Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Freedom fighter debate - options

So continuing from the freedom fighter category debate above we have the following options. Please give your opinions on each of them right below. — Ravikiran 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Try to reverse the decision on Deletion Review and continue to have a category called "Indian freedom fighters"

• Oppose. There is a difference of perception here. While for most Indians an "Indian freedom fighter" is someone who fought against Colonial rule and no onen else, for the rest of the world, it is not so clear cut. So it is a good idea to make it clear for the rest of the world what we are referring to. — Ravikiran 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The term Freedom Fighter has a special meaning in India and its Independence. I am not sure why we should not try and appeal for deletion review first. It is not the case here that one persons freedom fighter was someone else's terrorist. If no solution comes out then I support Freedom fighters against the British Raj. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Or how about something like Indian Independence Movement (people) which is something like what Hornplease has suggested - Aksi_great (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support - the category page itself can have a description of the term. I support the original name because it is popular (esp. in the Indian context - WP allows popular names because that is what ppl wd search for) and is short enough to remember and insert in an article. --Gurubrahma 13:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - despite proposing an alternate name, I support the original name, per Gurubrahma. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - oh yeah, I support the original name the most. Indian Freedom Fighters, simple and easy. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Suport.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Suport.Bharatveer 11:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Can someone take the initiative to make a case for this on Deletion review then? I do not really think that freedom fighter is POV, my only concern is that it is not very informative. I will be happy to support this on DR, but those who are more convinced of the case should build it. — Ravikiran 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Choose a new category name. In that case, our options are (add more options if you have them):

• Freedom fighters against the British Raj

• I support this, I think that no other term can do these brave people justice. Activists is too broad and links people with different methods to each other. Fighters seems a bit too vague. So I also pick this due to the process of elimination. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fighters against the British Raj

• I support this one. — Ravikiran 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Activists against the British Raj in South Asia

• Suggested by Zora above, but I don't like it as it is too longwinded and introduces an archaism called "South Asia" — Ravikiran 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• I suppose I would vote for an "Activists against the British Raj". The Raj was a term specifically applicable to British India, so the South Asia bit is irrelevant. I have difficulty putting "fighter against the british raj" at the bottom of, say the article on Vinoba Bhave. 'Activist' covers them all. Alternatively, cant we have "Participant in Indian Independence Movement" or something? Hornplease 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something related to 'Indian Independence Movement' sounds good but is it considered POV as well ? Tintin (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Active in Indian Independence Movement. That covers all sorts of agitation, violent and non-violent. I will strongly resist any use of the term "freedom fighter", but Indian Independence Movement is neutral enough. There are independence movements that outsiders think doomed and nutty (if I recall correctly, a small California town, Stinson Beach, once tried to declare its independence), so just saying "independence movement" doesn't imply approval. Zora 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think the category should be Activists against the British Raj in India. Bharatveer 09:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Activists in Indian Independence Movement

I propose this term and support oppose! As Indian Independence Movement is an agreed term, I do not see any NPOV issue here. One may not know what is "Indian Independence Movement" while seeing this category, but would know by clicking as the article on Indian Independence Movement exists. One variant may be "Participants in Indian Independence Movement". However, activists probably better represents the sense than participants. Also there may be a sub-category of "Armed Activists in Indian Independence Movement", that will include those freedom fighters who were in armed movement (this subcategorisation is easy as there was clear demarcation who participated in armed movement and who were supporter of unarmed movement, except a few personalities where there may be some dispute, like Subhas Bose who was in Indian National Congress but later in favour of the armed movement — such cases can easily be covered in the blanket category of Activists in Indian Independence Movement.) Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Participants in India's Independence Movement

I like this too. — Ravikiran 12:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, how do we define participants? Will we then be categorizing more common protestors with inspirational leaders? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Freedom Fighters in British India

as a category seems to cover most of the trends and factions leading to India's independence. These persons were more obviously fighters than mere participants. The term activist may fail to denote the degree of their personal vision, choice, involvement and determination to advance according to a policy adopted by the leaders that they followed.--BobClive 17:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Since this is just a straw poll, I am voting multiple times. This proposal (Freedom fighters in British India) seems even more appropriate than the original "Indian Freedom Fighters" because the former clearly says the time period (British India) and also retain the term "Freedom fighter", which is a widely used term ( "WP allows popular names because that is what ppl wd search for"). However, it's longer than "Indian Freedom Fighters". Have to compromise somewhere! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose . There was no such thing called "British India". A better option will be Freedom Fighters in India under British Rule (or) Foreign RuleBharatveer 07:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Of course in popular memory we come across the term "British India", just as there existed "Frech India", "Dutch India", "Portuguese India" etc. (a justification for the French notion of India as "les Indes"). If you go for "Foreign Rule" where does your history begin ? Not after the Muslim period, I suppose.--BobClive 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to get 'personal' here , asking me about "my" history..I think there already is one category called India under Islamic rule . So it would be fine if this category is renamed Freedom Fighters in India under British Rule (or) European Rule.Bharatveer 09:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the term "your" which could as well be "our", in the most impersonal manner. --BobClive 14:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion review

