Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.180.4.162 (talk) at 00:23, 29 September 2006 (→1931 census report.: NDS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Requests for information or comment

Indic name needed

Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a link to the article here, the Indic script(s) needed, and/or the Indic language transliteration requested. Strike out the article when completed.

রীমি বর্ণালী চ্যাটার্জী
That word cannot be written in Sanskrit as it is written there, but "paraṣu" would be पराषु in Devanagari, the script now used for writing Sanskrit. LaRoza (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth now, बिछवा. Have added it to the article too.VishalB (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you use Google Translate?, and for confirmation you may search that translated term on Google search engine. Well, I've added its Hindi spelling in the article. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of action for INCOTW

Hello. Since the last 1-2 months, WP:INCOTW is dire need of more attention from regular wikipedians. There are a lot of articles out there which need improvement. All of us are working (very well) on our areas of interest, but this very good opportunity to work together and create great articles is being lost. To make things better and more attractive, the rule about allowing only stubs to be nominated has been lifted. I was looking out for a particular area being ignored by us till Dwaipayanc brought Template:Life in India to my attention. I have analysed the list of articles there and my findings can be read here. What I propose is that people start nominating articles from the template (the worst and most interesting first) and also spend some more time working on articles selected as INCOTW. Please give your suggestions and ideas about the entire INCOTW process at the talk page. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - a few issues and suggestions:

(1) I think the problems with INCOTW are pretty clear - a lot of the regular school of Indian Wikipedians are busy and editing less in volume, if not frequency. This problem also applies to many India-related Wikiprojects. While the "old school" of Indian Wikipedians has done valuable work, the projects need to rope in the large numbers of Indian registered users who don't frequent these noticeboards and Wikiprojects. Don't rely on INWNB posts and messages - folks really need to get messages out to individual usertalk pages. For this purpose, it would be a good, achievable project to start an INWNB/INCOTW weekly newsletter or alert.

(2) A smaller INCOTW issue may be that when 1-2 editors are interested in working on a particular article, it may be overruled by a larger number for another topic. In this process INCOTW will lose many willing editors who don't like the particular topic selected for INCOTW. Perhaps INCOTW can deal with 2-3 articles at the same time, while extending its collaboration period from 1 week to 2 weeks or so to make the deadline realistic. Adding loads of data is easy - formatting, citing and copyediting are not. You lose the momentum in the latter stages.

(3) An interesting point comes to mind. I'm guilty of never having worked on INCOTW. Its unusual because I love working in collaboration - I absolutely love assisting comrades on FA drives, doing the tedious copyediting chores, etc. I can name several articles where I've greatly enjoyed helping out. Many of the recent FAs are excellent examples where 2-3 editors have aided the principal author in achieving success. This is collaboration that works. Perhaps INCOTW could emulate this model?

(4) Don't restrict the net to Indian Wikipedians. We must work with equal enthusiasm and care with non-Indians. There is a natural sense of respect for each other at INWNB, but it should extend to all. The family, team atmosphere at INWNB is pretty cool, but it needs to be open to all. This India cartel should be transformed into an energetic group of editors interested in India-related content.

(5) Sister projects INWNB, INCOTW and India wikiprojects have many accomplishments. Although the principle of working on India-related content is clear, I think its a good idea to collaborate with the efforts of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Sri Lankan editors. We have a lot of shared content, so its not like we're deviating. This way we can widen the team effort and attract the participation of these communities in our own efforts. I suggest we officially hook up with WikiProject Bangladesh, PNWNB. Rama's arrow 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes for Taluks of India

Is there any infobox template which can be used on article page of a taluk or do we use the one that is used for "cities and towns in India"

Also, can someone please make a list of all the India-specific infoboxes and templates and put it on one page and add a link to that page in the Template:Indiaquicklinks box? People who've been around forever might know where to find all thes boxes, but for relatively new people it is a big pain finding the right boxes and templates for articles.

Also, how about providing the link to edit an infobox in the box itself. I have seen it on some boxes but not all boxes. It is not easy for someone to figure the right urls for thes boxes. I feel all infoboxes should mandatorily have the link to edit it. How about making it a policy?

Sarvagnya 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellooo. Anybody here? Sarvagnya 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess nobody answered your question for so long as people are sleeping at that time. :) People here are active duing IST daylight hours. It's a bad idea to create links to templates to correct something for newbies. It's not too difficult for them to learn about templates either. They can always ask. If you go to the edit mode of the page, it's very easy to jump to a template. Why don't you go ahead and create a taluka infobox prototype? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.. I agree it might not be such a good idea afterall to make it easy for newbies to edit templates. But I still feel there should atleast be a listing of all relevant templates and infoboxes on one page. As for the taluka infobox, i'd be glad to create one myself, but I have observed that most of the talukas are presently categorised under "cities and towns of India" and use the infoboxes for that. So I dont want to add to any confusion. As it is, in my opinion, the categorisations are a big mess. Thats a different question, will take that up later.
For now, the question remains. What about an infobox for talukas? The reason I ask is I recently created this page, but observed that most(maybe all) the taluk article pages are missing infoboxes. Counterparts from other states like this one are using different templates not to mention they're categorised under cities and towns of india. I hope you get my drift. Thanks and waiting for a reply. Sarvagnya 07:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. And note that the Article for city is different from the article for the District and that is different from the article for the Taluk. Hence We can very well go with a infobox and add to pages that talk about the taluk.  Doctor Bruno Talk 03:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can help. I think we can merge this into the existing infobox with a type, Taluk. Right now, city, district and state all share the same template. What additional fields do you need for a taluk? Can you list them here? - Ganeshk (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of kalinga at the time of war with ashoka

Can somebody explain who was the king of kalinga when the fierce battle of kalinga was fought between ashok and kalinga.

