UnpetitproleX (talk | contribs) →Discussion: Reply Tag: Reply |
Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs) →Discussion: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
:::Oh and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Himalayas/Archive_5#Repeated_removal_of_cited_content_by_Fowler&fowler the second example you mention above] is regards the weather and pictures, ''absolutely unrelated'' to the other two, and which resulted in nearly all of my edits (which were removed by you) being reinstated. That’s what I mean by [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] and [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. [[User:UnpetitproleX|UnpetitproleX]] ([[User talk:UnpetitproleX|talk]]) 20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
:::Oh and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Himalayas/Archive_5#Repeated_removal_of_cited_content_by_Fowler&fowler the second example you mention above] is regards the weather and pictures, ''absolutely unrelated'' to the other two, and which resulted in nearly all of my edits (which were removed by you) being reinstated. That’s what I mean by [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] and [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. [[User:UnpetitproleX|UnpetitproleX]] ([[User talk:UnpetitproleX|talk]]) 20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
::{{re|RegentsPark}} and by a long time, I mean a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fowler%26fowler&diff=prev&oldid=1087801229 long time]. [[User:UnpetitproleX|UnpetitproleX]] ([[User talk:UnpetitproleX|talk]]) 20:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
::{{re|RegentsPark}} and by a long time, I mean a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fowler%26fowler&diff=prev&oldid=1087801229 long time]. [[User:UnpetitproleX|UnpetitproleX]] ([[User talk:UnpetitproleX|talk]]) 20:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::Please don't write nonsense. You were trying to replace the real India of its huddled masses, its dust, heat, and perspiration, its homeless sleeping on sidewalks or street medians by the unrecognizable "India shining." As such you were engaged in violating the cardinal principles about reliability and due weight, which applies to pictures as well, that aim to complement text that has been supported by reliable sources. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 20:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{reftalk}} |
{{reftalk}} |
Revision as of 20:45, 15 June 2023
India Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
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
Miscellany for deletion
Featured list candidates
Good article nominees
Featured list removal candidates
Good article reassessments
Peer reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
|
This table is updated daily by a bot |
| ||||||||||||
|
Help for improving History section of Andhra Pradesh
I made an attempt to revamp History section of Andhra Pradesh, as it was not in a good shape. I request other history buffs to review and provide feedback or help improve it further. Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Manipur pages
This article appeared in The Quint today:
- Suanmuanlian Tonsing, Manipur & Wikipedia: How Kuki-Zo's Digital Inequity Has Caused a Narrative Shift, The Quint, 1 June 2023.
It complains that the Wikipedia pages are getting filled up with majoritarian Meitei narratives, dominating the discourse about the Kuki-Zo people (traditionally tribal). The current violence is between these two groups.
I would like to request more editors to edit/vet the content of these pages and participate in the talk page discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Haoreima: since this article makes accusations of misconduct against them. I don’t know to what extent, if at all, these accusations are true—or whether the behaviour even qualifies as misconduct—but the editor should be aware of their existence. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm. I will go through his edits, sometime in the next month; have a feeling that mass-reverts are in order. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The article Statue Junction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Doesn't meet the notability criteria, and hasn't been properly sourced since at least December 2009 according to the unreferenced template
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Suntooooth (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Request for comment on source reliability
On the talk page of 1978 Sikh Nirankari clash [1]. This is regarding Ranbir Singh Sandhu's book. Kindly provide any comment or feedback on the reliability of his work. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Standardized Spelling