Ok. Gurubrama is going to put a case for deleion review soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Category:Ayyavazhi

I would like to draw the attention of the WP community to the articles under Category:Ayyavazhi. Let me preface my comments by declaring that I am an agnostic and do not have any particular animosity towards any religion or its followers. My concerns are purely to do with the reliability WP as a source of information and its possible misuse. Let me also say that I do not allege any such behaviour from the User:Vaikunda Raja.

The articles under the cat Category:Ayyavazhi have been created by one user or by a cluster of IP addresses possibly associated with the author ([1], [2]) The same user has also created numerous stubs on other language versions of WP, including Afrikaans and Latin. These numerous pages and stubs in WP have spawned into the various syndicated online encyclopaedia sites such as reference.com, answers.com, Help.com, etc. The same user has also created entries in Simple Wikipedia ([3]), Theo Wiki ([4]), Wiki Quote ([5]), Wiki Books ([6]), Wiki News ([7]), Wikitionary ([8]), and the list goes on. A quick google search excluding the English WP gives us a lot of hits, almost all connected with WP. It is very hard to find a source that is not in some way associated with this original user.

There are no valid references or citations on a lot of these pages. IMHO no WP:NN, WP:NOR and WP:V tests were done during the early stages of these pages. They still fail in this regard. WP:Notability states that to be notable "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. " IMO and in the opinion of many users who live in the area in Tamil Nadu, the faith Ayyavazhi does not seem to have many followers, certainly not > 1 mil claimed by the user. ([9] ). Even the user agrees that this is not well known outside a select group ([10]).

The above example shows me that if someone is determined enough, they can create numerous articles on WP on an otherwise obscure topic, and by the nature of the lack of any systematic review in WP, and by the spread of WP material on the Net, can over a period of time create a self-sustaining notability and authenticity.

Parthi 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The claims of Ayyavazhi looks dubious. Bharatveer 04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that the set of articles fail the notability test and verifiability test. But we must not forget that there is still a chance of print references on it, though the chances are little as even Indian Census does not recognize it as a religion. The author has been informed and he promised to cite reliable sources. If he fails to quote them, we will have no option left but to purge the article(s). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian anti-reservation protests, 2006

This event is on wikipedia main page, but is currently linked to the Reservation in India article. I've started a separate article anticipating that a lot is going to happen in the coming days. Please keep it updated. deeptrivia (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reservation in India is currently a better article than the article you've created, but I'll work on that.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! Now Indian anti-reservation protests, 2006 is more comprehensive than Reservation in India, and links updated on the Current events page, as well as on the Main Page to Indian anti-reservation protests, 2006.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Khatri

Could someone see Talk:Khatri and sort out the issues? I haven't intervened yet but all these guys seem to be proud of their caste. I don't want to get into any more controversial issues for now so I'm watching from a distance. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Occupied Kashmir RFC

I have called for an RFC on whether the article Indian Occupied Kashmir is correctly named or redirected to Jammu and Kashmir. Please give your comments at =*Talk:Indian occupied Kashmir — Ravikiran 14:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Ancient India

There is a whole series of isolated articles on Kingdoms of Ancient India. They should be integrated with other Indian history related articles. deeptrivia (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But if there was no "India" then, and the kings and their people did not think of themselves as "Indian", how can they be claimed as "Indian"? They belong to the sub-continent, geographically, but India is a later concept. See Historiography and nationalism for references to various books re the practice of "tagging" the past. Several modern Indian historians, among them Prasenjit Duara, are notable members of this trend in historical scholarship.

I know that what I'm saying is new, unpopular, even shocking, but I hope that at least a few Wikipedians will explore further. Zora 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. The situation is made more interesting, though, by the fact that although on one hand we can doubt whether the "Indians" thought of themselves as Indians even in the 18th century, when nationalism really took roots, on the other hand, outsiders had a notion of "India" not entirely different from what we have today since ancient times (was just reading up some Greek descriptions of Indians from 100 CE. Looked from this perspective, "Ancient India" would not be as wrong as, say "Ancient Mexico". deeptrivia (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, No Original Research is allowed here in wikipedia . There are existing historical records that shows "Bharatvarsha" referred to as "india". So the historically "India " was there from the ancient times. The fact that it was not ruled centrally or was ruled by foreign powers would not make it any less "indian".