Image request

Many of you may have come to Gujarat. I am looking for pictures to improve Gujarat-related articles. If you have pictures of various places of Gujarat like Gir, Nalsarovar, Kutch, etc. please upload them at commons. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India

I think we should retire templates for the various Indian wikiprojects such as {{Wikiproject Indian districts}}, {{Wikiproject Indian cinema}}, {{Wikiproject History of India}} etc. and replace them all with {{WP India}}. It has various advantages over the others.

  • We can rate the articles - the rating counts appear on the WP:IND page as we do so.
  • Each of the above child projects can get exposure as the template can incorporate their names as well.
  • This will guide new people and other interested readers to a centralised project page and help us recruit better for the projects.
  • It will help rejuvenate the WP:IND. It has the lowest no. of members of all these projects.

These are just some thoughts. If there is agreement on this, we can start by replacing the templates on the project pages with the {{WP India}} template. I will also copy this message to the various projects to get better response. Let us continue the discussion here to keep it centralised -- Lost(talk) 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no. The template WP:INCINE directs people to the Indian cinema project and discussion pages, it has been extremely successful in doing so, we need all the help we can get, and it would not be good to remove our source of new recruits.
Make the templates smaller, yes, but don't remove them. Zora 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zora, please have a look at the talk page of Sholay. It will make my point clearer. People will still get a link to the Indian cinema project with the new template -- Lost(talk) 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A unified template is a cool idea - efficiency and uniformity, although one should be able to customize as per the topic. Rama's arrow 02:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its highly customizable... There are many optional fields within the template -- Lost(talk) 05:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - based on the discussion above, I've created a newsletter framework based on the Wikipedia Signpost. Its only rudimentary and can be modified into a new layout anytime. I've created some sections of specific news and information, and more need to be added. I request the participation of all who read this. Rama's arrow 20:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaur Rahman FAC

Hi all - I've put up Ziaur Rahman for FAC. Please check it out. Rama's arrow 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Government of India

Portal:Government of India has been created. Please suggest your views to make it improve. Please take participation in article and list selection. Actually it will work from October 1 in full phase, so anniversary also has dated October 1. Shyam (T/C) 20:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last check-up for Indian cricket team

I do not feel I can do much more for the article Indian cricket team. It's already GA, PISA and been Peer Reviewed. I just request people to give it a quick copyedit and review it before it goes up for FAC. I'm also wondering as to how many citations are required in this page, because it really has very few citations. Most things on the page are obvious but considering the people who vote in FACs are sometimes not from cricketing nations, I don't know how many I should put up. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on the FAC nom as it will be trashed. Here are some pointers as to what might go wrong:
  1. Lead is too name heavy
  2. Highest paid sports team according to raw value or PPP? If PPP, it need not be mentioned as highest. I think football teams such as Real Madrid are paid far higher than the ICT
  3. See also should be at the end of the section
  4. Keep a space between the footnote and the next sentence
  5. Tone down the text: "Signs were optimistic?"
  6. Wrong image formats: Maps and diagrams should be svg (As Ambuj); logo should be png
  7. Badly needs a cpedit
  8. MoS not followed for section headings. Should be in sentence case, not title case
  9. Tournament history details should be in a table
  10. Promote recent performances. Merge into history
  11. section 9.1 is redundant. Merge with parent
  12. Nothing mention on how the squad is selected: Regional based selectors
  13. Kit sponsor --> current kit sponsor
  14. [4] reference has a lot on information. Please cite the source only. The text can go to wikiquote.'
  15. Sisterlinks? (commons, wikiquote etc?)
  16. See also links should be relavent.
  17. Format the references section as per citation templates available, and smaller font. See Indian Standard Time for details.
  18. The British did not really rule India in the early 1700s. Please verify when it was introduced.
  19. Can the stats table be updated to the current month?
Thanks! I hope you don't mind if I strike through as I go along. Tell me if I incorrectly striked something. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the names for the Indian spin quartet were unnecessary in the lead which resulted the lead being too name heavy. Thus I have removed them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source I have states that it is the highest paid sports team in the world in terms of sponsorships so I have not gone into further detail on anything apart from that. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I don't understand the following two points:
  • Can the stats table be updated to the current month? Which stats table
  • See also should be at the end of the section
Perhaps I'm just having a mind-blank but I would appreciate it if you explained those two things. By the way, I'm making Recent Performances a subsection of History. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replying
  1. Oh, I meant the infobox. The stats there are correct as of July 4, which is almost 4 months old!
  2. The see also has been fixed. See also as it's name suggest points to a digression after a user has read the topic.
  3. As for the source, [1], it does mention that the Indian cricket team is the highest paid team, but the context is cricket ie, in the cricketing realm. For such a statement on superlatives, I would prefer to see it backed by concrete numbers.
  4. Section 1.1 is redundant. To warrant a subheading, it should contain at least 2 headings, preceded by an overview.
  5. Headings should not be hyperlinked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.4.162 (talk • contribs)
The source for highest paid sports team says "The Indian cricket team is the highest paid (in terms of sponsorships) sports team in the world." I'm going to leave it like it is because the source does not say "Highest paid cricket team", it says "sports team". Regards. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't create logos of organisations/companies and place them in PD. Logos are always copyrighted. Also, the new image is too much pixelated. Because of these reasons, BCCI logo.jpg should be changed back to 3283 320.jpg, and the former put for deletion. I have added svg of the chart and map. Let me know if they are okay. The article badly needs a copyedit, and I will try to do it ASAP. I request others to also do it so that things get fixed fast. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I've asked for the image to be converted to png, not PD :). Image format conversions are legal. Going through it once again, I figure it the logo should be svg instead of raster formats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.4.162 (talk • contribs)
  • The article is nowhere near FA level. Almost every sentence has a problem. In addition to being choppy, the prose is high on POV, has a cruft for useless details, and often takes sides, passes value judgement. Please don't take it to FAC as it is quite unlikely to pass. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ambuj...I'll put the FAC hopes on hold then. As for the image, 3283 320.jpg gets immensely pixelated when one enlarges it, which is why I took West_Indies_Cricket_Board_Flag.svg as an example and created my own version of the logo. Is it possible for me to tag it as Fair Use like other logos and possibly try and create an even better logo for the page. I admit its bad, especially when enlarged, but the other one was really really really bad. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Nazrul Islam