One issue I've come across again and again on articles about India/Indian subjects is that there is often no attempt to maintain anything approaching a standardized spelling, and it seems like an issue that should be addressed. Obviously, transliteration from Indic languages into English can be tricky because there are sounds that don't exist in the Latin alphabet, or that can be represented by more than one letter, but even so, I would hope that at least WITHIN a single article, there be some semblance of cohesion, if not across Wikipedia. For instance, on the Gaur Brahmins page, the word is spelled at least three different ways within the article itself, and I am reminded of the old Gurjar article, which has been substantially improved, but still needs work. Do you all think this is something deserving of a task force, or at least some form of concerted effort to remedy? Evansknight (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- We place Template:Use Indian English at the top of the articles, some use User:फ़िलप्रो/script/EN-IN user script to assist with basic spellchecks. Transliterations are quite beyond the scope as they're not "[Indian] English". I'd say it's up to editors to investigate the correct usage or reach a consensus if there're multiple variations in use. Both the examples you mentioned fall into this. But yes, I believe MOS, don't remember which, recommends to use one variation across the article — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I fully agree that a single article should use standardized spelling, and if anyone wants to undertake this thankless task, more power to them. However, we're hamstrung on the broader issue by regional and temporal variation in transliteration (Mookerjee vs Mukherjee, for a well-known example). Attempting to standardize across such variation is not, in my opinion, a productive use of editor time. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Venkateshvara#Requested move 10 June 2023
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Venkateshvara#Requested move 10 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment to get consensus
I have run into some people who don't understand my point of view at Help_talk:IPA/Sanskrit#Consensus? and will appreciate your comments there (I am trying to build consensus).-1Firang (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
What should be the introductory sentence of the capital cities of Kashmir region related first-level administrative subdivisions? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
A uniform format for the introductory sentences of six articles (Gilgit, Jammu, Kargil, Leh, Muzaffarabad and Srinagar) is sought. The following are the proposed versions:
Version A:
____________ is the (summer/winter/joint) capital of __________ (name of larger region), a portion of the disputed Kashmir region administered by India/Pakistan as a union territory/nominally self-governing entity and claimed by Pakistan/India.
Example: Muzaffarabad is the capital of Azad Kashmir, a portion of the disputed Kashmir region administered by Pakistan as a nominally self-governing entity and claimed by India.
Version B:
X is the (summer/winter/joint) capital <and largest city> of the Indian/Pakistani-administered (subdivision-type) of Z. [(in note)Z is part of the larger Kashmir region which is the subject of a long-standing dispute among India, Pakistan and China. X lies in the part of the region administered by India/Pakistan and claimed by Pakistan/India.]
Example: Leh is the joint capital and largest city of the Indian-administered union territory of Ladakh. [(in note)Ladakh is part of the larger Kashmir region which is the subject of a long-standing dispute among India, Pakistan and China. Leh lies in the part of the region administered by India and claimed by Pakistan.]
Version C:
Muzaffarabad/Gilgit/Srinagar/Jammu/Kargil/Leh is the capital/summer capital/winter capital/joint capital of Pakistani/Indian/Chinese-administered self-administrative territory/administrative territory/Union Territory of Azad Kashmir/Gilgit-Baltistan/Jammu and Kashmir/Ladakh/Aksai Chin in the disputed Kashmir region.
Example: Jammu is the winter capital of Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the disputed Kashmir region.
Survey
- Version B for the following reasons:
- •It takes into account WP:DUEWEIGHT as reflected in WP:TERTIARY sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica for the dispute wrt the cities.[1]
- •It also reflects how these cities are generally described in wide-ranging recent scholarly sources.[2]
- •This proposal includes all the required context of the dispute vis-a-vis the cities, in the explanatory note prominently placed at the end of the introductory sentence. It highlights that there are three parties to the conflict—India, Pakistan and China—but also makes it clear where the city lies and who claims it (none of these cities lie in China or are claimed by it).
- •It also allows flexibility, the dispute/conflict/the larger region/non-administering countries can, ofcourse, be mentioned elsewhere in the lead and body wherever relevant and due.
- •It takes into account regional differences of the various cities. For example, Ladakh—whose two capitals are affected by this uniform format—has long asserted an identity distinct from "Kashmir" (a term which is associated with the eponymous Kashmir valley).
