the Koli community, which is classified as SC in Uttar Pradesh ...
^Shah, Ghanshyam (1990) [1988]. "Grass-Roots Mobilization in Indian Politics". In Kohli, Atul (ed.). India's Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State-Society Relations. Princeton University Press. pp. 266–267. ISBN978-0-691-02333-5. The Kolis of Gujarat also belong to lower backward castes, although they are not Untouchables, whereas the Yadavas of Bihar belong to upper backward castes. ... The Kolis constitute about 24 percent of the population of Gujarat and are spread throughout the state. ... "Koli" is a generic term used for a group of cultivators. A majority of them in present-day Gujarat are small or marginal farmers and agricultural laborers. Their status in the caste hierarchy is ambiguous. They are known as "half-caste," because some of the Kolis are socially related to the Rajputs, and others are close to the Bhils, an aboriginal tribe. The upper castes use the term "KoIi" in a derogatory sense.3 No historical study before the eighteenth century has so far been available that can explain the relation between the Kolis and caste Hindus. However, on the basis of studies carried out in the nineteenth century, we can speculate that the Kolis had been conquered by caste Hindu rulers and pushed into the hilly eastern region or compelled to work as agricultural laborers.
Just today user:Drishti2021 readded this again, reverting EvergreenFir's edit. Obviously I reverted it back per self-identification. I'd like to request people to keep an eye on this article @Sajaypal007, NitinMlk, and EvergreenFir:
I didn't get the ping, as the post was unsigned. But now I have watchlisted this and few other Koli-related pages. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
RegentsPark, the disruption of the Koli sock master was hard to control when Sitush was active, but now it's practically impossible without the extended protection. For starters, the Koli people and List of Koli people need that protection indefinitely.
ECPed both. Hopefully that will give some breathing room to editors trying to treat the subject encyclopedically. Abecedare (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Abecedare:. @NitinMlk: I've been seeing increasing activity on the Koli related stuff, had a vague-ish memory of the socking, and had figuring it out on my checklist. But, that pesky RL ....! Drop a note if you think anything needs to be protected. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@RegentsPark:@NitinMlk: I too am seeing a lot of IPs pushing koli castecruft pov on some pages. See for example this was put by one ip in the lead of [[Saurashtra (region) [2], when i removed it, it was readded by another ip [3], when I reverted it again, this time editor "Drishti2021" [4], in my opinion Drishti2021 is sockmaster, i left notice of socking at his/her talk page but did not receive any reply. I have seen these similar dynamic ip (106.xxx.xx.xx) (223.xxx.xx.xx) making the same changes as Drishti2021 on other pages as well like Shankersinh Vaghela, Idar State, Darbar (title), List of Koli people, List of Koli titles, clans and subcastesSajaypal007 (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Sajaypal007, when I filed my first SPI against this sock master nearly 2 years ago (see here), I thought about properly knowing their editing pattern. But I soon realised that their disruption is entirely on a different level. From then on, I mostly didn't bother about their socks, as they are unmanageable without ECP protection. So I am not much familiar about their recent disruption. But you can read my that particular SPI to know about some of their favourite articles.
From my past experience, I can tell that around a couple of years ago, they used to create a small number of socks. Then those socks used to add some dubious Koli-related details, after which they used to edit war as an IP hopper with Rajput SPAs and other editors. And among others, practically all of Gujarat's Koli/Rajput-related articles were their usual targets. Later on, they started making a large number of throwaway accounts, each one of which targeted a small number of Koli-related articles. They basically make some problematic Koli-related edits with a sock and then move on to a new account – look at the number of socks in this SPI.
The only good thing is that they are more or less the only Koli SPA on this project. So their socks are much easier to spot. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Woah, that is quite a big rabbit hole, Is there no permanent way out of it? Maybe ECP all these pages for a year or so, or rangeblock all these IPs. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
There is one more sock group which got blocked just hours ago [5]. Although this is unrelated to Koli group, it was concentrated on Ahir related pages. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Not just that they added such random lines from random google books search on countless pages but even now they are defending every pages with new IDs and IPs, your edit on Kullu was reverted within an hour by an IP. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Some articles also use "शारदा विवि" which I hadn't searched. There's a bit more there like the coverage over multiple attacks on foreign students in 2018. It has a medical school and a 1200 bed hospital which has received coverage in English as well as in Hindi papers. If this is about notability, I'd hesitate about taking it to or voting for deletion. Hemantha (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Monisha Shah was BBC World director in India and also involved with the Ji Mantriji project, including authoring/co-authoring book(s). It would be grateful if people could point me at any Hindi languages sources and also confirm her written name in Hindi. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: You've spelled the first name differently in the title and lede of hi:मोनीषा शाह. Both spellings are plausible, and since "Monisha" is not a dictionary-word or a common name, it is difficult to say what the 'correct spelling would be. Fwiw, for sake of consistency I'd go with मोनीषा since the closest common Indian name Manisha is spelled मनीषा in Hindi. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks ... really useful answer. I'm tied in real-life for a few? days so am time-crunched, but if I can get some space to concentrate on that I'll likely implement the suggestion. Good spot! Thanks again! Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Please be noting the deletion discussion at hi:विकिपीडिया:पृष्ठ हटाने हेतु चर्चा/लेख/मोनीषा शाह. While the article was deleted from the English Wikipedia there may have been systemic bias in that discussion: not least because WikiProject India were given limited notice on article alerts of that discussion before closure, and significance in Inida may have been downplayed. There are multiple, and I mean multiple, matters that arise from that discussion but I remain in serious and increasingly serious time crunch and am totally reactive to WP discussions and will not initiate a DRV until I have prepared all points. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Polycarpa aurata: Yes, that is my planned intention. NutNote I am severely real life time crunched, and time spent on discussion here risks impacting people in my real life, so I would expect to raise the DRV at this momentSome later time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC) & Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
RFC:Historical tittle for Prithviraja-III
I was thinking of doing this for a broader input to get a long term community consensus but thought the issue was just too trivial, but now it's getting out of control as two users are very much hell bent on establishing Prithviraj Chauhan, 12th century Rajput king as an emperor instead of king (which is used in article from years) To be honest, he was at best a ruler who ruled a certain territory but can't be called a emperor. Unless, someone wants glorification of different level altogether. Besides that fact, all other editors (only two to be honest) inserted king should be used as historic tittle. Please, give your brief inputs folks. Packer&Tracker (talk) 01:12, 15 April (UTC)
An unadvertised RFC is really just a noticeboard discussion. In this instance, a neutral note that a discussion is ongoing on the subject talk page is proper. Otr500 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
New Kashmir map
Existing Kashmir map
New Kashmir Map
User Rr016 has created this new map showing the status of Kashmir in much greater detail than any of the existing maps. Would you support changing the current Kashmir maps with this file? Viewsridge (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
For comparison I have added the existing the existing Kashmir map that the 'Situation in Kashmir' map will presumably replace. Abecedare (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "entirely based off". It is opentopomap terrain and showing the LAC as it is marked on OSM at this time. But that is WP:UGC and no value can be placed on it. India's claimed boundary (the black line) has been hand-copied from somewhere, we haven't been told where. Hand-copying does introduce errors, sometimes significant ones, e.g., the outer boundary of the Demchok sector. Locations also seem to be marked by hand, e.g., "Panamic" is somewhere in boondocks.
More basically, what is it that you are trying to do? What is it that is missing in the original CIA map that you think needs fixing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
CIA map is outdated, from 2004 and uses an old design. The new map is higher in resolution, easier to edit in .svg format and has more details on town. If there are any mistakes they can easily be edited in Inkscape, it should cite the same resources as the old CIA file. Viewsridge (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The new map is an unmitigated disaster. How anyone could make such a singular interpretation of WP:BOLD as to upload it en masse in a dozen highly controversial Kashmir-related pages without so much as exhibiting a hint of an intent on the talk page first, and, moreover, to replace the CIA map, is hard to understand. I have just seen this. Will post something shortly. I was the one who reverted all those map edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
What are the chances that new map, Situation in Kashmir, hereafter, SiK, can replace the well-worn map prepared by the world's premiere spying agency, whose U2 pilots have risked life and limb in the environs of Central Asia, a map which is cited in quite a few scholarly books on Kashmir, and was the result of a hard-won consensus of WikiProjects India and Pakistan (pinging their senior editors @Saqib: and @Mar4d:)?
The CIA map shows the geographical surroundings of Kashmir, much more clearly e.g. the Wakhan Corridor, Tajikistan, Kyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly NWFP) to the leftward, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh below; China (Tibet and Xinjiang) to the east and north.
SiK has nothing.
Upon clicking only once, CIA map clearly shows the boundaries between Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, between J&K and Ladakh;
SiK has nothing except the names and a case of tiny ants crawling in some green fungus, in the manner in which Jeeves had alluded to the new mustache of Bertie Wooster.
The CIA map shows the larger political context of Kashmir in South Asia in an inset (bottom right);
SiK has nothing.
The CIA map shows the historical context of Kashmir by showing the map as claimed by the Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), marked boldly and noted in the inset on the upper right. It shows the historic towns of Xiadulla and Kangsiwar at which in the mid-19th century the brothers Schlagintweit, Hermann, Adolph and Robert, had sojourned before cutting through the Hindutash Pass en route to Khotan and other fabled destinations of East Turkestan; Aurel Stein had repeated a similar journey half a century later, collected artwork, now lodged in the National Museum, New Delhi and of interest to WP art historians such as @Johnbod: (pinging Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC))
SiK has nothing. .