Hi - I request all to please check out Kazi Nazrul Islam (FAC). Thanks, Rama's arrow 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/Newsalert I need help in starting the circulation of this newsletter. Updates is easier but the project needs more regular contributors, ideas and suggestions. Basic formatting and layout have been done, but some issues need sorting. Rama's arrow 19:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help in distribution but who do we distribute it to? -- Lost(talk) 19:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Lost's message. This can be distributed to all members of the India wikiproject. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well include members of the child projects too? We can include the option to opt out if they dont want it. -- Lost(talk) 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking we would be using AWB to do this. This is how I am thinking it will work. Use WikiProject_India/Members page to get a list of users and append these alerts to their talk pages. If we include child projects, it will be a lot of work for the person sending the alerts out. The news letter has a footer section giving the instructions to opt out. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Shall we automatically add everyone at Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Members to the India wikiproject? At some point, they have mentioned interest in the project. So I think it will be allright. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes though I dont see too many of those names active. We would just be cluttering their talk pages with our newsletter. -- Lost(talk) 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. We should take the active users out of that section. Users, let us say, that have edited atleast once in the last 3 months. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian Wikipedians (active people) would be great resource that we can pull from too. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
almost 500 guys, wow!! Yes good idea. Maybe we could atleast leave a single issue on each of their pages. Afterwards we can be more conservative. But then we will have to enlist Ganeshbot for this. Even with AWB, it'll take me ages to do it:) -- Lost(talk) 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can have your AWB account registered as a bot so that you can use the Autosave checkbox to let AWB on a automatic mode. Are you aware of this? - Ganeshk (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt actually. I always thought getting a bot approval was a very technical thing. Will ask you more regarding this on your talk page -- Lost(talk) 21:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I have started a Outreach department, kind of a Editor's desk for doing this activity. I have merged your newslert under the department so it is organized better. Could you please check out September 2006 Newsletter and add to that. I feel the news alert must give new information everytime, not link to existing project pages that everyone is aware of. The new template has sections to add news and new proposals. Everyone please join in and comment. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of categorizing historical personalities as Pakistanis or Bangladeshis

Ragib,

Will you please explain to me how can Indian revolutionaries like Bagha Jatin, Khudiram bose, and many others who lived and died decades before the Bangladesh was formed, can be categorized as Bangladeshi People?

Please don’t assume that I am starting some pointless debate with you on some unimportant technicality. It is in fact a larger issue involving many other articles of wikipedia. Frequently I come across gems like this in wikipedia, such as "Hunas consolidated their power in northern India and Pakistan", or "governments based in ancient Pakistan ruled over northern India .." Just check out the first para of History_of_Pakistan, it makes a hilarious reading.

Retrofitting the names of modern states on historical entities is, at the very least, plainly inaccurate and must be avoided. Can you find such sentences in serious historical works like Oxford History of India? Then why should wikipedia start this new tradition?

The issue is also an ethical one. Do you think these revolutionary, who died for a united, free India would have agreed to been called Bangladeshis, for Bangladesh is a much truncated version of free motherland they dreamed of. Are we doing justice to the sacrifices of these heroes by assigning nationality to them that they had never even heard of, let alone consented to?

I believe we need to obtain a community consensus on this issue, i.e. the appropriateness of the assigning modern state identifiers on historical entities. Once a majority agreement has been reached we can correct the inaccuracies as we come across them.

Lastly, in a lighter vein, can I put Pakistani People category on Reginald Dyer. Can you give me one good reason why I should not?