- —UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Suggest not proceeding on this RFC as is (invited by the bot) There is apparently a complex contentious issue involved including debate history and a previous TFC. In order to give a thoughtful quality response to it as currently worded, someone arriving to participate in the RFC would need to do a very large amount of reading including of the debate and history. Such is not likely to happen. IMO one idea would be to add a substantial neutral summary of the background. Or, if the previous RFC was on the same topic and had substantial participation and nothing has significantly changed perhaps you should just follow what was decided then. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Version B:
- > It is crucial for us to prioritize the accurate and balanced representation of information by giving due consideration to reliable tertiary sources (@UnpetitproleX). While it is reasonable to address the Kashmir dispute within articles discussing broader regions such as union territories, it becomes inappropriate when we extend this focus to smaller divisions like districts, cities and villages (@Chipmunkdavis). Similarly, we should not label Taipei as disputed solely based on China's claim over Taiwan. The article on Taiwan itself does not mention any dispute in its introduction, especially considering the historical context of the nation's past civil war. As I had cited in the discussion,
On the basis of international consensus, we cannot use Wikipedia and all Kashmir-related articles (@Fowler&fowler) as a promotion ground for Pakistan's campaign.[4]While Pakistan seeks to internationalise the issue and pursue a solution at a multilateral level, India strongly resists external involvement in what it sees as an internal matter, and will only consider a bilateral solution. The ‘international community’ has come to accept India’s position on Kashmir, with the United Nations Security Council removing the Kashmir issue from its agenda in 1996.[3]
Discussion
- Why is a uniform version sought? Such text should be part of the wider lead, which may be structured in different ways. In principle however, B seems to be the best, but the note is unnecessary. The early lead sentences should be establishing what the place is, which in these cases seems to be a city. That these cities function as capitals, which is something which reflects on administrative role and relative importance in its region, seems like useful context. The legitimacy of the area they administer etc. drifts off that topic, and there are likely better ways to address it. CMD (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Some background links:
- The 2019 RFCs that led to the current consensus
- An annotated description of the related discussions.
- Recent discussion at Talk:Srinagar that led to this RFC.
- The 2019 RFCs that led to the current consensus
- Pinging @Fowler&fowler, Gotitbro, Johnuniq, Fayninja, Kashmiri, and RegentsPark: who had commented in the recent discussions, in case they miss the start of the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Abecedare: Is it current consensus if editors who were involved in that consensus (such as @Gotitbro:, @Kautilya3: and @Uanfala: have reverted it? The first two have also explicitly said that the consensus stands limited to the first-order administrative divisions, which were the only pages that it was applied to until the past month. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Reverted what? I would have only reverted POV edits that labelled selected parts of Kashmir to be "disputed". Any formula that uniformly applies it to all parts of Kashmir is ok by me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- This revert from Jan 2020, where you said in the edit summary "
The current WP:CONSENSUS is to mention the dispute only for the top-level pages of territories
." - Ofcourse, a formula uniformly applied to all parts is OK by me too, and such a formula must also be formed per WP:DUEWEIGHT. That’s the objective of this RfC. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- And this by Gotitbro, where they stated "
The original consensus was limited to lvl-1 administrative divisions (in the sense that it attracted no opposition),
…Whether it has evolved in practice beyond that I cannot say but this is what I was clearly in consent back then
[during the 2019 discussion]for.
" UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- This revert from Jan 2020, where you said in the edit summary "
- Reverted what? I would have only reverted POV edits that labelled selected parts of Kashmir to be "disputed". Any formula that uniformly applies it to all parts of Kashmir is ok by me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Abecedare: Is it current consensus if editors who were involved in that consensus (such as @Gotitbro:, @Kautilya3: and @Uanfala: have reverted it? The first two have also explicitly said that the consensus stands limited to the first-order administrative divisions, which were the only pages that it was applied to until the past month. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is what happens when editors with no history in the topic area rush into an RfC and then get all the versions wrong. There is only one version, the one that already appears in Srinagar, Jammu, Leh, Kargil, Gilgit, and Muzaffarabad. Consider Srinagar for example. The reason that the disputed status needs to be mentioned in the first sentence is that editors will routinely add sentences such as, "It is the 31st-most populous city in India, the northernmost city in India to have over one million people" soon after, without a thought. In other words, the arrogation of sovereignty will appear, innocently creeping into the prose. Without the initial disclaimer, a reader would fail to understand why Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and a couple of other countries boycotted the recent Indian government G20 meeting in Srinagar, and even the US, UK, Australia, Germany, .. sent only their local reps. Besides, the nominator had not even granted the lead sentence that footnote whose cause they are now so ardently championing; in the version of the Srinagar article that I had reverted on the day before the G20 meeting began (May 22). Their version had said: "
Srinagar is the largest city and the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, India. It lies in the Himalayan Kashmir Valley on the banks of the Jhelum River, and Dal and Anchar lakes, between the Hari Parbat and Shankaracharya hills. The city is known for its natural environment, various gardens, waterfronts and houseboats. It is also known for traditional Kashmiri handicrafts like the Kashmir shawl (made of pashmina and cashmere wool), papier-mâché, wood carving, carpet weaving, and jewel making, as well as for dried fruits. It is the 31st-most populous city in India, the northernmost city in India to have over one million people, and the second-largest metropolitan area in the Himalayas (after Kathmandu, Nepal).
no different from an Indian tourist brochure. No sooner had I pulled the rug from the effort, than the prelude to the RfCs and whatnot began.
- I recommend that this RfC be closed immediately and that I be allowed to do this properly if there is a need for it. I have maintained that there was consensus for the wording already in the August 2019 proposal. I mean was I busting my behind and the other discussants (Kautilya3, Saqib, Vanamonde93, El_C, RegentsPark, Winged Blades of Godric, Sitush, MilborneOne, Chipmunkdavis, Abecedare, Drmies, Joshua Jonathan, Tamravidhir, DeluxeVegan, Gotitbro, Lingzhi2, Ceoil, SlimVirgin, Bbb23, Bishonen, Ms Sarah Welch, Moonraker, DuncanHill, Doug Weller, Philip Baird Shearer, Mar4d, Rjensen, HLGallon, Ragib, and Titodutta) theirs for nothing? Besides:
- The nominator is known for their anti-Muslim and pro-Punjab-north-India-Hindu bias in articles (I can cite some instances: they were peddling the image File:Woman at Gate of Mosque (No Ladies Allowed) - Hazratbal Shrine - Srinagar - Jammu & Kashmir - India (26770523561).jpg on some WP article(s), making fun of Muslims; after I called them out, they turned it into an image that showed what Islamic feminists were battling! Then recently they made: this POV edit that I have not reverted, for it involves the textbook example of the use of WP:SYNTHESIS to engage in one-upmanship in the promotion of hate.)
- They had given me and an admin a hard time under a different username (that they acknowledged was theirs only a few days ago when their hand was forced and have still not fessed up on their user page as requested by the admin, only blanking the old account both in WP and Commons)
- On the Himalayas page; they took umbrage at the sentence: "The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan and China." in both their incarnations So, lo and behold is there any surprise that in their third incarnation, they would like to stuff the "dispute" bit into a tiny footnote as they have been arguing ad nauseam on the talk page?
- What will editors from WP Pakistan (who had taken part in the 2019 Consensus) think of this benighted inequity? Kashmir, remember, is disputed territory. It can't be reduced to a cloistered discussion in WT:INDIA initiated by someone who has no history in the topic area nor the most meagre goodwill in WP:PAKISTAN. Why would Pakistani editors touch this with a ten-foot pole when the nominator has a tainted history in their portfolio?