The CIA map shows many physical features: it clearly shows the Pangong lakes over which India and China have been feuding lately, hand-to-hand in the manner of Genghis Khan without his horse. It shows the Indus coursing leftward of Leh; it shows K2 (even tells you, it was formerly Mt Godwin Austen), Nanga Parbat, Rakaposhi; it show both the Karakorams and the Ladakh Himalaya range; it shows the Khunjerab Pass and the Karakoram Pass. It shows the Hindu kush.
SiK has nothing
The CIA map shows the important political features by name: Line of Control (1972) and the Line of Actual Control
SiK has nothing
I could continue ... but what is the point of wasting my time and yours. The CIA map veritably evokes a world of connections. This is case of: No Contest Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review F&f. Some of the issues, such as text size, missing labels etc, may be easy to fix. But, the 'user generated' nature of the map will always be a concern. Given the highly disputed nature of the territories, it is useful IMO to have a map directly attributable to a prominent source (such as CIA), which the reader can then evaluate and decide to trust (or not). That said, I appreciate the effort by Rr016et al in creating the new map, which appears to have been undertaken in good faith. Abecedare (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
As a sanity check, I looked at the Israel article. There, the main maps showing the details of the disputed territories (, , , ) are all ultimately attributable to UN or OCHA for, I assume, similar reasons. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: The general idea for the creation of the map was to create a modern design SVG vector file that would be zoomable without losing resolution and be easy to edit by users. With regards to the mistakes or lacking material you've listed above they can be easily added to the file. Viewsridge (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Viewsridge, would it be possible/to convert the existing CIA map into SVG format? That would allow us to edit, say, the color, size and language of the labels etc. Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, when they have so added such details, we can talk about it again on this talk page. At this stage it is work in progress, far far away from where it needs to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Aside: while we are on this topic, @Viewsridge: (nice name, btw, when in the realm of the Himalayas), is there any chance you could show the river Indus clearly in the map?
While we are on the topic of the Indus, any way you could convert the map File:Course and major tributaries of the Indus.jpg into this SVG vector file? I know you can't directly convert it, but somehow do it in a way that is faithful to the original colors and boundaries in the map?
Another thing I haven't quite understood over the years: the old maps will often have pastel colors; the new maps have colors that seem to border on the lurid even where they attempt to be pastel as in File:Indus flooding 2010 en.svg. Is that the choice of the creator or a problem in the format. I'm not an expert in graphics, but I couldn't help noticing the difference (because we often get requests to replace old maps with new ones). Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@Viewsridge the font that says controlled by China is unreadable even if I click the image. The UT boundry betweek JNK and Ladakh is hardly visible. Need to use a more prominent contrasting colour or change thickness something that makes it more clear. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Dear @Viewsridge: So, let me get this straight: you have saved the OpenToposMap, at a certain resolution, which can be seen, for example, for the Nanga Parbat Group, at here and overwritten it. Is that correct? For I can see the half erased lettering of Nanga Parbat Group underneath. But when I click on the link above, the peaks within the group separate, and Nanga Parbat itself shows. No such thing happens in your map. The moth-eaten letters of "Nanga Parbat Group" simply get bigger, and they have been covered with a big bold "Nanga Parbat" with a big bold triangle. If I move up in your map, I see Gilgit in Urdu, and above it Batora Sar in Latin lettering. But if I click on the OpenTopos link, to magnify, it gives way to Urdu lettering "Batura Glasheer" and only later after several clicks does the famous peak Batura Sar appear. You seem to be overwriting the OpenTopos for Kashmir at that resolution. The enhancement you have done seems to be creating new issues. In your enhanced map, you have overwritten Muzaffarabad, which was in Urdu, and whose "m" (meem) is now half eaten. There are mispellings "Nanga Parbal," "Kakakorams," "Prince State of Kashmir" You've put a large black triangle on the letters of the mountain "Distaghil Sar" and relabeled it with the mispelling "Distahgil Sar." Well, those are the easy ones to fix. Your mountain ranges both the Karakorams and the Ladakh Himalayas are ramrod straight. You seem to be relabeling a map whose labels are in Urdu in Pakistan and English in India. Many Indian towns have two labels as a result. I don't know what to say. I think you should cut your teeth on simple village maps in the Kashmir region. I mean this sincerely. You will learn something and it would be a valuable addition to Wikpedia. How about beginning with something like Category:Villages in Kargil district? Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
IYou should ask someone on WP about how to do a multi-dimensional scaling. It would be great if you could create a multiscale map of Goshan village in the Drass (?) river valley starting at this resolution from which the reader could click out gradually to see it within a larger region; invaluable it would be. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, OpenStreetMap and OpenTopoMap are huge databases, which render images for us whatever scale we demand. That is not the case with images that we produce here. They are just graphic images. When we magnify, the pixels space out but that is about it. (The survey maps on the other hand are scans of paper maps at very high resolution. They can be zoomed in, but our images are pygmies in front of those.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I was dimly aware of that, having zoomed in and out many times. I guess what I was suggesting was to present Goshan at say four or five or six resolutions only, not all, with the one I have presented above being the highest. It would given a viewer the chance to click to see it in context: village, tehsil, district, union territory, former state, and upper South Asia, a flag or pin showing it in each. Viewsridge could seek the help of graphics whizzes such as Avantipura or Planemad. What he is doing is a waste of time. I could easily load the map at the next higher resolution and label the maps properly without creating double labels, with my skills, such as they are. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You've now created double labels, yours and the original. I still don't see the Indus clearly demarcated because the resolution at which you have downloaded the map, doesn't show the whole river, which traditional maps do by employing horizonal exaggeration along the axis of the river flow (similar to vertical exaggeration of peaks). Please note that Wikipedia injunction to be WP:BOLD comes with qualifications, the main one of which is to be careful:
changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes
I've told you: you should cut your teeth on villages of Kashimir, showing them in four our five resolutions: village, tehsil, district, state, country. Before that, please read about Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler and Viewsridge: Is there any reason why we have "union territory" in brackets under both J&K and Ladakh's names on the newer map? Pakistan or China for that matter don't recognise either the territorial status or claim for statehood for both. It compromises the political neutrality of the map and ought to be reinstated in favour of just 'Jammu and Kashmir' and 'Ladakh' like it is for the other regions. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Hello. The maps and the pages Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) are the result of a WikiProjects India and Pakistan consensus in August 2019, when the Indian government changed the status of J&K and changed one state (J&K) into two union territories (J&K and Ladakh). So, now there are three pages: Jammu and Kashmir (state), Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh. If you examine their leads and infoboxes, they all have the same format: they all say "Region administered by India as a union territory" with the same citations: Britannica and the Encyclopedia of UN Treaties. It is similar to Gilgit-Baltistan which used to be Northern Areas. We have to have some way of disambiguating Jammu and Kashmir (state) which used to contain Ladakh with the new Jammu and Kashmir, which consists of only the Jammu division + Kashmir division, and is administered by India's federal government. Note, Britannica has the same language. You can see it in the citation in Ladakh lead. Sure we could remove the label '(union territory)', but it would become confusing when people try to distinguish between the map of the old state which shows a bigger J&K, and the new map which shows a smaller J&K. After all, even the names Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir or Aksai Chin are not recognized by the disputing countries. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. In any case, would you be inclined to agree that the readers would be intelligent enough to distinguish between the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, and the present union territory (especially since this is a map of the "Kashmir region")? I feel the article leads do a good enough job of explaining the political status of each territory, and the maps should be kept simple and consistent. For example, it makes little sense to qualify Ladakh as a UT because there is no other Ladakh. I can understand the argument for J&K, but again it comes back to consistency in the map. Since all the other constituent parts of Kashmir are mentioned by name, it's only logical that this be applied uniformly. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Problem is not the old princely state. It is the Indian state (i.e. province) of Jammu and Kashmir (which had three divisions: Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh). The first two divisions are now part of the Indian administered Union Territory of "Jammu and Kashmir" and the third is a part of the Union Territory of Ladakh. If we call the Union Territory only Jammu and Kashmir, readers will not be able to distinguish between the more notable Indian state of J&K (which was called only Jammu and Kashmir) and the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir which you would also liked to be called "Jammu and Kashmir." In fact, most references in the literature to anything notable after 1947 (India-Pakistan wars 1947, 65, Kargil; the Kashmir insurgency; the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus; killing and maiming of predominantly Muslim Kashmiri civilians by India; the Human Rights violations of predominantly Muslim Kashmiri civilians by India) are pretty much all to the J&K state, not the union territory. To change the name or not is for the Wikipedia page to decide. There has been a push from India-POV promoters, or should I say promoters of the political dispensation currently in place in India to rename Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) simply "Jammu and Kashmir." But that is a part of a somewhat irredentist effort to have for this federally administered "part of India" with no autonomy the whole nine yards of the mantle of Jammu and Kashmir. So far that has not happened. If you change the map, you will need to change the page name as well. I don't see that happening right in the near future. Jammu and Kashmir remains a dab page; to change it a consensus of Wikiprojects India and Pakistan (and perhaps China, but they generally don't care, if it is not Aksai Chin) will be required. It is the same with changing the map from the CIA map to any other map. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for the lengthy justification. In that case, we can qualify J&K as a UT. Ladakh and the rest can be retained as is. Ironically, the name "Jammu and Kashmir" is as accurate and literal as you can get to describe the now-UT. But you're right, we have to take the post-1947 and pre-2019 scenario into account, in which case J&K would include the part that is actually outside of "Jammu" and "Kashmir". Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler, Abecedare, Kautilya3, DaxServer, Venkat TL, and Mar4d: I have added a 3rd variant of the map which includes all the details in the existing map. Some details in this, specifically the towns in Pakistan and the mountains may seem a bit excessive, I would like to ask the users who participated in this discussion to voice their opinion regarding which map they support among the files listed above. Viewsridge (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Fixed, thanks. If you notice any other typos or common names please point them out. You could also share your opinion in the RfC below. Viewsridge (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I would also prefer the CIA map because of it's detailing. I understand the need for scalable map but that should not come at the cost of loosing details present in current map. The issues I see are,
No overall awareness of South Asia region.