So Zora and deeptrivia , keep your "shocking" and "unpopular" beliefs to yourself .Bharatveer 05:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, Zora and deeptrivia are quite correct on their rationale. However, we should go by popular terms that are in wide usage. History books depict "ancient India". And, as Bharatveera pointed out, WP is not a place of original research, even if a particular idea in vogue appears wrong. All these efforts to convert "India" in pre-1947 articles may be correct in their rationale (not may be, they are correct), but we here in WP are nobody to decide that. We should stick to what noted historians has written. These efforts are becoming irritatingly repetitive and, at times, ridiculous. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What efforts? This is the first time I've mentioned it. I'm aware that nationalism is a deeply held belief for millions and that challenging it provokes exactly the outrage I did evoke. I'd have to battle thousands of editors and articles to get the alternative view accepted, even as a minority POV, on WP. Still, I think it should be mentioned. Zora 06:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Zora, that efforts was not targeted to you. In fact, I admitted that your (and also other editors who have expressed similar views in other talk pages) are correct. However, we are not here for historical revisionism. In fact, I have often followed your battles in several talk pages. Of course the alternate views should be accepted. And the alternate views can be written right at the begining of the article to clarify things. But, the view in vogue must be given priority. That is what I wanted to emphasise.

The ongoing "Freedom fighters" debate is on a similar note (and an extra aspect, if the persons could be called freedom fighters). In the past also, similar debates have come up. --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I was saying when I started this discussion, is that there's this article Kingdoms of Ancient India that links to a bunch of other articles that were more or less all created by the same person, and are not linked to other related articles on wikipedia. So, they can be integrated with other articles of wikipedia by linking them to and from other articles on related subjects. deeptrivia (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, Can you pls explain why you admit their rationale as correct??Bharatveer 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He he ;) Of course. (we sometimes deviate so much!) - this is in reply to Deeptrivia's comment.(after an edit conflict)--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Units

What is our policy regarding the use of lakhs and crores on Indian articles? deeptrivia (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We preferably use lakhs and crores with the international equivalents alongside. this was discussed about a year back somewhere. However, population stats would be better represented in millions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted a series of edits made by User:Siddiqui aimed at eliminating the use of lakhs and crores. deeptrivia (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ladakh map

I am looking for a decent PD map of the Ladakh region. Anyone knows of any source? Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You can use this map and modify it (if necessary). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for something much more detailed. The best I could find was this. Anything better available? deeptrivia (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This kind of map will be ideal, if someone knows of a PD version. deeptrivia (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Haphar adding Category:Sikhs

Would anybody like to have a look at Haphar's addition of the Sikh category to a wide range of bios. I have removed them from the cricket bios, as I don't feel that it is particularly relevant, and also as there are usually turban references in the text of Harbhajan Singh, Monty Panesar, etc. It's more of a diffcult call as to whether people like Manmohan Singh should be categorised by religion though.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Kalam and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (both Presidents of India) are categorised as "Indian Muslim" as are Pataudi, Azhar and Zaheer Khan (the cricketers). Parsis too have a category by religion. When having Manmohan Singh as a Prime Minister is mentioned as assuaging the hurt feelings of Sikhs IN the article, then there is nothing wrong in the category Sikhs being there for him. I am Adding the category back to the cricket bio's, also request feedback is sought, or research is done (see Indian Muslim in cricketers above) BEFORE removing something. With reference to comment on "turbans being mentioned"-A Turban deos not mean a Sikh as people other than Sikhs can also wear turbans, AND Everyone in the world does not know that Sikh's wear a turban. and I thought wiki does look at being a resource for the world.Haphar 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the implication that TURBAN = SIKH, as I am well aware that this is not the case. I was referring to the fact that there is a comment in the Harbhajan Singh article that he wears a turban due to his Sikh faith. I apologize for any hurtful generalisations, which were accidental on my part. As to my reference to WT:CRIC, User:Tintin1107, User:Srikeit and User:Nichalp, the only Indian bureaucrat, and thus the highest ranking Indian wikipedian so to speak, have all agreed that religion cats are not necessary for cricketers unless they also engage in religious activity in public life outside of sport, such as Imran Khan or Saeed Anwar.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given my logic on the as to why it should be thereWT:CRIC. There is no discussion on the logic and just a decision by Blnguyen that he would remove the category. Might is right I guess even in wiki. Haphar 10:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

India Basher

This OR piece, similar to the recently deleted India bashing is up on Afd.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian current events