Sisodia 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article (History of Pakistan, is a joke and I don't know how much of a joke it is to bother attempting to fix it right now...
The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, governments based in ancient Pakistan ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than governments based in India ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections—ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political—with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley.
First of all, there was no such thing as Pakistan until the 20th century. The idea that there was a seperate Pakistan and seperate India (based in the Indus and Ganges respectively) is utter nonsense. This article talks of a land called Ancient Pakistan and Ancient India, there was no such thing. There was the Indus Valley Civilization, which moved into the Gangetic Valley c. 1000-1500 BCE. It can state that the Indus Valley Civilization was based in the north-western Punjab region which is now modern day Pakistan and then refer to the civilization by name instead of referring to it as some form of an Ancient Pakistani civilization. The last sentence is particularly false as it refers to Ancient Pakistan as an "independent country". Since when was there an independent Pakistan before 1947. It says that the Ancient Pakistani Nation had more connections (ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious) than with the Gangetic Valley. They were both Aryans! The cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic relations are the same. Both are descendents of the PIE. This is utter rubbish and needs a collaborative pruning.
On your original comment, I'm not sure whether Ragib is acting on some consensus which has been formed. But I agree that we shouldn't categorize people who lived before Pakistan and Bangladesh was formed as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. It should be based on their country of origin and as those two weren't countries till 1947 and 1971 respectively then it doesn't seem fitting to categorize people like that. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons for these type of "hilarious" edits can be an allergic sensitiveness of some people of "south asia" .-Bharatveer 08:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is a curious problem that is becoming very very common. So, let me explain my position about this:
  • Can you really change where a person was born? Can you tear up his homestead and take it across the border? Nope. So, the persons Sisodia mentions above were all born in what is now Bangladesh. The question then, is that, because the "People's Republic of Bangladesh" wasn't an independent nation before 1971, none of these people can be claimed to be of Bangladeshi origin, heritage etc. This is very ridiculous. People who died before 1947, but born in Indian subcontinent are regularly classified as "Indian people", where the "Indian" refers to the modern "Republic of India". What's the point of the double standard here? There was definitely no "Republic of India" before 1947, so if the persons born in the region, for example, Iqbal is marked as an "Indian poet", why should people from, say, Dhaka be marked differently?
  • A common answer to this is that, the region has always been known as "India". Well, in a very similar argument, the region what is now Bangladesh has always been called Bangladesh or Bongodesh. ("Aji Bangladesher Hridoy theke" is a famous song by Tagore). So, what's the difference between these two categories?
  • Note that, I am being very specific here, and categorizing only people who were born within the region what is now Bangladesh, under the category Bangladeshi people.
  • Back to the categories Sisodia mentions, if, say Bagha Jatin, born and raised in Kushtia District, studied in Dhaka District cannot be claimed as part of Bangladeshi heritage, where do they belong? Why would Mastarda Surya Sen, the patriotic hero from my home Chittagong District be marked as anything other than of Bangladeshi heritage. If, according to the "didn't exist" argument, these persons are erased from anything related to Bangladesh, I would definitely argue that in the same logic, any Indian person dying before 1947 needs to be removed from "Indian people" category as well. Because, "India" as in "Republic of India" didn't really exist officially before 1947. If the Indian in the category "Indian people" refers to the region, then I don't see any problem in having people born in the region now Bangladesh, living in the region now Bangladesh, to be included in "Bangladeshi people" catetories. If they can't be added there, then they must also be removed from any categories marked "Indian" as well.
I hate double standards, twisting of words, but if there is any, this is a very bad example of such double standard arguments. So, I urge people to apply the same standards in all categories. Thanks. --Ragib 08:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To add to my comments, why is Marx marked as "German " category? The modern country of Germany was born much later than his birth and exile in Britain? Why, then, he isn't marked as a Prussian philosopher? Why do I see Marie Curie under Polish chemist? Under the same logic put forward above, she should be under Russian chemist, right? --Ragib 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well by your logic then if Balochistan cecedes from Pakistan tomorrow we'll have to scout wikipedia and change the nationalities of all ethnic Balochis from Pakistanis to Balochistanis? What about Eritreans and East Timorians? Aren;t they listed as "Ethiopians" or "Indonesians" if they were born prior to the creation of the states?Hkelkar 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, "German" in Marx's case can mean ethnic German rather than nationally German. Even Poles can be characterized as an ethnicity (they were in the US when they first started to immigrate there:they were pejoratively called "Pollacks", regarded as a racist slur).There is no such thing as an ethnic Pakistani, though there is such a thing as an ethnic Bengali or Ba[ngh]ali, so Bangladeshis born prior to 1971 can be called Bengalis (same as any Bangladeshi) without confusion.Hkelkar 08:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might check that each of the persons Sisodia metions are also marked as Bengali people too. --Ragib 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just as you mentioned, there is no such thing as ethnic Indians too, rather there are Bengalis, Marathis, Sindhis, Tamils and so on. Under such argument, marking someone dying before 1947 as part of "Indian people" is equally would be incorrect. --Ragib 08:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about this. While I agree that calling anybody who lived in the Northwestern part of the Indian Subcontinent prior to 1947 a "Pakistani" is laughable, there are so many editors on wikipedia with nationalistic and fundamentalistic views regarding this matter that our numbers may not be enough to keep them at bay. Pakistani nationalism (see the equally absurd stuff in that article also) is so steeped in historical absurdities, hatemonering tendencies, and fascist mentality that we may not be able to stop their POV-Pushing unless we can form a proper consensus regarding this and act in unison.But I fear that this will never happen.Plus, even "reliable Sources" like CNN make this mistake (during the recent terrorist plot with some Pakistanis and their plans to bomb planes, CNN reporters said that Pakistan was a former British colony, despite the fact that Pakistan did not even exit during the British Raj), also, check out the CIA factbook entry on Pakistan that makes exactly the same mistake.Hkelkar 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after several edit-conflicts) The rationale some people often come up with is there was no India either before 1947. So why brand poeple dead before 1947 as Indian? Yes, the present day country of India was not there, of course. But people probably forget all the historical/mythological contexts where the name "Bharat", or, sometimes, "Hindustan" have been used. As Bharatveer has pointed out, allergic sensitiveness may be a reason. (and Ragib is not one of the people with such allergy - so his reasons should be more rational). South Asia is of course a geographical entiy. However, Bharat is also a geo-historical and cultural entity.
"...governments based in ancient Pakistan ruled over northern India" is ok as fer as grammer and political correctness is concerned, if we assume here Pakistan and India have been used as present day countries, however,"...governments based in India ruled over Pakistan territories..." is absolutely hillarious, as there were no government based in India, or, Pakistan territorries at that time. Its a deep bias that leads people to forget the likes of Mughal or Kushanas (and others) who were rulers based on the Indus and Gangetic valley, rather than "Indian" or "Pakistani" terrirorries.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am saying that there was no "Republic of India" before 1947, just as there was no "People's republic of Bangladesh" prior to 1971. But the regions have been there all the time. How then, would you classify people of the region? It appears that "Indian people" category is being applied to people from the Indian subcontinent region (I'm referring to the geo-physical region), so what is then wrong with "Bangladeshi people" being applied to people from the geo-physical region which the People's republic of Bangladesh has as its territory? You can't have two different schemes here, right? --Ragib 08:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) I agree, pre-1947 people living in India shouldn't be called Indian people in a technical sense. Perhaps Bharati or Hindustani would be more fitting, however, these terms would hardly be used by people of a non-academic and non-South Asian background. As for mentioning Pakistan and India before 1947, they should be considered modern geographical regions. I agree that the terms which should be used should be based on ancient nation-state names or ancient regions. (ie. IVC, Gangetic valley). But then again, terms such as North-Indian and South-Indian are often used to refer to regions. Is that also politically incorrect. It's a complex issue. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is indeed complex. My solution has been to mark Bengali people born and raised in East Bengal as part of "Bangladeshi people" category, to signify the region of their origin. Ethnicity is a separate category. So, both Bagha Jatin and Rabindranath Tagore are under "Bengali people" category. But Jatin's heritage and birthplace is East Bengal, and Tagore's is West Bengal, and hence Jatin is under "Bangladeshi people" to mark the region of his origin, and Tagore is marked "Indian people" to mark his origins. Unless, you can provide me with a better way to classify the region-based categories, I think this is just fine. --Ragib 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether it is feasible to create "Hindustani people before 1947" or something of the sort and then creating subcats "Bengali people", "Tamil people", "Punjab people" etc. But that would be historically correct. Bengali is alright, Indian and Bangladeshi is a bit more controversial. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely complex, and will likely remain so. I have explained my way of maintining a "status quo" above. There are actually two different category trees here ... one is ethnic, the other is regional. There is no problem with the ethnic categorization. The regional categorization is very problematic. And if you add to it the modern definition of countries, we are thrust into a quagmire. --Ragib 09:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution - More usage of cats like Category:Bengali people (for Bengalis), Category:Tripuris (for tripuris), Category:Kashmiri people (for Kashmiris) and the like. Peoples countries may differ but their ethnicities dont. I will add that Tagore probably should not be in the Bangladesh cat, that amounts to a bit of wishful thinking, like adding Kazi Nazrul Islam in the Indian cat.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another proposal. Its a bit complicated. How about creating categories like "People born in present day Bangladesh", "People born in present day India" etc? For example Bagha Jatin or Surya Sen would have categories of Revolutionary movement for Indian independence, Bengali people etc and also have "People born in present day Bangladesh". It sounds odd...but probably more poltically correct. And probably also more readily recognizable by international readers than ethnic categorization.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - Category:Bengali people and Category:People of West bengal should both exist, because they denote different categories. A person from Tripura could be a Bengali, but he is definitely not from West bengal. A person from West bengal need not be a Bengali (Jagmohan Dalmia). A person could belong to many or just one category. Chaipau 05:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ragib, I am not deploying any double standards here. It is a fallacy that Neither India, Pakistan or Bangladesh existed prior to 1947. A similar (and inconclusive) debate broke out in wikipedia earlier too. I will put forth the same argument that I put in the earlier debate.