Very big country names.
Trimmed Wakhan Corridor.
No info on Trans-Karakoram Tract that it was ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963 and never recognized by India.
Does not explain various boundaires such as LOC, LAC, International boundary, regional boundary, roads, railways etc.
The card on top-right corner label the map as "Situation in Kashmir".
Duplicate names at some places (i.e. Sopore) and no info on various lake in the region.
Perennial content changes and move requests for OFFICIALNAME
I wanted to raise the profile of the perennial content changes to Faizabad and related articles (~ district, ~ division, ~ railway station, ~ constituency, etc) to use "Ayodhya" instead, and likewise to Allahabad, as well as move requests and unilateral page moves. Also, are there other place names in this category? If so, we should list them all in one place. These changes are often, but not always, made as good faith efforts based on an appeal to WP:Official names, whereas we rely on WP:COMMONNAME. As far as dealing with it, there is already a multi-pronged effort, including:
constant vigilance by a band of dedicated and tireless editors watching and repairing the articles (thanks, all—you know who you are)
other (what am I forgetting?)
Currently, this is being addressed ad hoc, with page protection, Rfc's, edit notices, and so on spread in various locations, and other individual actions on separate pages. To an extent, this is how it should be; different articles may have different requirements. Nevertheless, there's a common thread among them, and I'm wondering if we need more centralized attention to this problem, perhaps via a task force, or perhaps a subpage here in order to track this issue in one place, and to have a forum to discuss ways to mitigate the problem more generally, and share information about it that may also affect other articles with similar problems.
What inspired this just now, was the rather long and rambling user talk page notice I just left at the UTP of a user who has repeatedly made changes of this nature, including edits to articles contrary to consensus, futile Talk page requests, and even a unilateral page move; all quickly reverted. It took way too long to write the message, and I'd like to replace it with a standardized user warning template that would boil it down to the essentials, and could be another tool in our toolkit for dealing with this problem. (As a template writer, I volunteer to write it, but we ought to discuss the wording and features first.) But it seems like we need a centralized place to discuss the larger topic of perennial changes of this nature of which a dedicated warning template is just one small cog. The goal imho, would be to reduce the amount of ad hoc effort currently required of volunteer editors working to mitigate the damage, by whatever tools, procedures, or discussion we can bring to bear on the problem.
Any support, or objection, to doing something like this, or what do you think is needed in order to best manage this issue? Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Watch the page and revert any changes that are not supported by enough sources to show the official name has become the more [[WP:COMMONNAME|common name]]. Leave section comments that the current name follows consensus and the more common name. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Village naming protocol
Hi people, visiting this page after a long time. I have a question regarding village names. There are two villages by the same name in Himachal Pradesh. The page for one already exists - Dhanotu. I plan to create the other one. However not sure of the recent naming conventions. Should I move this page to Dhanotu, Kangra District and create the other one (also with district name) or is there a different convention? Thanks for your help — Ramit(talk)17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ramitmahajan Yes, please move to district level as Dhanotu, Kangra district note the small d in district, and create the new one with its respective district as state is the same. If they're in the same district, fallback to lower admin territory of tehsil / mandal / taluk depending on what they are called in that state :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I prefer using "district" as it shouldn't be confused with a neighborhood of the city -- most districts are named for the largest city. In this particualar case, neither Kangra city nor Kangra district are the primary topic! —SpacemanSpiff15:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
How many of the articles categorized are properly sourced to be a member of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha? Seems to me like Vandy 1989 (talk·contribs) (at the moment) is adding them when the article subject belongs to Yadav community [6]. Please keep an eye out — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I have checked and added this categorized as per the relevant sources. before you put the rollback check again over the full article sources of the pages. Vandy 1989 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Vandy 1989 I probably should have been more explicit. Will you be able to provide reliable sources which verify that they are members of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha? Reliable sources, not Wikipedia links. Also FYI: caste addition to articles require self-identification (see this discussion) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so, to be honest. I could see having a section in the main Lalu Prasad Yadav article talking about his political strategies, but it really doesn't seem to merit its own article, especially when the quality is this poor. Most of the info in the article seems to be just general information and links to politicians but not really helping explain the topic at hand. -Evansknight (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It should perhaps be deleted, but there are so many WP:NOTNEWS-y sources that a proper evaluation of coverage will require a lot of time. I've moved it to draft for now. Hemantha (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPOV was a big reason as well, as I made clear in my note. On references, in the first 10 refs, 3-4 are uncredited IANS reposts; ToI and News18 are generally unreliable; FE doesn't even mention the term and so on. Please review WP:RS and WP:OR. Hemantha (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
But if you compare the two articles, the Luv-Kush equation article is well written, well structured, and is very informative. The Muslim-Yadav article as it now exists is poorly written, confusing, and not at all informative, therefore it makes more sense to exist as a draft until it has been brought to article standards. A plethora of sources does not a good article make. Evansknight (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, there is considerable coverage of caste alliances as a general concept in the politics of Bihar in particular and North/Central India in general; but specific combinations are rarely going to be worthy of standalone articles, as alliances frequently shift. This article in particular isn't well written, by which I mean imprecise use of language has resulted in considerable original research. For instance; what does "Yadav-dominated"? Are those regions where Yadav's are in a numerical majority? I don't think so; it's exceptionally rare for any caste-group to constitute more than 50% of the population. So what then? The sources look like a list of articles that pop up when "Muslim-Yadav formula" is googled. Such a search isn't the right way to research such a fraught topic; if you're trying to determine whether this is a reasonable topic, you need to research caste alliances in general, else you end up violating WP:DUE. This isn't ready for mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk)16:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: No problem . Yes, this user seems like a POV pusher. In this recent edit, they changed the quote from "there were no essential differences between Sikhs and Hindus" to "Sikhs should stay to their roots and revolt against the British and crush the Purbiyas (Easterners)", when the former seem to have been taken word for word from page 277 of book source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the above "Sikhs should stay to their roots and revolt against the British and crush the Purbiyas", seems to go beyond problematic POV pushing venturing into racial discriminatory (race prejudice) vandalism. A stern warning and possible future block may be needed. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I initially went to the Indian Television discussion board but it doesn't seem to be active. My problem is that I've come across an editor adding his name to television cast lists. Then, when I looked at one, in this case, Crime Patrol (TV series), there are dozens, maybe over a hundred names added to the cast list, most of whom do not have articles on Wikipedia.
I realize that there is probably much more attention paid to film than TV and standards about film articles are likely more agreed-upon than those for television series, but is there any guidance on managing these excessive list of cast members, many of whom might just have been extras or been in one episode? Would it be okay to pare the names down to just those who have articles on Wikipedia unless they played a main role in the series and just don't have an article created yet? Right now, it seems like anyone, in this case, a new editor, could just add their names to a cast list and get lost among the dozens of other unlinked names listed on the page, without providing any verification at all.
Almost all of these artices are adorned with IMDb in the "External links", providing real added information or not, but usually listing cast members and others involved. Maintenance of indiscriminant listings of bit part or other non-notable cast members is backed by policy. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a movie guide there does not need to be a comprehensive listing.
If this editor is one of the cast members then there is certainly WP:COI issues. Please note: 1)- Even if a project is active actors, directors, and filmmakers are covered under Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography if mention involves a living person then it is BLP related, 2)- In the case mentioned above, the actors (actresses) with blue links can be mentioned in prose instead of such a large listing of unimportant "Investigating officers" and "Other roles" that provide a net-negative presentation. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I see that there has been some recent activity at File:Emblem of India.svg but don't know if it qualifies as vandalism. If admin attention is needed, it would (ideally) be at Commons but, hopefully, here we can discuss the content issue to decide which version of the emblem is preferable and whether the recent changes should be retained/reverted. Swapnil1101 and Vikassinghhhh, can you clarify your specific concerns? And Chidananda Kampa, can you please watch this discussion and respond? Abecedare (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The previous version which was uploaded had less clarity and had noise. Re-created and have kept it as it is by the image from the pdf of (https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A2005-50.pdf). When first time uploaded the image had some corrections and optimizations which was later uploaded. But after uploading the svg was rendered improperly, so the svg had to be uploaded repeatedly. Chidananda Kampa (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
why are you uploading old 2005 logo which is too thin and imporperly skewed, when new logos like data.gov.in (2018) and New MOFPA logo desigined in 2020 clearly bold design and use special type of devanagiri font where maatra don't join with lines. Swapnil1101 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
First the Devanagari font is rendered perfectly as it should and it is font feature/characterstics not to connect lines and it is SVG Image not a word document that it will render imperfectly.