User:Joturner has merged the Indian current events into Current events in South Asia even after there was no consensus for the move. The events in India have been regularly updated in the last two months. And India deserves to have a seperate page. It is also an archive for the news that we display on the Portal:India. Can someone please talk to him and get the page back to where it was? - Ganeshk (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can it be reverted??Bharatveer 10:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversion needed--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

DO you know how?? Bharatveer 07:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has been done by Joturner after Ganrshk contacted him.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Peninsula

Indian Peninsula is currently a redirect to India. This means, for instance, that the link given in the lead for the South India artice doesn't make sense. "Indian Peninsula" is clearly a geographic term that is not equivalent to "India" - shouldn't there be a proper article on it? Failing that, should the redirect not actually point to "South India"? TheGrappler 10:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, e.g., Peninsular India points to South India. Although more appropriate, the two entities are still not exactly the same -- Maharashtra, Orisa, etc are not covered in South India. deeptrivia (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Deccan. — Ravikiran 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Have separate article for it.. The map given here gives its approximate boundaries. Indian Peninsula = Deccan + surrounding moutains + Coasts.--Raghu 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kolim

The article Kolim describes its subject as a now 18-year-old person who had a #1 hit in India and Bangladesh, along with a #1 hit in the BBC Asian Bengali charts. I can't verify this is true, but maybe I just don't know where to find the information. Is Kolim a real recording artist who has had the success he claims? --Metropolitan90 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really do not know. But it is sure he did not have a number 1 sigle in India. I cant tell about Bangledash or UK.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That article is nothing but self-advertisement.Bharatveer 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Languages of India

This article begs for our attention. Please discuss at Talk:Languages of India#Cleanup_2. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment there. Excellent topic to bring up, that could be a very interesting article to get some sources and start it right, almost from the ground up. - Taxman ^Talk 12:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added more. People, please participate in the discussion there. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation

Hi all - might I draw the attention of y'all to [11]? Its a slightly serious issue that needs a common working-out I suppose. Rama's Arrow 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is really an interesting observation. In fact, IMO, it is a compliment. However, if someone avoids India-related FACs being "wary of commenting on India-related nominations for fear of being shot down", that's not healthy. Do we really sound such. Perhaps a non-Indian observer may comment, like Raul himself. After we talk about this here, Raul could be invited for comments. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is most likely to be a case of demophobia , nothing else. Bharatveer 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the fellow is concerned on how Indian votes are "stacking the decks." The problem is, he doesn't realize that the Indian editors communicate and help each other out regularly on FA efforts. Since the wavelength there is cleared during peer review itself, the FAC results in high levels of support. If they observe WP:INWNB, they'll see this. They'll also see that people like Saravask, Sundar, Dwaipayan, Ambuj Saxena and Nichalp are tough critics - they don't say anything or vote on the bandwagon. Plus, non-Indian editors like Taxman, Spangineer and Ragib are regularly involved in FA drives on Indian subjects, and their criticisms are usually pretty quickly met. Rama's Arrow 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. In any case, FAC is not a typical poll in the sense that the difference between the number of support votes and that of oppose votes doesn't matter as much as the actual objections raised. In any case, to gain their confidence let's make sure that everyone of us who vote in the FACs have read a substantial portion of the text and we shall "substantiate" our vote. Well, to substantiate a "support" vote is kinda funny at an FAC, but we could state that it meets all FAC criteria, went through a good Peer Review etc., as we already do now. And when there's an objection, let's deal with it patiently and address it. Inviting (need not be overt) more users like Taxman, Ragib, Spangineer etc., could help, but that should be at the peer review stage itself. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be for some of us to participate in the FAC of non-Indian articles as well by commenting there. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind at these comments. India's performance on Wikipedia when it comes to producing great articles is very strong. Most of our supports are all with reason. Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says I'm not Indian? :) Ok, I'm not, but still. I do agree with much of what else has been said here that the process with articles you guys work on is very thorough, so there's not much worry that articles aren't among the very best. But at the same time people should be careful to not support unless they've thoroughly reviewed an article and how well it meets the criteria. The same goes for similar issues like RfA, etc. I think it's a fact of life that people may at times be softer on things they feel a connection with. If people make a modest effort to be aware of that and do their best to be objective, it's not a problem. - Taxman ^Talk 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