India has existed since many millennia in the past. Almost 2500 years ago a Greek historian Herodotus wrote about India, using precisely the same word “India”. Persian and Arabic writers knew this country as Hind, which is basically the same word. On the other hand had anybody heard of Pakistan and Bangladesh in those days? There was never any doubt about existence of India.

“Bonglodesh” may have existed as a charming poetic term for unified Bengal in history, but it will be inaccurate to tie it to the modern state of Bangladesh. Similar terms exist for Rajasthan (Maru-desh) and Gujarat (Gurjar-desh) in poetic traditions. It is unfair to justify political positions on the grounds of obscure literary texts.

The critical difference is that while India was transformed from its status as a British colony to a sovereign republic in 1947, Pakistan was created in 1947 and Bangladesh was created in 1971. This is an unambiguous difference.

.... if, say Bagha Jatin, born and raised in Kushtia District, studied in Dhaka District cannot be claimed as part of Bangladeshi heritage, where do they belong?....

He belongs to Indian ppl category, Bengali ppl category, ppl of East Bengal category and ppl of Kushtia district category, but he DOES NOT belong to ppl of Bangladesh category. I guess it is quite logical, for all the above categories except Bangladesh existed in Bagha Jatin’s times.


My solution - People who lived and died in unified India prior to 1947 should simply be categorized as Indian people. They can additionally be categorized as Bengali or Punjabi or other regional people, because Bengal, Punjab etc are ancient regions with a good amount of history and culture under their belt. They must not be categorized as Bangladeshi/Pakistani people because it is simply incorrect.

This is essentially the same solution that Dwaipayan and Bakaman has proposed, except that “People born in present day Bangladesh” can be more simply called “People of East Bengal”.

Use of the terms like ancient Bangladesh or ancient Pakistan must be avoided altogether, because these terms are oxymoronic in nature. Use Ancient Bengal, Ancient Punjab or Ancient Sindh as the case may be.