See Even State Government logo use same Devanagari Font Calligraphy.
I think its better to use the logo which Government Officials use in there PDFs and Website. With the help of Inkscape software, i extracted it without any need to trace bitmap as it was itself a vector version. Swapnil1101 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The modern Kamboj are still found living chiefly by agriculture, business and military service which were the chief professions followed by their Kamboja ancestors some 2500 years ago as powerfully attested by Arthashastra[27] and Brhat Samhita.[28] Numerous foreign and Indian writers have described the modern Kambojs/Kambohs as one of the finest class of agriculturists of India.[29] British colonial writers such as H. A. Rose and Denzil Charles J. Ibbetson note the Kamboj and Ahir agriculturists as the first rank husbandmen and they rate them above the Jatts.[30] They occupy exactly the same position in general farming as the Ramgarhias occupy in general industry.
The Kambojs have made great contributions in agriculture and military fields. The majority of Krishi Pandit awards in Rajasthan/India have been won by the Kamboj agriculturists[31] . Col Lal Singh Kamboj, a landlord from Uttar Pradesh, was the first Indian farmer to win the prestigious Padam Shri Award for progressive farming in 1968 from President of India. According to Dr M. S. Randhawa (Ex-Vice Chancellor, Punjab University), the Kamboj farmers have no equals in industry and tenacity.[32]
has been copied in this revision by the IP [11]. After I reverted them, this new user restores the same with 'sources' which I believe to be a case of fake-sourcing and WP:SYNTHdiff. I searched a little and found another [12] with similar copy-paste style edit. Pinging @Sitush and Yamaguchi先生: who are aware of and have reverted such changes in the past. I've also opened an SPI case SPI case. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Since the page is tagged under Wikiproject Pakistan, my merge-request has been long featured in their article-alert-banner.
That being said, Wikiproject Pakistan is semi-dead - see their noticeboard, which is filled with multiple unattended posts from me, Uanfala, and others. C. 2019, most of their active editors seem to have been either discovered as sock-puppets or blatant POV-pushers and that was the end of it. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think @Mar4d and Saqib: are, but even so, it is not the province of WP:India, given the general demographic of bias against anything Pakistan related. Find some more general forum which is active. Pakistani-POV editors don't go around editing little known Indian pages. Indian-POV editors have been editing Pakistan pages for ages, sometimes blatantly, showing "This user believes in reunification." or somesuch on their user pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you all are doing great. Can we get some helping hand for adding review from sources which are listed on the talk page of the article. Editor who are having proficiency in Bengali Languages are humbly welcomed. Thanks, stay safe C1K98V(💬✒️📂)23:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Social class lists Yadav as warrior class, and has done for a long time. Article Yadav describes them as traditionally pastoralists and neither a single caste nor a varna. It says they claim Kshatriya descent, but so I guess may a lot of groups, and Kshatriya is already in the navbox. I don't "have a dog in this fight" or "a horse in this race", however you like to phrase it: I was pinged to a discussion and noticed the navbox on the article, which struck me as odd. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Pelagic, i’ve gone ahead and removed the Yadav link as the subject is not comparable to the standalone examples of warrior-‘class’ already present in the template and is reliant on Kshatriya as an anchor. A better serving PLA-friendly link for readers would be from sanskritization. Zindor (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Should the new Kashmir map be used in articles
The new map includes the new roads and highways that have been built since the old map was created in 2004.
The new map is higher in resolution and is easier to edit in SVG format.
The new map includes all the material included in the old file on top of new material displaying additional settlements, prominent peaks, additional lakes and rivers. Viewsridge (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Old map The old map is sourced, the new one is not. There are a couple of aesthetic reasons for my preference as well but the lack of sourcing is, imo, a killer. Since the new map is unsourced, we would need to verify each entity marked on the map (not practical) and catch errors (e.g., "prince state") one at a time (neither practical nor reliable). BTW, since sourcing was explicitly brought up in the previous discussion, is the RfC neutrally stated?--RegentsPark (comment) 20:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree, the new map's colors make it much harder to read, and there seem to be quite a few errors and spelling mistakes, on top of the lack of sourcing. -Evansknight (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Evansknight and RegentsPark:The source is the old map, it is simply an altered version. You can point out any spelling mistakes you have noticed and they can be quickly fixed, along with the color scheme which can be modified. Viewsridge (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You say the source is the old map, but if it is altered, then those specific alterations need to be sourced, don't they? Evansknight (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: I'm of the opinion that we should prefer a sourced map over an unsourced one, and especially so when the content is likely to be contentious. The new map, which uses an OSM base map, is unsourced even if, in the degenerate case, it is an exact copy of the original map But, that's just me so let's see what other people say. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: I don't understand where you get the idea that the map is unsourced when its sources are clearly stated. If you don't like the design/style you can prefer the old map but please don't say the new map is unsourced. Viewsridge (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Princely it says. Again Princely it says. Let me spell is out: P R I N C E L Y. It is an adjective which means "Of, belonging to, or relating to a prince or princes; held, exercised, or governed by a prince" Wikipedia has a page: Princely state. That is not the only mistake you have made that is grossly insulting to the history of the subcontinent. You continue to spell one of the world's great mountain ranges "Kakakorams." You continue to render the label ramrod straight, which the mountain range broadly is not. This is not a lesson where you continue to unfairly importune other editors, making one rudimentary error after another. And they are politely telling you to end this quest, but you take no heed. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: Good faith is hard to assume when people prematurely end one discussion which is not going their way and start an RfC, where editors have to repeat everything they have already stated, and where the RfC's nominator is using the venue to generally copy-edit their rudimentary and error-ridden high resolution map. You cannot keep changing the terms of the RfC nomination, which has a description in words or in graphic representation, by continually changing either the words or the representation. Please change your map to what you had at the beginning or I soon will. I am serious. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Old map per my previous comment and what RegentsPark said above. To give a concrete example of the type of issues the new map raises: compare the two maps at the south-east corner of Ladakh near Demchok. In the new map the Chinese-claim line follows the Indus river while in the CIA-sourced map the line is to the west of the river. Is the new map 'correct' (source?) or is this a user-generated error? In either case, why should the reader trust the new map? Abecedare (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This indeed seems to be a user generated error, I have now fixed it. If there are any other mistakes or missing material you have noticed please point them out. Viewsridge (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Yup. Follow along the Nubra river to the Siachen glacier, which in the CIA map is marked as 'contested area' and very cleverly shaded in a mix of green and yellow. In the new map that Nubra river is shown much shorter, but if you follow along its valley, the whole of the valley falls squarely in the Indian administered part. Note that while such individual issues can and should be fixed, the fundamental problem that simply labeling a user-generated map is 'a map of the disputed region created by the US Central Intelligence Agency' doesn't make it so. Sorry for being blunt and pointing out such trivial seeming differences, but these are the type of issues that battles are literally being fought over between three countries. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Another issue: the new map shows a part of the Line of Control extending parallel to the Siachen Glacier. That is incorrect. The demarcated LoC famously stops at point NJ9842, north of which the Indo-Pak border is (even more) contested. The CIA map depicts this correctly. What the new map may be depicting is the Actual Ground Position Line, mistakenly labeling it as the LoC. But since the CIA map shows no such line, what is the source of this part of the border? Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the NJ9842 and the Actual Ground Position Line. The source is either the CIA map or OSM, in this case OSM was used since it is not depicted in the CIA map. Viewsridge (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes the map better even while the mix-and-match makes source tracing more difficult for the reader; an unavoidable dilemma. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I've always been puzzled by the map in the Kashmir infobox. That sort of map is great to have in the Geography section, but for the top of the article a detailed topographic map is a poor choice. What's needed is something to primarily show the broad spatial context and – optionally – the main subregions (though without going into details). The sort of map you have at Afganistan, Queensland or Tuva (to pick three random examples). – Uanfala (talk)01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
You make a good point. Looking at the Kashmir article, there is no map indicating its relative position in south Asia, Asia or the world except for the inset in the CIA map. Would be a useful addition (rather than replacement) to the current maps; I am neutral as to whether the addition should be at the top or page or not. Abecedare (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Uanfala:Actually, I have always wondered why Wikipedia maps don't also show the other side of the globe, and perhaps the underside and overside as well for the full context, perhaps even with the moon thrown in so that WP's brilliant readers don't confuse Kashmir with a green glob on the globe of the green people of Mars.
In other words, most readers already know where Kashmir is, broadly. Kashmir is also one of the world's oldest disputes whose every inch is fought over by the disputants, who are making sure with the tired eyes of South Asian vultures that no drop, shard, and string of blood, bone, and sinew of the writhing land has been unjustifiably given, in the manner of Sir Cyril of Old, to one party of the dispute. The CIA map has both the details readers come to learn about and a broad scale map of South Asia in the context of Central Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Here is an alternative version of the file with the global location of Kashmir if you're interested. I personally don't like this as it goes in to basic information in a detailed map, let me know what you think. Viewsridge (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The locator map on the left is probably a bit too zoomed out. I don't think we need more than South and Central Asia as background. As for insets, these are ancillary; we shouldn't be relying on them as the main method of showing location in the infobox (to use them, readers will typically need to load the image separately and then zoom in, provided they notice in the inset in the first place). Ideally, the infobox should start with a broad locator map, then have a clear and uncluttered map of the first-level divisions (Ladakh, Aksai Chin, etc), and only further down in a relevant section a detailed map (like the CIA one) that will show mountains, rivers, roads, tunnels, towns and all. – Uanfala (talk)21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if this is recent as i've been away for quite a while but the census search appears to have been depreciated in favour of a new population finder (hidden at bottom of the page). It's a speedy gadget but does anybody have a clue how to cite the thing? Unfortunately it also seems that any links within citations to the census data on the old sub-domain are currently dead-links. Hoping i'm interpreting this wrong Zindor (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The depreciation of the census search link is somewhat recent (a few weeks). I was hoping that it was a temporary issue, but since they have this new (and "improved") gadget, it looks like we're out of luck. I guess we have to go back to citing PDFs and spreadsheets containing data for every settlement in a district. Aargh! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, those joyous district census handbooks. I'll work on putting together a page of shortcuts for us and when it's done (could be a while) will host it on the project. Zindor (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Should the newer Kashmir map be used in articles
Old or New Which of these maps should be used to display the situation in Kashmir?