<grins> (Taxman knows why) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. At least it wasn't a username joke. But I was also thinking that almost every article could use some improvement, so suggested improvements on FAC and objecting if they are important would go a long way towards making everyone's votes appear more objective. - Taxman ^Talk 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You certainly had me fooled, Taxman, if you are not Indian. Huccum you are able to contribute to hi: if you are not?? Pray tell. ImpuMozhi 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I started learning the language (originally on a lark after watching DDLJ with friends) and found it to be very interesting. And I wouldn't exactly say I'm contributing there, I'm not even really functional in the language yet. :) - Taxman ^Talk 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you are a much better Indian than many of us, who find that contributing to the Wiki of our mother-tongues calls for more time n effort than we feel inclined to devote. Much as we may want to contribute. May the Force be with you!! Regards, ImpuMozhi 03:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nirav. What they don't observe is that the Indian Wikipedian community works as a close-knit group. Perhaps they don't notice how seriously we take our Peer Review process and often shred India-related articles to pieces, leading the development of near-perfect article by the end of Peer-Review process itself. By the time the article reaches FAC, most of the Indian editors would have contributed to it in one way or the other and mostly the article goes for FAC only when it gets a green signal from the members of the community. If there were any grounds for objecting, they would have been taken care of in the Peer Review phase itself. Perhaps the comment was on Raul's page was because the editor did not carefully look how extensive the Peer Review process related to Indian articles is. I would find a bit awkward to substantiate any support vote. Should I say that my concerns on the Peer Review have been addressed? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont bother too much about it, he was only raising concerns about mass voting. Indian articles have also failed the FAC (eg IIT) due to oppose votes by the same contingent. Perhaps this can be also pointed out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the quite recent Indian architecture FAC. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his specific concern is about the articles that have come through the Indian review processes. I am pretty sure that we will shred apart articles that did not follow the process, as we should. Even if it is not true that we close ranks and get defensive about "our" articles, we should avoid giving the impression that we are doing so, because if it has the effect of putting off valuable feedback from others, it is a Bad Thing. — Ravikiran 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Kerala and Template:User KERALA wiki on WP:TFD

These two templates are on TFD because they are duplicates. Please decide which one has a better design.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cropped image copyright

Does anybody know what will be the copyright status of an image which has been cropped from the original.? Will it still remain copyrighted or can it be claimed as GFDL-self?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh No! A copyrighted image will remain copyrighted. (No derivatives allowed clause) (PS FYI GFDL and CC-BY- images are copyrighted too). I'm not sure, but the correct procedure is to upload the original first and then the cropped photo over it. Please verify first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential goldmine

I just chanced upon these images. Many of them have creation dates in the 1930s and hence could fall under {{PD-India}}. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Great catch Sundar! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I must disclose my source now. It was an anonymous user adding a link to the Coimbatore article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful -- no end of useful images! However, the website seems to be selling the images, although downloading has not been disabled. I hope the copyright really does not hold? ImpuMozhi 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the copyright problem wouldn't exist. Didn't you notice that they are selling 1MB versions while downloadable previews are of 25KB. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, we could write to them? But, it shouldn't backfire. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It'll certainly be useful to have those images. If we write to them and we be really nice and polite, they may open us up to more opportunities. However, if they aren't in the mood we could be kept out from using these images forever. We could use them under our own judgement, but that could get us and Wikipedia into trouble if the Hindu Images site people are really strict...then again, it could mean we just get these images without anyone caring...tough... Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The images are priced differently if they are for a single use or multiple uses. If the copyright has expired such conditions doesn't make sense. Tintin (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As Ambuj noted above, if one buys from them, they give 1MB versions. For now, we can use the downloadable 25KB versions under {{PD-India}}. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is, if someone buys a pic for single use, there is nothing in the rules that can prevent them from using it multiple times because the copyright has expired :-) Tintin (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He he. Even I'd thought about it. <evil grin> -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Their policies don't make any sense to me. Don't they understand that the terms of usage really doesn't matter. Once the image is obtained, anyone can use them for any purpose as their copyright has expired (Note: Though not true for all). However, why even buy when the downloadable versions are of sufficiently high quality that can be easily used. For a randomly selected photograph (and for the purpose for which we are using) an image would cost Rs. 2000. So unless someone has seen a potential "Featured Picture" in them, he may as well pay the money and get it. But I wonder if anyone would do that. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used one of the images and created an article on the legendary K. B. Sundarambal. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaaagh! I have it on my computer with a whole lot of others that I was going to create stubs on over the weekend. It is a priceless image, right? So young. ImpuMozhi 12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I can't think of any word but priceless. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what about the images on flickr.com? Can they be used freely on wikipedia? Below each image is mentioned that "this photo is public" Lost 12:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all images on flickr can be used. "Public" stands for "access to public". Some images will have one of the Creative Commons Licences, many of which can be used here. For example, if you look at this image and look for a tiny green box on the right hand side frame, you can see the symbol CC with a link to the licence. In this case, the licence is {{cc-by-sa}} and we used it in Irfan Pathan. But, most other images are copyrighted. You can use flickr's advanced search feature to limit your search to CC images. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar Lost 13:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the following clause from the Indian Copyright Act (per 1983 ammendment) :