Sisodia 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, what exactly does "Indian people" mean? Does it refer to the Indian subcontinent pre-1947? or the Republic of India post 1947? You seem to allow it to represent the region as a whole, while you are very reluctant to have "Bangladeshi people" being applied to the people of THAT region. "Indian people" is definitely a region based category, not a nation based one, in the sense that it is applied to all people from the Indian subcontinent (see the persons included in the cat and subcats ...). Of course, if Bangladeshi people is a nation-based category, why isn't "Indian people" so? THAT, is where the double standard lies. You are allowing "Indian people" to be used for the region, but flatly refusing to allow "Bangladeshi people".
  • There won't be ANY of these problems if region based categories are separated from modern nation-based categories. So, if Bangladeshi people is not applicable, then Indian people is not applicable either. To clarify, if you consider "Bangladeshi people" a nation based category (which seems to be the root of your objections), then "Indian people" must be considered as such, or a separate category for "People of Republic of India" needs to be created. Consistency is the key here.
  • To summarize the whole issue again,
    • Do the categories: "Indian people", "Bangladeshi people", "Pakistani people" represent people who are citizens of the country? I.E. are these nation based categories ... where the modern nations are to be considered?
    • Or do these categories represent region based categories, where the regions are considered?
If these are nation based categories, please remove everyone pre-1947 from any category representing people from Republic of India, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.
If these are region based categories, i.e. Indian people represent the people from the region now under modern Republic of India, Bangladeshi people represent the people from the region now Bangladesh, then my categorization stays.
To address your other points, “People of East Bengal” is incorrect, as the name of the region was officially East Bengal only during two periods : 1905-1912, and 1947-1954.
To reiterate my position, I'd be happy if a clear alternative way of categorizing pre-1947 people from the Indian subcontinent can be provided. And this has to be consistently applied. Tweaking the definition of categories as needed is bad. Categorizing people from the modern Republic of India and those from Pre-partition British India under the same class is confusing, and adds misinformation. I hope a clear, consistent solution will be reached. --Ragib 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support Dwaipayanc although the solution would need a lot of working on..."People born in present day Bangladesh" could lead to some confusion, could it not? After all, people that are born after 1971 could have the same category added to them. What about people living in Bangladesh between 1947 and 1971? Are they Pakistani, East Pakistani, Bangladeshi or East Bengali? I think something like "People born in India before 1947" wouldn't be right either for the confusion on the term 'India'. India was originally known as Bharatvarsh, but that won't be helpful to some random American person researching on famous Indian people before 1947 would choose to look up this sort of category. If we can't find anything else then I believe Dwaipayanc's proposal may be best. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Again, the categorization scheme needs to be consistent. There IS a very clear need to disambiguate modern "Republic of India" from "India" as it stood pre-1947, when we are considering categories applied to regions and people. So, whatever categorization scheme is created, it should treat any modern nation to come out of Indian subcontinent equally, and be consistent. Thanks. --Ragib 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the problems you see do not arise if you consider my scheme, i.e. if "Bangladeshi people" is applied to people born strictly in the region now under the "P. R. of Bangladesh", no issue arises of people born/died between 1947-1971, or pre-1947. Note that, this region-based category is in addition to the ethnic category (be it Bengali people, Rohingya people, Assamese people or whatever the ethnicity is). --Ragib 04:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ragib, keeping all political positions aside, let me ask you a plain question. If somebody asks a school kid to name one prominent Bangladeshi, and the kid replies “Surya Sen” just because he/she read so in wikipedia, don’t you think that kid will fail the quiz? That is where the core problem lies. Love it or hate it, the world does not see Surya Sen as Bangladeshi. In order to become political correct, wikipedia is allowing inaccuracies and undermining its own credibility. This is why I am objecting to this category name for Indian revolutionaries. Believe me, there is no double standard, hidden agenda or hypocrisy involved here. Sisodia 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Surya Sen is definitely considered as a great son of Bangladesh. He is from my home town, and people take great pride in him. Do a goodle search, you'd see his birth/death anniversaries celebrated with honor, every year. So, your example definitely does not hold here. --Ragib 05:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if the kid replies "He is from India", that's definitely not the correct answer as well. The correct answer is that he is from Chittagong region of Bengal province of British India. In other words, British India <not equal to> India (if you want to be precise about nationalities or nations). So if someone says he was "Indian", this definitely needs qualification of the term, as the meaning of "Indian" then and now is not the same. --Ragib 05:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not only the region in which you were born, it is also your nationality. To tag people born/died between 1947 and 1971 and label them Bangladeshi even though during their time they would have affilliated themselves to the independent nation of Pakistan... Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, provide a good way of defining a region based category. THEN this problem wont' occur. The main problem with "Indian" here is that it is being equated to the modern Republic of India, while it is also being applied to the region. You see, region-based, and nation-based categories are two different things here. The region is not changing, the names of the countries have changed. It will never change that Surya Sen was born in Chittagong region of Bangladesh (region). The name of the country may change. So, show me a way how that can be expressed. Tagging a person "Indian" while having that ambiguity on whether the "india" refers to the region or modern country is, as I've mentioned, very misleading and confusing. --Ragib 05:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it's just that its equally misleading and confusing to refer to Bangladesh as a region as opposed to a country (where desh means country). Most people looking at the category would believe it refers to someone's nationality as opposed to their region. If we're looking at nationalities, labelling "East Pakistani people" is not confusing as there only ever was one East Pakistan. So after 1947 we could have, "Indian people", "Pakistani people" and "East Pakistani people" which changes to "Bangladeshi people" after 1971. Again, I'm not sure whether it's feasible. Before 1947, we could have "People born in India before 1947". That's the equation with nationalities. If we're looking at regions, then one should leave it at "Bengali people", "Punjabi peopl", "Marathi people" etc. as that defines their region as well. This is just a proposal, even I don't support it, but perhaps someone can transform it into something a tad more effective? Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Okay well I didn't have 45 minutes to spare so I didn't read the second half of this debate, but I do have an opinion (feel free to ignore it if I am just repeating what other people said). I personally think it is misleading to label anyone "Indian", "Pakistani", "Bangladeshi", etc., if they did not live in the modern countries those labels refer to. If someone was born in Chittagong in 1940, I would consider it appropriate to label them:

  • South Asian people
  • British Indian people
  • Bengali people (assuming they were ethnically Bengali)
  • Chittagonian people (assuming their ancestors were from the area)