Old map
Newer map
As user Fowler&fowler has pointed out the RfC above has become obsolete since small changes have been made to the map after the RfC was opened. Please continue the discussion here. Thank you.
The new map includes the new roads and highways that have been built since the old map was created in 2004.
The new map is higher in resolution and is easier to edit in SVG format.
The new map includes all the material included in the old file on top of new material displaying additional settlements, prominent peaks, additional lakes and rivers.
Can an uninvolved admin please look into the goings on here? There seem to be three discussions on the talk page: the original which was never completed, a first RfC which seems to be still open, and now a second RfC. It seems the nominator, is bending the rules in some fashion. What fashion I leave for you to decice: pinging some uninvolved: @El C and Bishonen:Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
New one. It is more clear than the other. I would have liked it more if there was no highlighting of mountains. It's not required and is distracting. Peter Ormond 💬17:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
A couple of things: Jhelum is spelled Jhefum on this new map; The original text for Sopore, Pattan, Anantnag, Awantipora and Bijbehara is still visible under the new text; could you put an outline or a shadow around the pink text indicating the former princely state? it's just very hard to read pink on white. Evansknight (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Old map for reasons explained previously and expanded upon in the earlier RFC that was prematurely closed. To recap: Given the highly disputed nature of the territories, it is useful to have a map directly attributable to a prominent source (such as CIA), which the reader can then evaluate and decide to trust (or not). The newer user-generated maps (1) mix data from the CIA map and OpenStreetMap in a way that a reader cannot trace the origins of of any particular map feature, and (2) consequently introduced (and still contain) errors and unexplained deviations. In addition, while being easily editable is usually a positive feature, as this discussion has shown, the resultant instability and lack of audit-trail make the newer maps an unsuitable replacement. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Library of Congress CIA High-Def Map with no labels of Administered Entities I have uploaded a hi-res CIA map (4597x4920). It is the map on which the low-res map which is the subject of this RfC is based. Like the above map, this one had the old names, Northern Areas and Jammu and Kashmir (for the state), which I have removed. The names now are only Gilgit, Baltistan, Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, and Aksai Chin, singly. I believe this might be the most NPOV way to represent a disputed territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
PS This map appears on page 180 of the book Mapping Central Asia: Indian Perceptions and Strategies, Ashgate/Routledge, 2011
The disputed Kashmir region showing the major subregions and administering countries. @Viewsridge, Abecedare, Kautilya3, DaxServer, Venkat TL, Mar4d, Evansknight, Uanfala, and Peter Ormond: and any other editor I might have missed from the discussions above. I have also uploaded a hi-res (2,418 × 2,992) version of the broadscale map of Kashmir showing only the major subregions. This too is an updated version of the CIA map of 2002. It appears in the frontispiece of Shahla Hussain's book Kashmir in the Aftermath of the Partition, Cambridge, 2021. Uanfala: Please note the new broadscale and high resolution versions in the manner you had suggested in the other RfC. If you don't like the white labels, I can change the color. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
New or CIA depending upon the topic. Thank you Fowler and Viewsridge for uploading these useful maps. In my opinion, the RfC is not appropriately drafted. It attempts to Use one map in all the Kashmir related articles when it should have been addressed in a case by case basis. For example an Article on Kashmir Dispute should have the CIA map in infobox. The article on Kashmir state should have CIA map in infobox. The article on Ladakh UT (Administrative area) can have the more recent map by Viewsridge. If there is a conflict between using the CIA vs new map, I would prefer to use the CIA map, because it is a standard and verified map. Venkat TL (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Old one as it is the only reliably sourced map - see previous RfC for a longer explanation and please note that, once again, the RfC proposer makes no mention of the sourcing concern. (Note: I'll probably !vote the same way in the next RfC, and the one after that, and ....!)--RegentsPark (comment) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I've lightly highlighted the Indus in the above map, but I've also made a version of the low-res map, really highlighting the river for use on Indus river: File:The Indus river in the Kashmir region.jpg In this map you can see the Ladakh range of the Himalayas beautifully rendered off the right bank of the river in Ladakh. Also pinging @Austronesier: who I believe likes the Indus and the linguistic cultures it has spawned. Fowler&fowler«Talk»06:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks good Fowler&fowler. I think we should mark a few more of the peaks, K2 for sure, perhaps Gasherbaum. The region is known for its many high peaks.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @RegentsPark: K2 is there. Unfortunately, they've put a big black triangle on the topographic shading which might have actually shown the mountain. I'm going to write to LOC to ask if they have the original raster images of the topography. Obviously, the Aksai Chin coloring etc must have been added later. It is hardly likely that the topographers made such detailed maps for some Joe Schmo to spoil them with contemporary disputes. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Done@RegentsPark: If you now look at the hi-res map, it has all five eight-thousanders in Kashmir. Two (K2 and Nanga Parbat) were already there. I've added Gasherbrum I and II and Broad Peak. I once flew in a rickety Aeroflot over the Karakorams. Scarily steep. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
New one - SVG maps inherently have technical advantages and are far easier to edit. The sourcing on anything WP:Contentious (disputed) between countries is the old map in this case. Cononsense (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Please keep an eye out on the article, edits such as this "No Chance of BJP winnig two seats." (sic) - for an election to be held in August - sigh!! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This is just a post to assess the interest there might be here of having a Discord channel for the project. Pinging ArnabSaha as previously expressed interest. I'm not sure if anybody is active in our IRC but this would fulfill a similar role but with more modern technology and better integration with Wikipedia. The idea is to further participation in the project, foster collaboration and enrich our experience here. If you're interested then please comment below as this will be presented to the mods on en-wiki's Discord. I'd also just like to say that keeping the kind of discussions and posts we have on-wiki here at the Noticeboard is of the utmost importance and that should be clear from the outset. I look forward to your replies, Zindor (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Time to subdivide delsort?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India is very commonly used, since India-related topica are covered in depth on the English Wikipedia, and has a very large number of entries. Thus, I think we should subdivide it by state, like we do with the United States and Canada; Kerala and Punjab already have their own delsorts. Many articles that turn up at AfD can be associated with a specific state, especially locations and sometimes biographies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Delsort is a feature for editors, a large chunk of our editors are from the US and therefore dividing by geography there makes sense, that isn't the case in India. The best sorting for India would be crossing with topics -- Indian film topics, Indian geography topics and so on, divvying up by states will only result in a majority of topics never getting any attention at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Spaceman. Delsorting is useful only in so far as it brings the AFDs to the attention of editors interested in and knowledgeable about the area. So state-wise delsorting of Indian articles would be useful only if the particular wikiproject was pretty active and say, at least a few dozen editors, kept an eye on the delsort list. Is there any such Indian state-project? (genuine, not rhetorical, question)?
As a sanity check, I looked up the the current AFDs sorted under the Punjab, and Kerala projects: the former has no entry, while the latter has 1 AFD listed which has attracted no input from any India/Kerala project-member (afaict) despite being relisted twice. That would IMO argue for eliminating those sub-classes rather than creating more. Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the state WikiProjects for India have very few active members. I'd guess that geography also wouldn't have many takers. On the other hand, sport (at least cricket), film and politics might be more useful. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
In the past there're suggestions to archive/redirect state projects/banners as they are inactive
There was also a creation of Wikiproject Jodhpur or Jaipur once (when WP Rajasthan itself doesn't have any participation). I was against this as it just adds clutter to article talk pages but the venture went on. Nothing other than tagging of existing articles ever happened. Same with another one like that -- Wikiproject Tamils or something like that. Indian Film is probably the only one that's active with participation. Cricket gets more eyes from WP Cricket, though there's a large crossover of members. Unfortunately, MfD will also not take care of junk like this as they will say "Give it more time" and "Mark as historical" and all that, our idea of not being a bureaucracy is restricted only to creating junk, not cleaning it up! —SpacemanSpiff06:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree a topical split would be much better. Also, many people would need to be on several geographical lists. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
State flags!
