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

Shortcuts WT:IN WT:INB

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

I need help with the article on Navin Chawla, the current CEC of India. Any Indian with interest in political history and who grew up in the 1980's best remembers Chawla as a major wrong-doer who escaped punishment due to lack of evidence, which in itself is hard to come by against bureaucracy in a country like India. Now his wikipedia page is being sanctified with references to Mother Theresa and praising Chawla for EC's functioning these 50 years. I would like to put up a NPOV message on the page's title until everything's been discussed. People have a right to know that all these praising poetry about Chawla is mostly not true. please help. Thank you.

Move request at Talk:Beedi#Requested_move. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana, Delhi and HP are termed as part of "Greater Punjab Region" based on a couple of references but this definition has been disputed. There's a discussion at Talk:Haryana#Recent_Revert and I would appreciate any opinions on this issue. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Om Gupta, "Encyclopedia of India Pakistan and Bangladesh" being used to support the "greater Punjab" terminology is an unacceptable circular reference. In particular, the exact quote that is being cited was formulated by User:Sukh in this edit to the Punjabi people article in Jan, 2006. More generally, none of the numerous compendiums created by the prolific Om Gupta should ever be used as references on wikipedia since they are simply outdated versions of wikipedia articles (and possibly article from other sources), and as far as I can see, violate GFDL/CC-BY-SA license too.
• That said, it is true that Delhi is located in the (historic) Punjab region, the "greater" apparently being appended to disambiguate it from the Indian and Pakistani states. However, I am not sure that it is useful to present this in the article lede without context, since readers are less likely to know the location of "Punjab region" than know the location of Delhi itself - so it serves little/no expository purpose. In my opinion, it would be better to add this detail (with proper context) in the history or geography section. Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are the original discussions on the Om Gupta references: at RSN and at WT:INB last year. Wish there was a way to blacklist references, as we can blacklist external links. Abecedare (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly Anupam's frame of reference is the British Indian Punjab as he has mentioned in one of his comments on the Haryana talk page. The British Indian era is a recent historical happening and quite obviously the Greater Punjab region he is trying to protect was a historical creation of the British. If we (other users and myself) are trying to highlight older history, which stayed true for much longer than 100-200 years of British India, then that is not equivalent to rewriting history. In fact, Anupam is doing a great injustice to the ancient Kuru Janapada and the brave peoples of Haryana by trying to belittle their historical identity. The British merged Haryana into Punjab only after the mutiny of 1857. That does not qualify for a sweeping statement that Haryana was historically a part of Greater Punjab region. Only true for British times in India. In the same way, "Delhi is located in the (historic) Punjab region" of when (which historical period)? Very clearly, Delhi was a capital of Haryana as early as 12th century if not before that. Quoting a source from a reputed American journal, Pasanaha Chariu of Vibudh Shridhar (VS 1189-1230) an Apabhramsha writer, provides the first reference to the legend of the origin of the name Dhilli for Delhi.

हरियाणए देसे असंखगाम, गामियण जणि अणवरथ काम|

परचक्क विहट्टणु सिरिसंघट्टणु, जो सुरव इणा परिगणियं|

रिउ रुहिरावट्टणु बिउलु पवट्टणु, ढिल्ली नामेण जि भणियं|

Translation: There are countless villages in Haryana country. The villagers there work hard. They don't accept domination of others, and are experts in making the blood of their enemies flow. Indra himself praises this country. The capital of this country is Dhilli.

Kindly consider all this and remove the reference to Punjab region from the Haryana wiki. Rorkadian (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Punjab region reference needs to be necessarily removed from the Haryana etc articles. All that is needed is to place the information in the right section, present it with proper context (eg, "under British Raj, the region was part of the Punjab province"), and keeping it short since the article(s) are written in summary style. Ditto for the Kuru Janapada claim. The History of Haryana article can go into more details. (This point also applies to Delhi and other articles). Abecedare (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Abecedare, I am presenting two sources below. Do you feel they qualify the fact that the Pakistani province of Punjab, the Hazara region of NWFP, Islamabad, and the Indian states of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and the National Capital Region of Delhi constitute the Punjab region? One source that attests to this fact is the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, which states that the Punjab region is

A historical region of the northwest Indian subcontinent bounded by the Indus and Yamuna rivers. It was a center of the prehistoric Indus Valley civilization and after c. 1500 b.c. the site of early Aryan settlements. Muslims occupied the western part of the region by the 8th century, introducing Islam, and although they later conquered the eastern part, Hinduism remained entrenched there. The Moguls brought the region to cultural eminence until their empire declined in the 18th century. The Punjab was controlled by Sikhs from 1799 to 1849, when it was annexed by Great Britain. It was partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1947.

Another reputable source, The encyclopedia Americana, Volume 23 states that the Punjab region "extends between the Indus River on the west, in Pakistan, and the Yamuna (Jumna) River on the east, in India." The Pakistani province of Punjab and the Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh, and Delhi fall under this historical Punjab region, spreading from the Indus to the Yamuna. I would like to mention that in India, Punjabi is an official language of the states of the region: Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and Delhi. In light of these facts, as well as the knowledge you possess, I humbly request you to formulate a conclusion on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please remove the junk in Madhubani district. I am concerned specifically about the "Important Villages" section ("developed by..." and other inappropriate text), but I suspect similar junk is in other sections. I was thinking about reverting the article to a much earlier version, but it's not clear to me what would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date change vandal is back with a vengeance. His month-long rangeblock just barely expired (see block log for 117.204.112.0/20), and he's back to his routine. I'm going to clean up today's mess now, but we will need to get an administrator to rangeblock him again. AtticusX (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the 117.204.112.0/20 range for another month. Please let us know if you see him at any other IP. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch Atticus. I had marked 12th May as the date of expiry for the block. - off by one day. He has been systematically checking his edit privileges every week and trying to post hoax messages in his IP talk page for the past month. He is a persistent one.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything happen with the abuse report? —SpacemanSpiff 07:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BSNL doesnt usually respond to any complaints (unless someone pulls strings or bribes them).--Sodabottle (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinstituting the rangeblock, Abecedare. Yeah, the abuse report finally got processed on April 26, and they sent a message off to the ISP, but I don't really anticipate any miracles coming out of that. AtticusX (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]