But not "Indian people", "Bangladeshi people", or "British people" (I dislike that last one just because it is misleading, even if it may be technically correct). I think the "South Asian people" label would be appropriate as it is not time-specific or nation-state-specific, and yet it is informative, accurate, and uncontroversial. It can be applied to anyone born in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Mughal Empire, British India, the Gupta Empire, etc. Other additional terms could be very specific, such as the ethnic background of the individual (time-non-specific), and the name of the country they were born in (time-specific). Opinions? --SameerKhan 10:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not either been able to go through the entire discussion, but I believe SameerKhan has an interesting point. 1) I think a category like South Asian people can be good to cover the historical epoch before the concept of modern nation states were born. The Indian subcontinent has host to a variety of states, and a larger generic category might be in order to reduce confusions. 2) Bengali people is a valid category, but this is then an ethnic affiliation and not one of nationhood. It should not be included in Category:People by country, for example. It should not differentiate between Bengalis in India, Bangladesh or in other countries. Similiarily there are categories like Tamil people, valid for India, Sri Lanka and south-east Asia. 3) Terms like 'Pakistani' or 'Bangladeshi' should by no means be attributed to people who died prior to the formations of these states. 'Indian' is a more complex term, since it has been used prior to the formation of India as an independent state. Certainly 'Indian' can be used to attribute people living in the India during the colonial period. When it comes to Bangladeshi people born prior to 1971, it makes little sense automatically including them in both Pakistani and Bangladeshi categories unless there is some specific reason. For example East Pakistani politicians who contested Pakistani elections have to be included in the category Pakistani politicians. Likewise, people like Jinnah were indeed Indians (Jinnah for example, was active in Indian politics), and can be categorized as both Indian and Pakistani. --Soman 11:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC) India did exist as a political entity prior to 1947 (defined by British Colonial rule), Pakistan and Bangladesh did not. However, I see no direct reason to differentiate in categories between the British-ruled India (the overwhelming part of independent India), and territories colonized by Portugal and France. --Soman 11:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Bangladesh is concerned, I think the complexity lies in the fact that though Bangladesh is an old word, "Bangladeshi" is a rather recent usage. I like Dwaipayan's solution best at this point, but this is a complicated issue--ppm 14:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks elsewhere on Wikipedia, one finds, for example, rulers of the Ashanti Confederacy categorised under Category:Ghanaian people, and rulers of the various Javanese and Sumatran kingdoms under Category:Indonesian monarchs, although neither Ghana nor Indonesia existed in any form until this century. This seems consistent with what User:Ragib is proposing for Bangladesh. I have no personal opinion on how this issue should be resolved, apart from a slight feeling that there should be some consistency across Wikipedia in relation to these issues as they're not unique to the subcontinent. -- Arvind 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I don't think the category "Indian" should be discarded at all, for purely encyclopedic reasons. There are terms like "Indian music" or "Indian philosophy" that are ambigious in the way discussed here, but we have no choice but to embrace the ambiguity here in wikipedia. its not for us to solve it--ppm 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using British Indian would be misleading as that could also refer to modern Indian diaspora living in the UK... Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one. I personally see no problem in including an individual in both Bangladesh and Indian Bengali categories. Anything that helps the user find an article easier and smoother is fine IMO even if there is overlap. A history of Bangladesh should not start with 1971 or 1947, regardless of technical correctness because for the end-user of the reference, it is less useful. It should not start with the 1905 Partition of Bengal either. The roots of Bengal are much deeper and shared between two political entities. I see no problem with the shared history being shared in two different categories for two different countries. I disagree with having to Partition Rabindranath and Nazrul as well. The former was born in what is now Bangladesh but died in what is now West Bengal and the later vice versa. So I think someone in this category should be categorized in Bengali People, History of Bengal, History of India, and History of Bangladesh--Antorjal 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography/Ethnicty Conclusions

So what is the conclusion of this debate?

Sisodia 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize by ethnicity looks the way to go. Ethnicity should come first.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there hasn't been any solution to this. Ethnicity is just fine, we were actually debating about region-related categories. A consistent, unambiguous approach hasn't been found. --Ragib 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antorjal’s solution has some merit. While calling these Indian revolutionaries Bangladeshi people sounds vaguley mifittng, putting them in History of Bangladesh immediately makes sense, because these ppl surely are relevant to the history of Bangladesh. We can go with this solution till we properly define categories.

Sisodia 04:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Wikipedia Project itself is region based, I don't see why the category should not also be region based. It should be Category:People from Bagladesh, Category:People from West Bengal etc. Chaipau 12:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, unless a clear solution has been found, I'd stick to the status quo. --Ragib 05:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a solution has not been found. I suggest the use of categories as appropriate, but clearly defined. Multiple categories with some overlaps is the correct way to go. For people from places in Bangladesh before it came into being, it might be appropriate to categorise them in "Historical People of Bangladesh". This goes for not just countries but ethnic groups too. For example it might not be appropriate to categorize the king Sashanka in "Bengali people". Chaipau 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am somehow not a big fan of linking defferent debates, because things that seem coming from a similar "template" are simply not same in the real world. In the case of Bangladesh, on one hand, the word Bangladeshi has strong connotations linking it to the present day state, on the other hand, there is an encyclopedic need to associate people born in present day Bangladesh to its history and culture. I'd go for any of "People from Bangladesh", "Historical People of Bangladesh", "Bangladesh-born historical figures" or any reasonable variation thereof. Btw, is Sashanka not known to be Bengali?--ppm 19:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Shashanka ruled in the 7th century, which is barely into the Apabhramsha period. Bengali as a language did not exist then. Chaipau 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Bengali is an etnicity as well, not only a language group. Anway, no big deal--ppm 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, imho, "The people of Bangladesh" would be the best solution.--ppm 19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koenraad Elst and banning of books

Two users (User:Hornplease and User:Lkadvani) are advocating that the works of Koenraad Elst should be banned on wikipedia.

Many of Koenraad Elst's works are on Indian politics and contemporary issues and conflicts of Hinduism and were published in India. I certainly agree some quotes are just not appropriate for an article, and that Elst was misquoted in some articles. But the entire tone of Hornplease's and Lkadvani's discussions shows more an inclination towards censorship and systematic bias, than an interest in neutrality, balance and reason. --Bondego 13:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, Elst is somewhat sympathetic towards Hinduism while Witzel (the main western "scholar") takes no pain in denigrating it. Elst should not be banne from wiki, this is just a dastardly (by the two users listed above - not bondego) atempt to get Hinduism off wiki.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the diffs that Bondego have pointed us towards are explanatory in themselves. Dr. Elst holds a PhD from the Catholic University of Louvain according to his own website, though it is not possible to confirm from which department. He has not published in any peer-reviewed journals as a political scientist. He has not published any of his books through an academic/university press or a non-sectarian press. (He has contributed an article on Hindutva to a Routledge India collection. If necessary I can cite discussions that Routledge India does not present itself as an academic press like Routledge UK.) He does not hold a research position at a university at present as far as I can determine, and has not held a professorial-track position at any point, again as far as I can determine. This is not censorship or systemic bias. This is ensuring that the discussion of difficult subjects is undertaken with the benefit of citation from scholars who have endured the oversight of their peers and have demonstrated their accomplishments sufficiently rigorously. I have also stated that if Dr. Elst is quoted specifically as someone familiar with the internal dynamics of the Hindu revivalist movement and in articles where that knowledge is relevant, then I have no objection.
I take strong objection to Bondego's comments and in particular his use of the word 'banning' in the title. I do not wish to speak of the other editor involved, but I fail to see a single instance when any but a deliberate misreading of my edits can suggest a desire to 'ban' a source, and not a desire to improve the encyclopaedia by opening it to the best possible sources. Hornplease 05:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion --Bondego 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany for deletion