There seems to be some weird stuff going on with addition of flags of states into articles. No state in India has an official flag and this is rather weird that we're pushing this. One example I found is the use of File:..Maharashtra Flag(INDIA).png in many articles though I'm guessing it's just one of many such flags. —SpacemanSpiff14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
(2) It depends where they are getting added and if these flags are reliably sourced. I dont think they should be used at places other than the flag article, state article and the history of the state articles. The Maharashtra example looks strange, is unsourced too. If these flags lack sources they should be removed. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The erstwhile J&K state was the only one to have a flag. Karnataka doesn't have an official flag, as much as we'd like to say so. It's only a demand, and it's used de facto, not de jure. —SpacemanSpiff16:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so this is a tricky one, and this may not be the space for it, so if so, let me know, but I was perusing the various articles about the Asaf Jahi Nizams of Hyderabad yesterday, and something that stuck out to me as odd is the use of the title "Bayafandi" on many of the pages for individuals in the dynasty, and I wanted to know if anyone here had the expertise to judge the historicity of it? I am only aware of the use of the title Beyefendi/Bayafandi in the context of the later Ottoman Empire, and obviously when the two sons of Asaf Jahi VII married Ottoman princesses, their use of the title would make sense, but prior to their marriages, I can't quite understand why or how the rulers of Hyderabad, unique among non-Turkish Muslim rulers, would have taken up that title. There also doesn't seem to be a particular rhyme or reason to the title's usage on the pages. For instance, Asaf Jah VII's page does not include this title, but that of his father Asaf Jahi VI does include it. The articles for Asaf Jah V, Assaf Jah IV, Asaf Jah III, and Asaf Jah II do not include the title Bayafandi, when you get to the first nawab, Asaf Jah I, then his father Feroze Jung and his grandfather Qilich Khan, the title returns! The article for Qilich Khan even goes so far as to state that Qilish Khan was the direct descdentn of Abu Bakr "through the Bayafandi Clan in the 'Asir Region of Arabia,' but this appears to be a hapax legomenon because every use of the phrase "Bayafandi clan" on the internet can be traced back to this specific assertion in this specific article. This paragraph is also suspiciously unsourced. On several Urdu version of these pages, the title is reproduced as "بے آفندی" which appears to be simply a phonetic rendering of the English pronunciation of the word into Urdu, except that the first vowel of the word is given a madda to indicate elongation, but that is not how this vowel is pronounced in either English or Turkish. Is there anyone here with any special knowledge of the Asaf Jahi dynasty and their titles that might be able to shed some light on this? -Evansknight (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Many of these clan pages are filled with history of unrelated historical empires whose name matches little bit with the clan name without backing of any reliable sources. Like Kasana clan with Kushana empire, some Hoon clan (not found in any reliable source) with Huna empires and Bhadana clan with little known Bhadanaka kingdom which was crushed by Prithviraj Chauhan in 12th century, looks like there has been some making of fake history going on. I tried improving some but there is much scope of improvement still. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Slightly unrelated, but has there ever been a consensus on which spelling of Gurjar/Gujjar should be used for continuity in the main article? Because whoever wrote it uses them both interchangeably often in the same sentence and it's very confusing. I would suggest using Gurjar throughout since that's already the title of the page and the variant spellings are introduced in the heading, but if it should be Gujjar then the page name should be changed to reflect that, right?-Evansknight (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Your question led me to search a bit and in the most sources the word used is Gujar or Gujjar rather than Gurjar (the title of the page). Curiously I ran search [14] and Gujar rank the highest while Gujjar is on second place while the title of the page i.e. Gurjar is at last in popularity throught the time period. In my opinion the page should be moved to Gujar. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Certain editors claim to a "consensus" about not discussing the varna details of caste and relevant details (attempts to gain mobility etc.) in lead. Does such a consensus exist?
As anyone who's aware of the Indian caste system would agree, varna has always been a subject of debate, and has often been fluid as well, apart from being imposed by Brahmins in order to exercise their superiority. IMHO, it would be best to discuss varna in the article body (covering all views as per WP:NPOV), and not in the lead, irrespective of whether any such consensus exists or not! Would invite LukeEmily and Kautilya3 to share their comments here in order to have the discussion on this page only. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a IDONOTLIKEIT argument. MOS:LEAD goes, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe there is a consensus. Please see comments by Sitush here. Pinging all editors involved in recent discussion on Baidya about this-@Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Ekdalian, and Nobita456:.
For example, one of the most controversial verifiable statements is the varna of a caste but we very deliberately- by long-standing consensus - avoid putting it in the lead because it just creates a storm. We discuss it in the body, showing all opinions with equal weight.-13:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
It is probable that neither of you are aware of this but there has long been a consensus that we do not mention varna in the lead sections of articles. For that reason, the change is not acceptable.-Sitush 14:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if we had a reliable source for it, consensus has long been that varna is not mentioned in lead sections (and, by extension, in infoboxes & short descriptions). - Sitush 10:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a long-standing consensus that we try to avoid mentioning varna in lead sections because the issue is very frequently complex. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2016
Forward caste issue is dealt with in the article body and the issue is complex. There is a consensus not to include varna & this sort of stuff in lead sections Sitush 17:26, 7 January 2012
Please note that even if these come to light, we would not be showing the varna status in the lead section or infobox as there is a consensus that such things cause only problems. The statement would appear within the body of the article. - Sitush 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus. Adding Varna in the lead (even if 100% correct), will attract vandals, lead to edit wars etc. Words like Shudra are not censored but we can mention them in the body rather than mention in the lead. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hundreds of similar comments by a single editor do not a consensus make.You point to his comments at Yadav but he has not opposed the current lead in place which details their lowly status and upward mobilization. Unlike the reverted edits about Marathas etc., I do not claim the Baidyas to be shudras (or anything else) but rather note the Brahminic literature to have classed them in such a way. Which prompted their quest for upward mobility.If our approach to stop vandalism is to censor information, I have nothing to say. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, Sitush has enough standing in the community that he can, in fact, make consensus all by himself.
[Yadav] were outside the formal caste system [..] Yadav leaders and intellectuals have often focused on their claimed descent from Yadu, and from Krishna, which they argue confers kshatriya status upon them and effort has been invested in recasting the group narrative to emphasise kshatriya-like valour
Quite different from what I propose to write for our lead at Baidya, indeed. You understand that the Yadavs vehemently reject that they were ever outside the caste system?
That being said, in your opinion, we ought not cover how the Baidyas ascended the social hierarchy despite several scholars documenting such attempts or even mention the bare fact of it? Or shall we cover it but without noting anything about the shudra (or lowly) status, assigned by the Brahmins, whey they were contesting? Which will beg the obvious question about why a jati, who was so preeminent from a material perspective even in premodernity, was engaging in such acrimonious acrobatics across two and a half centuries.
I am yet to come across a single policy based objection about why a topic, which has attracted multiple scholars, shall not be covered in the lead. You are speaking about potential of heart-burns, LukeEmily is speaking about potential of increased vandalism, and Ekdalian is speaking about the need to respect your (plural) arguments. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
All the previous discussions have said that it is too complicated, often contested and hard to condense it to a few sentences. And, I would add that it doesn't matter a dime.
The three citations at the end of the current lead mention Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas as three castes that make up the Bhadralok. Why isn't that enough?
Why were they contesting the Shudra status? Well, you are the one claiming that there is extensive literature on it. If they haven't bothered to explain why they were contesting, it couldn't have been very good literature, could it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
At this point, it is better to invoke IAR. That existing literature do not cover a relevant question does not allow us to tag sources as "poor" etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion was a protracted mess but RegentsPark as well as F&F had rejected any blanket-proposal to refrain from discussing varna, socio-political maneuvers to gain mobility etc. in lead. I do not see how someone can derive a consensus from such discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Isn't it about time Wikipedia stopped including all this 'caste' nonsense imposed on the Indian population by Raj 'ethnographers'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but we are under no obligation to repeat all this Raj-fossil name-calling as if it represented anything remotely resembling actual history. If people want pretend that castes are real things, they can - Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide a platform for it though. Document its unfortunate history, as fiction created by a foreign ruling class looking to impose their own ideology on another culture to make maintaining power easier, and leave it there.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I assume that this is a rhetorical response to a not-so-recent fad in certain sections of scholarship about blaming all evils of the caste system on the White Men? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not blaming it all on the 'white men'. I'm blaming them for starting it (or more accurately, for concocting a rigid hierarchical system out of something much more fluid and contextual, for their own Imperialist purposes), and on 'less-white men' for preserving the Raj-imposed hierarchy for their own purposes, after kicking the 'white men' out. You might call it a 'fad'. I call it an accurate reporting of history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The British may have been over-enthusiastic in trying to map out its details, but the Caste system is an old old Indian flaw. Very old. It had done great harm to India, long before the British, long before the Muslims. Chinese visitors in the early first millennium left some harrowing descriptions of its excesses. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I've been pinged. I can't speak to the particular issue at hand but will speak broadly.
I haven't edited caste-related articles in a while, but Sitush and I did write Yadav, Kurmi, and Jat people a long time ago, and RegentsPark and I wrote the lead of Caste. Here are my two cents.
Indo-Aryan groups did enter the subcontinent some 3500 years ago. There is no evidence that there was a system of stratification in place before their arrival. The Indo-Aryan sacred texts talk of the four varnas, but the four varnas did not come riding in through the Khyber. The Shudras did not get off their horses and cleared the woods, and after the Brahmins had done their business the next morning, carry the business away on their heads. Unlikely scenario. What happened next as small bands of immigrants with powerful technologies of mobility and warfare began to establish hegemony in a highly diverse and populated land is the million-dollar question. How much bloodshed took place? How much destruction was there? Was the varna system a form of patrilineality for preserving property among immigrants whose males outnumbered their females? Were adjustments made from the very beginning as the immigrant men married local women? What about the vast Indian hinterland, the OBCs of later nomenclature, as they integrated.