I mean look at the care with which I have written the lead sentences and drawn the two maps in each of the articles Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu, Leh, Kargil, Muzaffarnagar, Gilgit, Kashmir division, Jammu division, Gilgit Division, Diamer Division, Baltistan Division, Anantnag, Anantnag district, ... the discussions I have had with editors at MapFrame about the interactive maps, only so an editor can trip me in this fashion? I'm sure they'll have an answer, but I'm sick to my stomach. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- And the new normal on WP is to play gotcha with longstanding competent editors. If you catch them using "his," instantly assume a new gender identity and claim that you have been misgendered. I showed the nominator's writings to some of my female colleagues, all academics, and they said the arguments didn't have a feminine bone they could discern. We have three adult daughters, none is a pushover, I have worked with quite a few women on Wikipedia. I can think of SandyGeorgia, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Femke, Karanacs, Bishonen, ... SlimVirgin, Awedewit, that I've worked with, argued with, talked with at FAC, FAR, by email. You'd think I'd know a thing or two about when the exchange is sincere and when I'm being conned. From one set of genders I receive:this.
- The other trolls me. Look at their talk page, where they've posted something I haven't read, but that was hatted by an admin on this page.
- For some reason this bizarre perversion seems to be happening on India-related pages more than elsewhere on WP, kind of like high-school high jinks. But we are all helpless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that Kashmir is disputed territory. It has been disputed from 1947 onward; it is the oldest dispute before the UN; it is disputed for all the ten reasons given in footnote 1 in the Gilgit-Baltistan page.
- It means every inch of Kashmir is disputed, that we don't have the luxury to reason that big cities, small cities, big towns, small towns, even villages don't need the disputed label, because that would be unseemly, for it is often there that the rubber meets the road, that the dispute shows its ugly colors. The idea that the characterization of a dispute is good for big region, but over the top for villages, towns, and cities, grist to be tucked away in a tiny footnote, goes again every notion of neutrality on Wikipedia that I know of. The Indian government has long avoided using the word "dispute," preferring "conflict" instead. But the reasons have been known to everyone for a long time:
- Hill, Kenneth L. (2007), "India:War with Paksitan, 1965", in Ciment, James (ed.), Encyclopedia of Conflicts Since World War II, London and New York: Routledge, p. 718, ISBN 978-0-7656-8005-1,
The Kashmir Problem: Kashmir is located on the northern borders of India and Pakistan in the Himalayan Mountains. When the 1947 war ended, India controlled about 65 percet of the disputed area even though more than 70 percent of its population of 5 million were Muslim. At the time of independence, Kashmir was one of 600 princely states that had to choose to become a part of India or Pakistan. The leader of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was a Hindu, and he opted to integrate Kashmir with India even though most of his subjects were Muslims. His decision was supposed to be ratified by a vote of the residents, but no vote was ever held.
Military forces representing India and Pakistan raced to occupy as much of Kashmir as possible. Indian forces won control of most of Kashmir. The New Delhi government would not allow the people in Kashmir to vote, knowing they would undoubtedly vote to unite with Pakistan. ... The problem of Kashmir was placed on the United Nations agenda during the 1947 war. In January 1948, the Security Council created the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. Its function weas to monitor a cease-fire once the beligerents agreed to stop fighting. It was also responsible for investigating alleged violations of the cease-fire. In April 1948, the United Nations Security Council approved a three-part resolution. It called for a cease-fire, a truce between India and Pakistan, and the establishment of machinery to determine the will of the Kashmiri people. The Security Council hoped that during the truce both sides would substantially reduce their military presence in Kashmir. Many Pakistani leaders though the best way to determine the will of the people in Kashmir was to hold a plebiscite.
Those parts of the resolution dealing with truce, demilitarization, and creating the machinery to determine the will of the people were ineffective. There was no progress on demilitarization or the holding of the plebiscite because of India's opposition.
