Brihaspati (talk | contribs) →Sonny Mehta: RD |
Renamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs) →Onam being changed from Secular to Hindu Festival: new section |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
I have nominated [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Sonny_Mehta]] this RD. If anyone can update the article and reflect their views then it would be better.--<b> [[User:Harshil169|<i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>]]</b><sup>[[User Talk:Harshil169|want to talk?]]</sup> 14:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
I have nominated [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Sonny_Mehta]] this RD. If anyone can update the article and reflect their views then it would be better.--<b> [[User:Harshil169|<i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>]]</b><sup>[[User Talk:Harshil169|want to talk?]]</sup> 14:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Onam being changed from Secular to Hindu Festival == |
|||
{{ping|Kautilya3|Vanamonde93|RegentsPark|Winged Blades of Godric|Sitush|Abecedare|Tamravidhir|Doug Weller|SpacemanSpiff|Titodutta|Fowler&fowler}} |
|||
Hi All, in the past few days, several POV edits have been made to this article (For example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Onam&diff=prev&oldid=933281247 This diff]), to portray this as a Hindu festival even though it is a secular festival celebrated by all religions (Hindus, Muslims as well as Christians) of Kerala.<ref name="Mohapatra">{{cite book |last1=Mohapatra |first1=J. |title=Wellness in Indian Festivals & Rituals: Since the Supreme Divine Is Manifested in All the Gods, Worship of Any God Is Quite Legitimate. |date=2013 |publisher=Partridge Publishing |isbn=978-1-4828-1689-1 |url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=R0aVAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA141&dq=onam%20secular&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q=onam%20secular&f=false |accessdate=29 December 2019 |language=en}}</ref> |
|||
Few days back [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADBigXray&type=revision&diff=932479251&oldid=932460698 an IP posted a message on my talk page] stating |
|||
{{tq|"BJP-RSS propaganda in [[Onam]] article to make it more [[Hindu]] than secular and to alter its myth by diminishing the importance of [[Mahabali]] over [[Vamana]]. Ms Sarah Welch is restoring problematic content by [[Special:Contributions/Snowcream|Snowcream]] without discussion. Onam is celebrated all over Kerala irrespective of religion.}} [[Special:Contributions/2409:4073:30D:F96:6431:C9DF:B49E:479D|2409:4073:30D:F96:6431:C9DF:B49E:479D]] ([[User talk:2409:4073:30D:F96:6431:C9DF:B49E:479D|talk]]) 06:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)" |
|||
Since this is a controversial topic, I would request more editors to share their thoughts about these changes on the talk page. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|Happy New Year! ᗙ D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>ᗙ]]</span>'' 14:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:44, 1 January 2020
India Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Article alerts for WikiProject India |
Today's featured article requests
Did you know
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Templates for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Files for discussion
Featured article candidates
Featured list candidates
Good article nominees
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
|
This table is updated daily by a bot |
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
Lists of notable people in articles about places
If X is an article about a city, town, district or other administrative unit, it's bound to have a section called "Notable people", usually listing a fair number of people. These sections tend to attract a great number of edits, mostly from IPs, that add:
- entries for non-notable people (by far the most common type of addition)
- entries for possibly maybe notable people without articles on wikipedia (common)
- entries for people with articles who are not from X but some place associated with X (e.g. if X is a city, the entry will be for someone who's not from X but from somewhere else in X district)
- entries for people that are actually and verifiably from X (rare)
- entries for people from completely different parts of the country.
The vast majority of edits are not constructive, and among the ones that are there's always the added burden of locating the article (not always linked, with the difficulty compounded by the existence of spelling variants), and verifying the entry is correct (laborious due to the the commonplace absence of relevant information in the respective article).