Varna the world's oldest form of apartheid, has been around in India for a very long time. But it has also built in it a notion of ritual purity and impurity that has done India great harm. In its name, many groups such as dalits and adivasis have faced violence and discrimination, as have women. I never bother with WP policy, but there must be some policy that states Wikipedia cannot help in perpetuating social discrimination, bigotry, and violence. This is especially important because unlike Periyar who chose to reject caste altogether, most people in India have chosen to only move up its shaky ladder, and in turn sometimes, paradoxically, to participate in that violence.
So, summing up, it is OK to say Forward caste, Backward caste, Other backward caste, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, Dalit and Adivasi, to say elite caste and non-elite caste, to mention jati, but to say anything that hints at purity and impurity unless it is a discussion about ritual impurity, is not helpful. Although I did not take part in any of these discussions cited above, I am broadly in agreement with the previous consensus. May I express my admiration for my old friend Sitush, who hasn't been around lately for so forcefully expressing these views? Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
My views don't mean I reject all Raj-era ethnography or Raj-era censuses. My view on them is that they are old, and therefore a type of primary source. Secondary sources are needed to interpret them. Better a scholar who has training in reading primary sources than us. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't need to clarify this. It is common sense, but what I mean is. You cannot use the 1891 census and write, "X was born in 1880, the third child of a mother who was a clean shudra grade 2 from whom the Brahmins could accept water and a father a clean shudra grade 1 from whom the Brahmins could accept "pukka" food (i.e. cooked in ghee)" That would be stupid, not just in the lead, but anywhere.
But you very much can say, "Yadav leaders and intellectuals have often focused on their claimed descent from Yadu, and from Krishna, which they argue confers kshatriya status upon them, and effort has been invested in recasting the group narrative to emphasise kshatriya-like valour, however, the overall tenor of their movement has not been overtly egalitarian in the context of the larger Indian caste system." cited to Susan Bayly, Joyce Burkhalter and Christophe Jaffrelot. It all depends on the spin, whether you are describing the varna status as a fact or ironically. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
What about,
In premodern Bengal, Brahminic literature held all non-Brahmins to be Shudras and accordingly, categorized Baidyas as the highest among Sudras alongside Kayastha. During the Nawabi and colonial era, Baidyas increasingly opposed to accepting such a classification and staked claims to Brahmin status. In the resulting negotiations, they successfully ascended to the upper echelons of social hierarchy.
, cited to monographs from Chicago University Press and similar high-quality sources from within the last two decades? [Some wordsmithing and details on "negotiations" are required.] TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I would not be comfortable with that. For in the earlier version above, the secondary sources are used to describe the yadav's own description of their caste, yours describes others' description of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Weren't you supportive of the line —Yadav groups were linked to cattle raising and as such, were outside the formal caste system—, which K3 has now tagged for "failed verification"? Fwiw, the Yadavs vehemently reject that they were ever outside the caste system; you (obviously) know of that! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
K3 made a very relevant query. I have since fixed it. We know say: Historically, the Ahir and Yadav groups had an ambiguous ritual status in caste stratification. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam:, I am trying to remember why I had written "as such were outside the formal caste system." That part is not essentially incorrect, but it is not the kind of observation you can cite to one source, or a few sentences of one source. I had been reading Susan Bayly's book at the time, ca 2009 or 2010, when I likely wrote that. In will say something more generally below. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam and Fowler&fowler: this is a hypothetical case but relevant—the Rajbanshi people claimed Kshatriya varna in the 19th/early 20th century and the (very picky Brahmins of Bengal) seem to have agreed. They were not treated as Kshatriyas though. Now some in this community wants to be tribal—because of the benefits of ST-hood. What goes in the lead here? I am guessing that keeping varna out is much prudent, if we do need a consensus around this. Chaipau (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't touch many of the sources there with a ten foot pole. They are poor quality. The topic hasn't been written about with clarity and perspective in the reliable literature, unlike, say the Yadavs, I would not mention it in the lead. Actually, it is not clear what the value of this topic in that article is even in a subsection; it is far too UNDUE. I would take out 90%, cited, for example, to the proceedings of the Indian History Congress, to Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, PhD theses, the genetics mumbo-jumbo, ... but I simply don't have to time to monitor these pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I agree, it is in a terrible state. Please stop by one day and do a deep clean. One of the editors who was heavily invested in it was indefinitely blocked recently. So there is an opportunity to work on this.
But the issue I was trying to highlight is the general principle that (1) communities go up and down the varna system and (2) and this includes communities that belong to the "tribal" category and not just to the "caste" categories. To place these communities in the varna hierarchy is participating in a form of Sanskritization. Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
General comments while I have your ear.
Susan Bayly's book, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Cambridge, 2008, is a good book to read for these discussions. I'm simplifying here, of course, but she says caste in India saw major transformations in a number periods of the early modern and modern era:
a) in the post-Mughal period in which certain rising dynasts such as Shivaji sought the services of the class of scribal Brahmin specialists to certify and perpetuate their kingliness. Among those sought, were also Hindu traders and bankers who too had adopted purity in the form of certain values among which were increased vegetarianism, stricter marriage codes, the seclusion of women, and so forth. As these groups proliferated so did specialist pollution removers (typically at the bottom of the varna ladder) whose services were more frequently needed to guarantee their purity, and who came to be thus more rigidly codified.
b) in the early years of Company rule, in which the elite (twice-born) rural groups felt threatened and diminished by British land reforms, and sought to separate themselves from various groups of field hands or tillers such as the Kurmi or Jats, who had stood to benefit from the land-reforms, but who had hitherto been on the fringes of clear caste identity, came to be more rigidly codified and diminished by the rural elites. British land revenue officers themselves loved the Kurmis and the Jats for their work ethic.
c) As deforestation took place, and urbanization and cash-cropping, other groups such as pastoralists, market-gardeners, or forest-dwellers, came now to be placed and defined by forms of ritual purity, some by the British by equally by the Indian groups who needed to keep them at bay from gnawing at their privileges. This was happening long before the late 19th-century censuses or Risely's ethnological classifications.
d) Now to the British ethnologists, by which I mean civil servants, who used the then-current scientific notions of ethnology to further classify India's various existing and emerging groups. They were racist to be sure, but in the manner of those who were attempting to classify a society as they might butterflies in a collection, from a position of security; they were not racist in the manner of their modern-21st century Indian inheritors, who have taken that Aryan-centric ideology and twisted it into an ideology for violence. They did not gather on a railway platform and beat up a person from northeast India or from Africa because they looked different, though some among the British might have beaten up, without a thought, any Indian, light-skinned or dark, long-nosed or flat, of the high forehead or low, doe-eyed or slit, for defying their authority. They did not kill Dalits and Muslims alike for eating beef let alone (if a recent news report is true) an elderly, handicapped, Jain gentleman (of all people) for looking suspiciously Muslim. In other words, many of the modern-day manifestations of caste might have appeared in India's society in the absence of a British presence but with urbanization, industrialization, and the pressures of sharing reduced resources. The ideals of caste have been there in Indian society, waiting to be exploited in new ways.
e) I won't go into how in the 20th-century the same ideals, came to be used by the castes themselves in the form of caste organizations, ones that might on the one hand have requested the British to create a regiment for them because they fit into the valorous and martial ones and also 50 years later petition the Indian government to grant them reservation in government jobs because they fit into some notion of backwardness. Those sorts of things happen with state intervention, that is, can be the unintentional consequences of intervention.
So, summing up, let me quote from Susan Bayly's own conclusion:
The norms and conventions of caste have had a pervasive presence in the historical literature, and also in contemporary discourse. To ignore this, or to portray caste as a mere orientalist fabrication, would be the equivalent of trying to write about social change in modern Italy or the United States without serious discussion of faction and political corruption on the one hand, or race on the other. The comparable reference point for Britain would be class, and certainly no-one could credibly contend that class has been an unimportant factor in modern British life, or that the topic is an improper one for academic analysis. ... This study has not argued that caste is the only or even the most important element of Indian life, let alone that caste as a `system' has been the immutable core of Indian civilisation since ancient times. It does maintain that for all its diversity and its points of comparison with schemes of social differentiation to be found in other parts of the world, caste stands alone as a mode of thought and action. This distinctiveness is undeniable, even though caste certainly has much in common with other complex `invented traditions', most notably those of nationhood and ethno-religious community.
Need of some editors interested in editing Assam and Northeast related articles
Recently I tried to write about the origin of a Tibeto-Burman group Bodo-Kachari_people#Origins. But I couldn't contribute much because suddenly an editor became active and added a lot of hypotheses related to Austroasiatic speakers. Though these hypotheses are cited, They are based on older hypotheses. The current understanding of Austroasiatic expansion (Sidwell, Blench, Rau etc) doesn't support the older hypotheses, Here a recent peer-reviewed paper http://hdl.handle.net/10524/52498 . I tried to discuss Talk:Bodo-Kachari_people#OriginTalk:Bodo-Kachari_people#Jaquesson_and_DeLancey_hypothesis but not fruitful as I am less experienced with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Currently Assam and Northeast related articles lack multiple editors. Therefore, They are written poorly and lack the consensus of multiple editors. I am expecting a larger community to edit Assam and Northeast India related articles. Thank you. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I would really welcome more editors to take an interest in Assam and Northeast Indian pages. I request the community to please at least add any page in your wishlist and check in on them once in a while.