- Hill, Kenneth L. (2007), "India:War with Paksitan, 1965", in Ciment, James (ed.), Encyclopedia of Conflicts Since World War II, London and New York: Routledge, p. 718, ISBN 978-0-7656-8005-1,
- There you have it. So just because there is a preponderance of Indian- or India-POV editors on WP and very few from Pakistan or China to prosecute a defense, does not mean that the WP keel over and forswear neutrality. The thing to keep in mind is that we agree with the general principle that a disputed region is disputed everywhere. But we can't really lay down the syntax for saying this. The bigger problem is belling the cat when the number is so large. Anantnag district has a dozen-odd subdistricts; one of these is Kokernag. It in turn has 51 villages. Most, I wager, have no WP pages. We can agree on a general principle of equity (that a dispute be mentioned whenever possible), but we can't really lay down the phrasing when the phrasing can't be applied in a uniform fashion, nor monitored with any reliability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It is imperative to recognize the multitude of compelling reasons why these cities should gain global recognition, surpassing the mere label of "disputed". @Fowler&fowler's actions seemingly reflect a biased stance against India, aiming to use every inch of Jammu and Kashmir into a promotional platform for xenophobic Kashmiri separatist factions (her recent spree of edits on Kashmir-related pages are a testimony to this). These groups bear responsibility not only for the forced displacement of religious minorities but also for the ongoing killings of those who have chosen to stay[5][6], as well as the tragic loss of migrant workers' lives.[7] Why does Fowler insist on perpetuating the flames of conflict and promoting its presence within Wikipedia articles? I can only suspect...
- In response to @Fowler&fowler's assertion regarding the United Nations' objection to India's sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir (UT), let me state this:
Rest assured that Pakistan and China will be treated impartially and without any prejudice. Fayninja (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Fayninja (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)"The ‘international community’ has come to accept India’s position on Kashmir, with the United Nations Security Council removing the Kashmir issue from its agenda in 1996".[8]
- Allowing due time for Fowler to reply, I shall make my decision in a few days. Fayninja (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- The contentious topics notice on your talk (diff) is intended to let you know that attacks such as the above are not permitted. You may be topic banned if they are repeated. Comment on article content and do not offer your opinions about contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ahhh...exactly what I had waited for and anticipated. Quite biased don't you think, that this comment, "The nominator is known for their anti-Muslim and pro-Punjab-north-India-Hindu bias in articles " failed to initiate the same kind of response from your being. Hate is hate, there is no exuse for it. Fayninja (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Are attacks such as those by Fowler right above allowed? Are editors allowed to bully, hound and misgender other editors despite being repeatedly requested to not do so? And to continue this behaviour even on RfCs? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- The contentious topics notice on your talk (diff) is intended to let you know that attacks such as the above are not permitted. You may be topic banned if they are repeated. Comment on article content and do not offer your opinions about contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Allowing due time for Fowler to reply, I shall make my decision in a few days. Fayninja (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: till when do I have to deal with WP:ASPERSIONS? I have repeatedly asked this editor to stop over a long, long period of time. Can you hat this attack against me the way you hated my proposal for going off topic, or is this editor allowed to WP:BLUDGEON the RfC as they see fit? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- We are not in the same boat. I have not operated two accounts simultaneously and twice under different names without giving anyone a clue in order to make the same argument about sovereignty in the Himalayas, wasting the time of longstanding competent editors one of which was the selfsame RegentsPark. I don't go around starting RfCs or pseudo-RfCs at the drop of a hat when I can't have my way. How many did you begin on Talk Himalayas? Let me count the ways:
- First in your avatar as Pankykh, you started: Talk:Himalayas/Archive_4#Mention_of_dispute_in_dropbox_irrelevant_to_the_number_and_names_of_the_countries.