The net result is that these lists take massive amounts of editor time to police, which is out of proportion to to their marginal encyclopedic value. Do we really need those lists? – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Uanfala. This is part of a bigger problem: for relevance, see Talk:List of people from Punjab, India#Need clarity regarding the article's title and scope. I mean when we say that "notable people from X place", we all have different definition of "from". And when we don't have clarity regarding the inclusion criteria, then these types of subsections/lists are impossible to manage. So I guess we can have two choices here. First one can be to remove such lists from the articles of X places, and limit the entries to the relevant list articles. But that's not a solution. Other option can be to set an unambiguous definition of "from", and restrict the entries in relevant lists/subsections accordingly. This option is workable, provided we can have a consensus regarding the criteria of inclusion. But I guess it would be quite challenging to develop such criteria. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Uanfala NitinMlk I am aware of the problem. However I would like to keep this info in location articles. It has been helpful for me as a reader. How about we consider the meaning of "from" as broadly construed. And a name be allowed as long as a RS is provided that helps verify that he is from the city. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, what is your definition of "from" as broadly construed? BTW, if there is some clarity regarding the inclusion criteria then I don't have any problem from their inclusion. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- My definition of from = If The person is born there, or has lived there (any years). Basically if a reliable source identifies him from a place then he fits the criteria.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your criteria has some good inclusion points, but please carefully go through the following discussion: Talk:List of people from Punjab, India#Need clarity regarding the article's title and scope. That will help you to see flaws in your criteria. And maybe it will also help you to improve your inclusion criteria. And I will respond tomorrow. :) NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk Thanks for posting the link again. I did go through the thread, (first half completely and the last half cursorily). I still believe that my position is unchanged, we should just go by what the source says and use it inclusively in case of any dispute if the name is merited in the list or not. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Let's wait for input from others. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like these lists but they're not going to go away. Given that, I don't see much of an alternative to what DBigXray says. If it is resonably sourced, let it stay. If not, toss it out. Along with the notability caveat and the easiest way to judge notability is to see if we have an article on the person. So, source + article = stay. --regentspark (comment) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- But if we manage to get enough people who don't like them, then we can be in a position to make them all go away, like we did with the Indic scripts, no? – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see them as the same. With this it's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which was not the case with indic scripts. As long as we can define the criteria clearly, I don't see any substantive reason to exclude the lists. --regentspark (comment) 00:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indic scripts were voted out because editors believed the effort involved in policing them didn't match their encyclopedic value. That's exactly the same situation here. We've got content that is almost always incomplete, very often inaccurate, arguably of little to no value to the encyclopedia and invariably the target of anonymous editing that siphons off a lot of editor time to look after. – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- RegentsPark thanks for pointing the "having his bio article" requirement, I missed to add that. Uanfala I disagree with the above assertion and also disagree that it is same situation. There is no point in discussing Indic script here. About the list, I am regularly patrolling the Indian city/geo articles and I know that the requirement that "this notable subject must have his own article" is a very broad net that scoops up most of the promo edits. A notable subject that has its own article is always significantly covered and the sources do mention the city he is "from". Anyway the WP:BURDEN here lies with the person adding the name in the list, so if he adds the name without including a RS that confirms it, you are within your rights to revert him asking to redo with an RS that says so. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indic scripts were voted out because editors believed the effort involved in policing them didn't match their encyclopedic value. That's exactly the same situation here. We've got content that is almost always incomplete, very often inaccurate, arguably of little to no value to the encyclopedia and invariably the target of anonymous editing that siphons off a lot of editor time to look after. – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see them as the same. With this it's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which was not the case with indic scripts. As long as we can define the criteria clearly, I don't see any substantive reason to exclude the lists. --regentspark (comment) 00:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- But if we manage to get enough people who don't like them, then we can be in a position to make them all go away, like we did with the Indic scripts, no? – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like these lists but they're not going to go away. Given that, I don't see much of an alternative to what DBigXray says. If it is resonably sourced, let it stay. If not, toss it out. Along with the notability caveat and the easiest way to judge notability is to see if we have an article on the person. So, source + article = stay. --regentspark (comment) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Let's wait for input from others. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk Thanks for posting the link again. I did go through the thread, (first half completely and the last half cursorily). I still believe that my position is unchanged, we should just go by what the source says and use it inclusively in case of any dispute if the name is merited in the list or not. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your criteria has some good inclusion points, but please carefully go through the following discussion: Talk:List of people from Punjab, India#Need clarity regarding the article's title and scope. That will help you to see flaws in your criteria. And maybe it will also help you to improve your inclusion criteria. And I will respond tomorrow. :) NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- My definition of from = If The person is born there, or has lived there (any years). Basically if a reliable source identifies him from a place then he fits the criteria.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, what is your definition of "from" as broadly construed? BTW, if there is some clarity regarding the inclusion criteria then I don't have any problem from their inclusion. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- If there isn't a consensus to delete such lists, then only other option left is to fix them. DBigXray, one of your inclusion criteria is that if a person "
has lived there (any years)
", then they are "from" there. I guess "any years
" mean at least one year. But this criterion is untenable and will make these lists look fatuous. I have just looked at the articles of three Gandhis, and as per this criterion, Mahatma Gandhi seems like "from" places like London, Durban, Johannesburg, New Delhi, Champaran, different parts of Gujarat, etc. Similarly, Rahul Gandhi seems from Delhi, Florida, Cambridge, London, etc. And Rajiv Gandhi seems from Delhi, Dehradun, Cambridge, London, Mumbai, etc. But when we state that someone is from X place, I guess we normally mean that they hail from there, or have spent a considerable amount of early life there, which in turn may have an impact on their remaining life. Anyway, this particular criterion needs to be either amended or discarded. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk, You seem to have read a line and jumped on it and wrote an entire para. You forgot that it is not us editors who will decide (by looking at the no of years), if the person X is from Y, We leave that to RS. If you want to state X is from Y in an article, you will still need a reliable source that states that. If an RS states that X is from Y, then the name is justified to be in the list.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, in that case, we don't need this criterion, as your main criterion – i.e., "
if a reliable source identifies him from a place then he fits the criteria
" – will take care of it. BTW, I am not jumping on anything; rather I want to set the inclusion criteria straight. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)- NitinMlk, Yes and as RP reminded us above, we also have a criteria of the subject having his own bio. All these combined takes care of the problem to a large extent. My line where I said, that if a person "
has lived there (any years)
" was basically a clarification, if a dispute arises that a Subject is mentioned from A as well as B in different RSes, In those cases, we are not supposed to count the years etc, but inclusively mention the name at both places, since we have an RS to back it up. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- NitinMlk, Yes and as RP reminded us above, we also have a criteria of the subject having his own bio. All these combined takes care of the problem to a large extent. My line where I said, that if a person "
- DBigXray, in that case, we don't need this criterion, as your main criterion – i.e., "
- NitinMlk, You seem to have read a line and jumped on it and wrote an entire para. You forgot that it is not us editors who will decide (by looking at the no of years), if the person X is from Y, We leave that to RS. If you want to state X is from Y in an article, you will still need a reliable source that states that. If an RS states that X is from Y, then the name is justified to be in the list.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Based on the suggestions so far, I guess the inclusion criteria is that the subject:
- a) should have a WP article, and
- b) should either born at the place in question, or a reliable source should mention that they are from there.
- @DBigXray and RegentsPark:, am I right regarding the above points? BTW, if the participants develop consensus regarding the inclusion criteria, then we can mention that under a subsection at Wikipedia:WikiProject India#Project guidelines. That will surely help in maintaining these lists.
- Uanfala, as can be seen from a simple search, the List of people from X exist globally. So their removal would require a discussion at a much bigger forum, e.g. village pump. And I guess a majority of people will most probably oppose the removal of such a huge number of lists. So it seems the better solution here is to set a clear inclusion criteria for India-related lists. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- b) A reliable source establishes that the subject was born there or was from that city.