Some pages related to Portal:India has been enlisted for deletion. Please make your comments. Shyam (T/C) 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the creator, can't these be speedied if no pages are related to them? - Ganeshk (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shyam is not the creator; in fact no single person created them all. That is why {{db-author}} won't be applicable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian town deletion nom

Can someone please check this deletion nom and comment? - Ganeshk (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

review

Hi all - it is impossible for me to reach the talkpages of everyone I know, so I request you through this to please do me the kindness of visiting and sharing your views at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2. I need your advice and criticism, and I would be immensely grateful if you could spare a little time on this. Thank you, Rama's arrow 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

show your knowledge of indic scripts

Everybody knows the user language templates. Now there is also a template to show knowledge of writing systems. If you know cyrillic at level 4, you would do {{user iso15924|Cyrl|4}}. 'Cyrl' is the ISO 15924 code for that script. Look whether Template:User iso15924/data-table already has your script(s), otherwise have a look at Template:User_iso15924 or ask for help at Template_talk:User_iso15924. This can be of great help when an editor is looking for someone who knows a certain script. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14th Lok Sabha complete

I wanted to post here that Politics of India project has completed creating all the politician articles from the 14th Lok Sabha. It was some tireless and dedicated work by User:Shyam Bihari and User:Aksi great which helped with the completion. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali transliteration of Indian city/district names

With help from Ganeshk, I have modified Ganeshkbot's code to port it to Bengali wikipedia, in order to create articles on Indian cities. Now, this requires the city and district names to be written in Bengali. I have got those from West Bengal correctly written/transliterated by an editor from West Bengal, but for south Indian city names, I'm hopelessly stuck on how to transliterate their names in Bengali. So, a little help from someone who could do that would be much appreciated. If you can help in this, please drop me a note in my talk page. Thanks in advance. --Ragib 05:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Assamese people vs Category:People from Assam

This is somewhat in the vein as the discussion on (Pakistani/Bangladeshi) above. In states especially in the NE, ethnic boundaries are a bit more vague. For example: in Tripura the majority of people are Bengali, so a cat named "people from Tripura" would shunt out native Tripuris. ProveIt and I discussed this because he suggested a move to Category:People from Tripura. The Assamese aren't a defined majority in their own state either little more than 50% and a large number of famous "people from Assam" are Bengali, Hindi-speaking, and Bodo. I would keep both but add actual Assamese to the Category:Assamese people category while adding Bengalis/Bodos/etc. to the Category:People from Assam cat. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting ... I suggest people who are more knowledgeable about Assam fix up the Demographics section of the Assam article ... as of now, it doesn't give a breakdown of the ethnic groups in Assam very clearly, and doesn't mention "Assamese people" as a distinct group. So, perhaps this is the chance to clear this up. I don't know anything about this, so perhaps a Wikipedian from Assam can caste some light on the confusing issue. --Ragib 01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chaipau seems to be the only expert but for some reason he doesnt like the Category:Assamese people. There is a cat for Category:Tripuris (filled up by the likes of Rd burman and friends) and a new category for the Bodos ( Category:Bodo people . Bakaman Bakatalk 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in the demographics of Assam. Just as not everyone from "Bengal" is a Bengalis, not everyone from Assam is an Assamese. This geography-ethnicity divide is not as accute in the "Bengals" as it is in Assam. This is why it is not a good idea to put all people from Assam under Category:Assamese people.
Similarly making the categories explicitly geography or ethnicity based would solve the Bangladeshi issue too IMO—creating a category Category:People from Bangladesh to categorize the people who belong to regions presently within the boundaries of Bangladesh. For example, Meghalaya was a part of Assam at some point. But I believe it is correct to assign people to Category:People from Meghalaya even if they grew up and died in the past when Meghalaya was a part of Assam.
-Chaipau 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We should verify whether they are "Assamese" or not. I created Category:Bodo people and Category:Tripuris since they are the two other big groups in the NE. I'm not advocating putting all people from Assam, I'm suggesting those who are Ahom or Assamese language speaking be placed in there.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jallianwala_Bagh_Massacre

There is a proposal to move Jallianwala_Bagh_Massacre to Amritsar Massacre. I quote from WP:RM, "Rationale: Article was located at Amritsar Massacre from 2003 until a new user moved it with an awful cut-and-paste job in April 2006. Almost every page that links to Jallianwala Bagh Massacre does so through the redirect at Amritsar Massacre. Google shows 17,000+ hits for "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre" but 44,000+ hits for "Amritsar Massacre", including Encyclopædia Britannica. Clearly this is the most common English usage. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh Massacre - Kafziel 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)".

Share your opinion at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1931 census report.

Lot of Hindu caste pages refer to 1931 census report for their respective numbers. But almost always, they are unreferenced. I know that 1931 was a caste based census, but i am unable to find any online source which could give me a caste-wise break up. Can somebody point me out to an online, or even an offline source for the complete census report.nids(♂) 09:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Census report for the 1931 Census of India was published in three volumes, with the first volume itself published in five physical parts. The ethnographic data - including caste data - is in Part 3 of Volume 1. It was first published in 1935. As far as I am aware, it has never been reprinted.
Tracking down a copy won't be easy. The National Library at Kolkata will almost certainly have it. If you're not in Kolkata, try your State's central library. The libraries of the universities in the Presidency Towns are also likely to have copies, but getting access to them can be a big pain. -- Arvind 19:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He means a National Depository Centre -- Anon 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=78410171"