32A.Licence to reproduce and publish works for certain purposes.-

(1) Where, after the expiration of the relevant period from the date of the first publication of an edition of a literary, scientific or artistic work,-

(a) the copies of such edition are not made available in India; or

(b) such copies have not been put on sale in India for a period of six months to the general public, or in connection with systematic instructional activities at a price reasonably related to that normally charged in India for comparable works by the owner of the right of reproduction or by any person authorised by him in this behalf, any person may apply to the Copyright Board for a licence to reproduce and publish such work in printed or analogous forms of reproduction at the price at which such edition is sold or a lower price for the purposes of systematic instructional activities

I'm not entirely sure if that applies to us right now, but if it does, then wouldn't that make us ineligible to use those photographs? The complete Act is available here in PDF. Someone might want to check it to verify the context in which the clause appears. The particular clause I quoted appears in Chapter VI. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 05:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, its the 1 mb version thats for sale and not the low resolution version. So I dont think there would be a problem with putting up the low res version -Lost 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Err..pardon my ignorance, but what difference does that make? Isn't it the photograph that is copyrighted? Resolution is only a physical parameter. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 05:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter anyway. We need to only concern ourselves with US copyright laws (where Wikipedia servers are actually present). If it is allowed in US, it is allowed in Wikipedia. BTW, resolution matters a lot as it dictates the way images can be used. For example, Wikipedia allows only low-resolution images of movie/TV screenshots, so as to not reduce the value of their copyright. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the images being taken off from Mahatma Gandhi article due to copyvio and decided to dig a little deeper. Consulted "The Copyright Act, 1957" published by "Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.". Also checked it here. Copyright for photographs expires after 60 years hence the above mentioned clause would not be applicable to us. So there should be no problem with displaying these images here. -- Lost 09:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambuj, that is not quite correct. The Berne convention on copyrights obliges member countries to respect each others' copyrights. What exactly it means, I don't know, but Indian copyright laws will matter in some way. — Ravikiran 10:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to respect the copyright, we can upload the images to the English Wikipedia server instead of commons. I believe that's the distinction between a specific language wikipedia and commons - commons images are free everywhere, while say en wikipedia's (free) images are not considered copyrighted (in US). BTW, I found a good image for people who are banging their heads over such issues. Consider using this. -Ambuj Saxena (talk)

Unfortunately, it is the Vandal Who Loves Me who reported the copyvio for images that I uploaded. Now, I am loathe to make the case that "The Hindu has no real right to sell its old photographs." Herz my case:

1. Upon reading the entire quotation of the "put up for sale" nuance in the copyright act pointed out by Thunderboltz, the purpose of the provision is evident: images simply may not be available to the public even after copyright as expired. The person in custody of the Work may demand exhorbitant monies merely to make available the already legally free Work. In such cases, "any person may apply to the Copyright Board" -- to compel the intractible custodian to part with the Work for less money than is demanded.
2. Thus, we may infer that the Hindu is aware that copyright has expired;
3. in deference to the act, and in the public interest, the Hindu is disseminating downloadable images, of low resolution, precisely to enable their wider use;
4. indeed, in creating a website (rather than demanding that a member of the public walk into their offices in Chennai) the Hindu encourages good-faith use;
5. the company is willing to make available images of far better quality for a price.
6. thus, in making low-resolution version available free, and offering for sale better quality images, the Hindu is adhering to both the spirit and the letter of the Copyright Act. As indeed we also are, in making only non-profit "fair use" of these freely available historic images.

I am no lawyer, but this is my reading of the matter. Does anyone feel that I am being disingenuous, too-clever-by-half with this self-serving interpretation? What other explanations for the anamoly suggest themselves? The Hindu seems to have good intentions and excellent lawyers. We should avail of what it makes freely available to us in its wisdom. Regards, ImpuMozhi 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

IANYL ;-) but here is my take. Copyright expires 60 years after first publication - however, we can't be sure if all these have been published or not. If they haven't been published, copyright still exists. --Gurubrahma 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that nobody said the low resolution images are free. We took such an assumption based on the 60-year rule, whose validity is now under question. The low resolution images are, according to this page, copyrighted too. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms and conditions of The Hindu cannot supersede the copyright laws. The whole point of copyright laws is to make sure that the author gets due credit for certain period of time before which the images creative work becomes public. If it were possible for people to themsevles decide the copyright status of their works, then most of the copyrights won't expire at all. Hence, unless it can be shown that images were first published in the last 60 years in India, or a similar term in US, they are now free from copyright. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Think of it this way: The works of Shakespeare are now in the public domain. But publishers can still sell me books of Shakespeare's plays. If I find one such book lying on the road, I am allowed to legally scan it and email it to you, because the work is in the public domain. If instead of finding it on the road I steal the book, I can still be arrested for theft, but you are in the clear because you did not get stolen property and you did not violate anyone's copyright. You can use Shakespeare's text as you wish. In this case, accessing Hindu's server and downloading the images on your machine are perfectly legal activities. Once you get your hand on the image, you are clear of any copyright hassles and you can distribute it as you wish. On the other hand, if you hack into Hindu's server and gain access to their high-res images without paying for them, you can get arrested, but that is not a problem of copyright law. — Ravikiran 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearing up a few issues:

1. Gurubramha is right. The validity of PD hinges on the assumption that the images were published. If they were not, it now falls under copyright for the next 60 years OR . Assuming that the images were published before 1946:
2. the copies of such edition are not made available in India -- This would be false since The Hindu was an Indian company, and photos were published in India.
3. such copies have not been put on sale in India for a period of six months to the general public... need a lawyer to interpret this, and clarifications from the newspaper, if they were ever put up for sale.
4. Wikipedia's laws follow the US laws, but Indian PD-expiry laws take precedence first. Expiry laws on Commons are dictated by the country they are published from, not the US. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it not the right time to ping Pamri? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's time to contact him. via email? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bottom Line if a website is selling photographs you CANNOT use them without paying the fees they want. Yes if you can get a hold of the newspaper which was published 60 years ago and scan that image which clearly shows the date it was published on, you can use the image but not from the website. Tatra 11:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would request to refrain from revert wars till a decision is taken on this issue -- Lost 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no decision to be taken here. A website selling photos can sue any one who uses them without there permission. Pay them the money, get there license and use them. Otherwise these images need to go away and let us stop wasting people'e time. Tatra 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A revert war has started over the use of these images in Bhubaneshwar article. In order to resolve the issue faster, I am asking outside opinion from editors I know are knowledgable in copyright issues. I request other editors to also seek expert help to sort the matter quickly. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the users asked. There are two different things here: owing copyright and owing the image (25kb/2mb of computer data). The company does not own the copyright; likely there is no copyright because it has expired. But they do own the image and they can do whatever they want with it: sell, copy, burn... We could argue here for a while with no results wheather low-res pictures could be used on WP. Instead I suggest writing to them and saying, Hey we would like to use your historic low-res pictures. We know the copyright expired and most likely we could use the pics anyway, but we decided to be nice and ask for your permision. In the image description page, we will provide a link to your website and we will say that high-res picture is available for a price. If I was a smart businessperson, I would agree immeadiatly - WP would be "advertising" their products to a much wider public for free. That's awesome deal you get. And the best part - you have to do nothing... They are already providing previews to their high-res images.

This kind of letter would eliminate any need for debates: the copyright expired and the image (25kb of computer data) owner agreed that the image can be used on WP. What if they say no (highly unlikely)? Then they need to go back to business school :) By the way, it seems that even if you bought the image it could not be used on WP as their license is strict. Renata 12:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's good advice by Renata. May I request that somebody send the mail quickly? I dont like indulging in revert wars and I have already reverted Mahatma Gandhi twice in the last two days. -- Lost 09:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Attention needed:Status of religious freedom in India

Status of religious freedom in India was created as a link from Freedom of religion way back in March, 2005. The article is in a bad shape is an understatemnt! Please help making it at least somewhat respectable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats at Khalistan

Please see this. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He's bluffing, and I've called the bluff. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. His IP seems to be originating in the US.[12] It is highly improbable that he has done what he says he has done. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that he claims to have informed the Govt of India shows his ignorance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We might have taken him seriously if he hadn't included that comment. As I commented over there, if Manmohan Singh or Rajnath Singh don't come along and join WikiProject Politics of India any time soon I'll assume its a bluff (this would be a POV Pushing disaster though) :). Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Urgent & Important

Can someone please please volunteer to maintain WP:DSI. It is very taxing to go through AFD. Whoever wants to maintain DSI may also want to have a look at WP:PROD entries as well. Thanks in advance, --Gurubrahma 07:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the entries as of today and also ventured to revamp the format somewhat. It took several hours, unexpectedly! But I trust that in future, a few minutes a day will suffice to effect the necessary updates. ImpuMozhi 03:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)!