Regarding this particular ask, please look at the entire discussion here: Talk:Bodo-Kachari_people#Origin. OP has evinced interest in fringe theories which they displayed here [15]. This looked very much like a political project to me. Given the high and sustained level of interest in ethnic issues in Assam over the last couple of years, this fitted the same pattern.
Sidwell makes a proposal which he himself calls speculative. Sidwell writes: I speculatively propose that a significant proportion of early AA speakers were oriented to estuarine environments—as opposed to inland or upland ones as has been commonly assumed., p56, I pointed it out but OP kept insisting that this should be included. Sidwell has given a number of different iterations of this proposal and I don't see why this should be preferred. I have been burned once using Sidwell's latest proposals.
Is this place to discuss content dispute? Why are trying to impose negativity on my personal comment? That wasn't any kind of FRINGE theory. That's just random thought that I believe is possible. My claim isn't only based on Sidwell. Currently no austroasiatic scholars agree with older hypothesis. Sidwell hypothesize about locus of dispersal which isn't our discussion. Our discussion is about the migration of Austroasiatic. Here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_European_observations_of_Raj_era_about_population_distribution_reliable_? also you see politics. Are you saying anything that benefits some political party should be kept out of Wikipedia? If anybody oppose some politics, he/she become part of same game. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
"I speculatively propose that a significant proportion of early AA speakers were oriented to estuarine environments—as opposed to inland or upland ones as has been commonly assumed.", p56, I pointed it out but OP kept insisting that this should be included.
This isn't true at all. I was only interested to write the origin of Bodo-Kacharis, but when Chaipau added that Proto-Boro-Garo migrated to Brahmaputra valley it was already populated by people speaking Austroasiatic then I argued that the current understanding of Austroasiatic expansion doesn't support this assertion because Khasian languages migrated to Brahmaputra valley around 2.5 years ago according to Sidwell's paper. His work is based on genetics, archaeology, phylogenetics studies. He is a well-known expert on Austroasiatic. He abandoned his proposal about the homeland of Austroasiatic and recently proposed the locus of Austroasiatic dispersal. But the bases of his work remain the same. Chaipau's claim is that only the old hypothesis repeated by TB scholars should be given priority in the origin of Bodo-Kacharis. All hypothesis are speculation. I don't understand what is the problem where an expert calls his hypothesis speculation. Also, Sidwell argues with evidences against all other hypotheses. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not here to malign your status. I don't have any agenda as you try to impose on me. I don't claim to be expert on any subject. I joined Wikipedia to contribute whatever i know, following Wikipedia guidelines. I'm tired of unnecessary discussions about trivial things. Also, try to know the meaning of expansion time and correct all the articles wherever you assumed Expansion time means Arrival time. I'm retiring indefinitely. So, I am requesting multiple editors to contribute in Northeastern articles. Thanks. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Merge Requests
You are invited to join the discussion about whether individual rulers of Turk Shahis and Nezak Huns deserve individual pages. Relevant links are:
Project Opinion on Individual Pages about Ancient rulers
Is the very fact of being a ruler—whose existence can be verified—inherently deserving of a standalone page in itself? For all of the above cases we barely know anything of significance apart from one or two factoids sourced to one or two ancient sources. Can WP:DUP#2 be allowed to be violated for such cases by having the same information (in toto) on pages about the ruler as well as the dynasty? Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.
One of my gripes, which I should do something about, is that Wikidata doesn't understand this. (It doesn't allow multiple topics sharing the same Wikipage.)
But, other than that, there is absolutely no reason to have individual pages for rulers or other individuals, dynasties, kingdoms, events etc. etc. I was just thinking yesterday that we should start a clean-up drive when I noticed that every individual mentioned in Umayyad campaigns in India now has a standalone page, basically based on the content from that page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you (except for WD, which I am not conversant with). I emphasized on these very lines at this discussion but was told that it was customary to create page for notable rulers on Wikipedia.
I can join in the drive—why do people write stubs like Agguka I?—but there are hardly any eyes in these areas. A single revert by some obstinate editor is effectively a veto. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It may not be the case all the time, and possibly not in this case, but a consideration is that making new articles makes Wikipedia bigger. Also looks good on the "articles created" list. Is that necessarily better? I firmly believe that combining stubs and sub-standard start-class articles with a relevant parent article would be a net positive for Wikipedia. Why have one start-class and one or more stub-class articles when a combination could make an improved C-class or better? I think combining closely related articles an overall improvement including for navigational purposes. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Creating tons of stubs is of course undesirable, but when there is a reasonable amount of content available on a given ruler or topic, I believe it is a good thing to have a dedicated page. We are an encyclopedia after all. Also, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is such that a page which was started as a stub or a small article (and sometimes staying this way for several years) can often ultimately develop into a full fledged article, with more or newer material, more images or maps etc... The above mentioned articles Ghar-ilchi, Bo Fuzhun, Tegin Shah, Barha Tegin should of course stay, there is no need or no value in merging them to something else, and if these articles did not exist, new editors would keep creating them anyway, that's the way Wikipedia has been built and expanded for the last twenty years. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk)12:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
On the above articles to discuss I would have reservations. On Agguka I there really should be no valid objections. The article only remotely covers the subject as near to passing mention as some substandard sources. It is my opinion that the use of Chinese goes overboard, such as Bo Fuzhun#Chinese accounts, Turk Shahis#Dissolution of the Tang protectorate, the "Society and Religion" section, and the large amount under "Notes" concerning the "Original text of Cefu Yuangui 3.5. Fanyan in Vol. 999", as well as all the other overly explanative source listings that are not necessary. This applies to any of the other articles. A slight downfall with Wikipedia is the accolades for creating articles, regardless of the quality, and that creating more articles means Wikipedia is growing. It is not really a major concern sometimes if the articles are bare dictionary entries or sub-standard stubs. Sometimes it is just all about turning red links blue. That is where editors that do care about quality have to be diligent. However, each instance needs to be looked at individually unless there is proof that mass junk is being introduced. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Otr500, I agree that these cases ought be judged individually but here we have articles, written for the sake of writing one.
Concerning Bo Fuzhun, we know nothing except a single mention in the Old Book of Tang recording his coronation. Our article, to fill space (probably), spends a line on describing what the Book of Tang is, and what it records before reproducing the entire paragraph. I do not know why our article claims that these events are again recorded in the Chinese annals Jiu Tangshu because Jiu Tangshu is the Old Book of Tang.The rest two factoids, on coinage and identicality with Khingala, are speculations by a single historian—Shōshin Kuwayama—of which the first is not accepted (or even paid much heed to) in English language scholarship.Coinage of ancient C. Asian rulers are based on a lot of hypothesis, which get revised every few years. And, apart from an exceedingly few cases, coinage of entire dynasties are studied rather than any single ruler. One can state Kuwayama's summary-hypothesis in an executive fashion on articles about individual Turk Shahi rulers but cannot explain his conclusions (or critiques by others) unless the entire Turk Shahi coinage is being discussed at a single place.For every conceivable reason the two articles could be merged, they should TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Most reliable sources on the subject do use the Chinese sources extensively and quote them as well. The reason is that a large part of the history of these polities is based on the Chinese chronicles. At the very least, these should appear in the notes. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk)06:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand using available sources in whatever language. As I understand the Chinese Wikipedia is blocked in China so I do not mind as much coverage being offered as possible. It is my opinion, and likely backed by broad consensus, that this is the English Wikipedia. I read that 3.5 million households in the US speak Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese?) which is reportedly the third most spoken language. However, if the US population is around 332,915,073 (2021), that is around 1%. I am sure that becomes a lot smaller if we consider how many read and/or edit Wikipedia. For ease to readers (that includes editors), any possible sites that are in English would be a positive. Sources should be linked to but do not need the expansive use of Chinese. Note: WP:Reliable source; The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception... includes the "Notes" section.
If there is only a single mention, and of some historical importance, in which case, someone somewhere should probably have written something more (so it might be real or perceived), then the subject absolutely should be merged. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Of course, foreign language sources are also accepted on the English Wikipedia (see WP:V#Non-English sources), especially when there is no English equivalent. English translation should be provided when doing so, preferably from a reliable source: "If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote." (WP:V#Non-English sources).पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk)11:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely, and thanks for the link I didn't provide. My concern is that articles that use large amounts of "other than English, be it in the references, a note section, or quotes, needs to be for some specific reason and not just adornment. Also see: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The original material being in Chinese, the most rigorous approach is to provide the original text together with its English translation. Many academics and students of this region and period do rely on the Chinese originals for precise understanding. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk)18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Student Suicides in India
I came across this POV write-up at Student Suicides in India which engages in original research and makes unsourced and exceptional claims like:
"Students from all professions are facing stress due to various reasons resulting in suicidal tendencies."
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India. Venkat TL (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Done in this [1]. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Existing Kashmir map
New Kashmir Map
, 
, 
, 
) are all ultimately attributable to UN or OCHA for, I assume, similar reasons. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
_-_ISR_-_UNOCHA.svg){kind=small}
. Yes, this user seems like a POV pusher. In this recent edit, they changed the quote from "there were no essential differences between Sikhs and Hindus" to "Sikhs should stay to their roots and revolt against the British and crush the Purbiyas (Easterners)", when the former seem to have been taken word for word from page 277 of book source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
_centered.svg)
![[9]](https://data.gov.in/img/datagov-logo.e4dfb331.svg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://pmfme.mofpi.gov.in/pmfme/assets/img/mofpi/mainlogohd.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}