- Tweaked b to clarify that a source is needed in both cases. Sounds good to be added in the criteria.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 22:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Raghava Lawrence - Telugu interpretation help requested
Hi all, could I please trouble someone for help with a verification of content in Telugu? Someone has indicated that in this NTV interview, (it's a verified channel) at around 14:00, Raghava Lawrence talks about his family origin. The issue is about whether or not he is Telugu or Tamil. He was born in Tamil Nadu, so my default assumption would be that he was Tamil, but that's not always the case, obviously and I'm trying to manage some back-and-forth editing at his article. And if anyone can find a clearer reference on this, I'd appreciate it. I haven't been successful. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging on this. Can anyone point me to an active Telugu-speaking editor who I can ask to look at this? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- He runs an old age home and the plight of an old woman, abandoned by her son, moved him. Most of the interview, where he spoke about his personal life, was about the experiences he faced at the old age home. That's all what i could infer from the interview. And regarding his lineage, all i could know was Poovirundhavali in Tamil Nadu is his father's hometown (through an article in The Hindu). Veera Narayana 05:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism-reverting
Before you make an edit, please ensure that you have reverted any previous vandalism. All edits without edit summaries are candidates for reversion, especially if they have a references removed tag. If you make further edits without doing this, other editors will be entitled to revert your edit along with the vandalism, unless it is easy to separate the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Kayastha
Need some eyes at Kayastha and Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha during the holiday season. Usual caste-cruft backed by poor sources, by a single user. It's appalling that article that receives an average 700+ hits daily managed to have this lead listing Vedah.net, Kamat.com, Hindunet.org etc. as sources, for several days. utcursch | talk 16:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Utcursch: Would you like me to semi it? If so, tell me for how long. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Semi-protection won't help as the SPA involved has been here for quite some time. Anyways, this is getting more eyes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Utcursch reported by User:Nikhil Srivastava (Result: ). utcursch | talk 21:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Shamsheer Vayalil (Parambath) name question
At Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil#Shamsheer or Vayalil or Parambath?, I've a question about the subject's name, if someone could have a look. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Attack page
Can some admin delete User:Jaswindermehra13 page? It just contains transliterated Punjabi language curse words. I have CSDed it, but only a Punjabi/Hindi speaking admin will be able to understand the meaning of its content. BTW, the page was created by a newbie who is indulging in disruptive editing at mali/Saini-related articles. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- The page creator was a sock of Punjabier, not a newbie: see here. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello colleagues. Is there anyone familiar with Indian politician U. R. Krishnan and would you be willing to help enhance and improve the article about him? Thanks very much. Dr42 (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48
- Also some more eyes at Citizenship Amendment Act protests will be helpful to keep vandalism and POV at bay. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Uttar_Pradesh_Police_are_threatening_legal_action_against_vandals_for_defacing_their_Wiki_page. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 10:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48
Do I Exist: A Riddle
Hello. The article Do I exist: A riddle, a short film by Mumbai filmmaker Dhruva Harsh, has been nominated for deletion (not by me). I don't know much about this film and have found only a few English-language sources about it (examples here and here), and it looks like it's been chosen for a number of international film festivals. I'm trying to get a sense of whether it meets Wikipedia's notability standards, and am wondering if there are other reliable sources out there, perhaps not in the English langauge, that could establish its notability. But I'm not sure the best way to go about finding such sources. Would anyone here know a good place to look? — Hunter Kahn 14:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Sonny_Mehta this RD. If anyone can update the article and reflect their views then it would be better.-- Harshil want to talk? 14:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Onam being changed from Secular to Hindu Festival
@Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Winged Blades of Godric, Sitush, Abecedare, Tamravidhir, Doug Weller, SpacemanSpiff, Titodutta, and Fowler&fowler:
Hi All, in the past few days, several POV edits have been made to this article (For example This diff), to portray this as a Hindu festival even though it is a secular festival celebrated by all religions (Hindus, Muslims as well as Christians) of Kerala.[1]
Few days back an IP posted a message on my talk page stating
"BJP-RSS propaganda in Onam article to make it more Hindu than secular and to alter its myth by diminishing the importance of Mahabali over Vamana. Ms Sarah Welch is restoring problematic content by Snowcream without discussion. Onam is celebrated all over Kerala irrespective of religion.
2409:4073:30D:F96:6431:C9DF:B49E:479D (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)"
Since this is a controversial topic, I would request more editors to share their thoughts about these changes on the talk page. --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- ^ Mohapatra, J. (2013). Wellness in Indian Festivals & Rituals: Since the Supreme Divine Is Manifested in All the Gods, Worship of Any God Is Quite Legitimate. Partridge Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4828-1689-1. Retrieved 29 December 2019.