- When Pankykh mysteriously vanished, you in your current avatar appeared in the brief feint at my argument's face in Talk:Himalayas/Archive_5#Repeated_removal_of_cited_content_by_Fowler&fowler
- Then as your current avatar you got down to brass tacks (i.e. attempted to finish Panky's work) in: Talk:Himalayas/Archive_6#RfC_on_lead_sentence_about_territorial_disputes By the way what did happen to that RfC. I never bothered to check. Did it go the way this one is going? Withering away pitifully for lack of attention? Fowler&fowler«Talk»
- Well, if you had only "bothered to check", you would have seen that two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- So why have you not asked some admin to close it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's been ten months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it has been archived. The coroners consent will be needed for exhumation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- More likely, the closer closed by archiving. It was too unfocused for anyone to discern anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, I have work to do. I didn't create reliable content on WP by wasting time in such RfCs Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- More likely, the closer closed by archiving. It was too unfocused for anyone to discern anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it has been archived. The coroners consent will be needed for exhumation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's been ten months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh and the second example you mention above is regards the weather and pictures, absolutely unrelated to the other two, and which resulted in nearly all of my edits (which were removed by you) being reinstated. That’s what I mean by WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:ASPERSIONS. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- So why have you not asked some admin to close it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: and by a long time, I mean a long time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please don't write nonsense. You were trying to replace the real India of its huddled masses, its dust, heat, and perspiration, its homeless sleeping on sidewalks or street medians by the unrecognizable "India shining." As such you were engaged in violating the cardinal principles about reliability and due weight, which applies to pictures as well, that aim to complement text that has been supported by reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- We are not in the same boat. I have not operated two accounts simultaneously and twice under different names without giving anyone a clue in order to make the same argument about sovereignty in the Himalayas, wasting the time of longstanding competent editors one of which was the selfsame RegentsPark. I don't go around starting RfCs or pseudo-RfCs at the drop of a hat when I can't have my way. How many did you begin on Talk Himalayas? Let me count the ways:
References
- ^ Lead paragraphs of Britannica article on:
- Srinagar “Srinagar, city, summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory (Jammu is the winter capital), northern India, situated in the Kashmir region of the Indian subcontinent. The city lies along the banks of the Jhelum River at an elevation of 5,200 feet (1,600 metres) in the Vale of Kashmir.”;
- Jammu “Jammu, city, winter capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory, northern India. It lies in the southwestern part of Jammu and Kashmir along the Tawi River, south of Srinagar (the summer capital), and to the north is the Siwalik Range.”;
- Leh “Leh, town, Ladakh union territory, northern India. The town is located in the valley of the upper Indus River at an elevation of 11,550 feet (3,520 metres), surrounded by the towering peaks of the Ladakh Range (a southeastern extension of the Karakoram Range).”;
- Gilgit “Gilgit, town in Gilgit-Baltistan, part of the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northern Indian subcontinent. It is situated in the Karakoram Range in a narrow valley on the Gilgit River at its confluence with the Hunza River and about 20 miles (32 km) upstream from its confluence with the Indus River.
- ^ For example, Leh is only described as the capital of Ladakh—and not in terms of Kashmir—in this 2021 book on Muslim communities of the Himalayan region which has multiple chapters involving Leh. The same is the case in this 2017 geological history of the Himalayan region. This 2022 work focused on the urban water issues of Leh, says in its book description, "The city of Leh is located in the high mountain desert of Ladakh in the Indian Himalayas …" See also this on the WMF website.
- ^ "Chapter two - India and Pakistan: The new dominions". India and Pakistan: The new dominions – Parliament of Australia. 2013-04-14. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
- ^ Desk, Outlook Web (2023-03-11). "Getting Kashmir On UN Agenda An 'Uphill Task': Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto". https://www.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|website=
- ^ "9 Kashmiri Pandits killed in J&K in 2 years: Govt to House". Hindustan Times. 2022-12-14. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
- ^ "Militants gun down Kashmiri Pandit, new terror outfit claims hand in killing". The Hindu. 2023-02-26. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
- ^ "28 migrant workers killed in J&K since 2017; seven from Bihar: Govt". The Economic Times. 2022-07-26. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
- ^ corporateName=Commonwealth Parliament; address=Parliament House, Canberra. "Chapter two - India and Pakistan: The new dominions". www.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Exceptions to WP:INDICSCRIPTS RFC
There is a new RFC on carving out some exceptions to WP:INDICSCRIPTS that is likely to be of interest to project-members. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Rewriting city tourist attraction lists in an Encyclopedic manner.
Majority of the articles in Category:Lists of tourist attractions in India by city seem to be written in a travel guide rather than the accepted Wikipedia format. Is there a way that they can be rewritten while the contents transferred to Wikivoyage and the contributors pointed towards there