Thanks a ton, ImpuMozhi! I'll try to keep it updated as well. Hornplease 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayurveda

The article has gone through a lot of transformation during the past few days. Right now, the article's POV is disputed, and seems to contain a lot of OR. Badly in need of a clean up too. Please take a look. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 14:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

South Asian Great powers

In Great power, I've created a section that include pre-modern South Asian Great powers. Could some of those with more knowledge of history please have a quick look over the list and see whether any more need to be included/some need to be deleted. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

maps of Indian states

Can we download maps of states (showing districts etc.) from official and other websites, especially where its not mentioned that the maps are copyrighted? Can someone guide me please? Lost 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume everything is copyrighted unless explictly stated otherwise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp. Can you also tell me how we can draw detailed maps of states? Which software is good for that? Or is anybody here already doing that. I did see the featured India map by you. Lost 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Or is anybody here already doing that

You're asking "the guy"! I guess he uses inkscape. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Format: We're moving toward SVG-type maps on wikipedia which are XML based. Though they are slightly harder to draw, they have two major advantages: a) The images are vector based images, which means that they can be upscaled to any resolution without losing quality (as opposed to raster based bitmaps suffer from pixellation), and b) The image is editable. This means that any user can download the image, start editing and making changes.
2. Software: I prefer using Inkscape. It's free, light, and available for many platforms
3. How to draw: You would need to download the highest resolution map available. Open it in Inkscape and start tracing the boundaries. Tracing geographical boundaries does not violate any copyright laws since it is "information"; and information cannot be copyrighted. Ensure that you don't copy the style of the map. Before you start with inkscape, I suggest you go through the tutorials which come along with it.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys. Lost 13:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation

What does Ekach Shatkar mean in Marathi ? Tintin (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, got it. 'One more six' Tintin (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No it means "Only one six" — Ravikiran 05:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Tintin (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu politicians again

Just saw on my watchlist that Category:Hindu politicians has been re-created. Do we have to go through the entire CFD process again? Or is there any was to speedily delete categories? - Aksi_great (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Just inform user:Dangerous-Boy about the developments, and how we had had it deleted in the past. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

State flags of India

commons:Category:State flags of India. The flags there show the state flags of various states of India. Are they used at all? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nowhere seen those flags to be used. anyone?--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought some google searching would help. And it did. Only the flag of Jammu and Kashmir is widely reported. All others are either not available publicly at all, or when found on the net are from foreign sites only (quite surprisingly)! I did further research and here's what I found on http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/flags/in-mz.html (relevant part included below):

Indian states officially do not have flags of their own, except for Jammu and Kashmir. However, some unofficial flags have been reported.

Any suggestions how do we go about the ones already present? Should we ask the uploader about the source of the flags? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another link - Lost 15:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I live in Bangalore and see a widespread use of the state flag, mostly by the general public and private institutions. Not sure about the Government of Karnataka though. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

INCOTW - Cinema of India

Cinema of India is this week's Indian Colloboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Ganeshk (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladakh Peer Review

I've been working on Ladakh for a while, and now it's on peer review. Basically, I need suggestions on how to condense the article which has become very long. IMO, it's not very far from becoming an FA now, if size and style issues are sorted out. Any help will be highly appreciated :) deeptrivia (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling of Hindi on the Main Page

The spelling of Hindi in Template:Wikipedialang which appears on the Main Page under Wikipedias having "More than 1,000 articles"; the spelling is "हिन्दी" (Hanidi) instead of Hindi. I don't know how to make it correct, so any other admin who has Hindi typing capabilities :), please correct it, or any other user just type it here and I will correct it myself. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This basically has to do with rendering See here - Lost 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you mean that there is no problem in the spelling as such, but with the rendering in my computer.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 07:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats right. The way to see the correct version is either enable indic text in your control panel or install the right font. They are explained in the link above. - Lost 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mizo speakers here?

Can someone add the Mizo spelling for Mautam? It's featured in {{ITN}}. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian Article Improvement Drive

I am seeing a lot of Indian editors contributing these days. I propose we create a new project INAID or Indian Article Improvement Drive similar to the main WP:AID. We can use the WP:INCOTW to nominate stubs and the INAID to nominate full length articles that need cleanup. For example, articles such as Hinduism and Ramayana currently nominated for INCOTW will go into INAID. This way stubs will never be neglected. AID could be fortnightly. Comments? - Ganeshk (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. There are many India articles which could be worked on, but often gets neglected. Those will be brought in attention.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm for this one too. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The current WP:INCOTW has got absolutely no edits since the tag was put up. I think we should not start initiatives that will not sustain. — Ravikiran 08:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the current INCOTW has got no edits. But IMO this is exceptional. Nearly all previous INCOTWs got good edits. The last one (postal service) also got poor edits. Things would improve, hopefully.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Khatri again

It's getting to boiling point with User:Holywarrior accusing Khatris of being the lowest of men and Sudra. The talk page is worse, very disogranized. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)