Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 November 2011. |
![]() | Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 26 December 2007. |
Article alerts for WikiProject India |
Did you know
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Templates for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Featured list candidates
Good article nominees
Good article reassessments
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 |
| ||||||||||||
|
"Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia"
[edit]With regard to this discussion, there is, as far as I know, an 'informal consensus' to use "South Asia" rather than "Indian subcontinent." Is that correct? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This is concerning articles about the pre-1947 history of the Indian subcontinent. (Edit: Only India–Pakistan–Bangladesh). PadFoot (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This would apply to the pre-1947 history as well, witness Joya Chatterji's Shadows at Noon: The South Asian Twentieth Century, Yale University Press, November 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- One has to be considerate and thoughtful in making changes though to pre-existing usage in articles. "South Asia" is less specific than India-Pakistan-Bangladesh. For example, Himanshu Prabha Ray's Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia" is about some other Indian Ocean rim countries as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be best for all editors who often participate in this topic area to provide their opinions regarding this matter and form a formal consensus. PadFoot (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This would apply to the pre-1947 history as well, witness Joya Chatterji's Shadows at Noon: The South Asian Twentieth Century, Yale University Press, November 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan, PadFoot2008, and Sir Calculus: Yes. Unless one means something very specific in the geophysics of the very northern Indian tectonic plate, South Asia is the NPOV geopolitical and now also historical term for what was the "Indian subcontinent," and this applies also to the use of "India," "Indian," or "Indo-" for what was the geographical extent of the British Indian Empire. It made some sense in the days of the British Raj, as it was one country, but today "India" refers only to one successor state, and is highly problematic. For the same reasons, the formerly "Indology departments" in universities worldwide and almost unanimously adopted "South Asia(n) studies" departments.
- Similarly, though this is not exactly the same topic, terms such as "Indo-Pakistani," "Indo-Chinese," "Sino-Indian," should not be employed if other more neutral (and not to mention unambiguous) terms such as "India-Pakistan," "India-China," "China-India" are there (unless it is something of longstanding convention (such as Indo-European languages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- But that is your own editorial opinion. South Asia should be preferred when talking about post 1947 topics. India/Indian subcontinent is the historical term should be preferred for the Raj and before period. PadFoot (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please note: Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Indian subcontinent (n.),” June 2024, (subscription required), "The part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings @Fowler&fowler! Thank you for pinging me here.
- Firstly. It is important to mention the context which resulted in this discussion in the first place. A user made changes to a series of neutral articles over the course of some days, most of them territories in present-day Pakistan. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
- The user who opposes the term "South Asia" in the concerned articles believes that "Indian-subcontinent" or simply "India" is more appropriate and considers it to be better & neutral.
- This is why 'South Asia' appears to maintain WP:NPOV better:
- Here is some text from Indian subcontinent: "
Since the Partition of India, citizens of Pakistan (which became independent of British India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which became independent of Pakistan in 1971) often perceive the use of the Indian subcontinent as offensive and suspicious because of the dominant placement of India in the term
". Further more, it also says the term is closely linked to the region's colonial heritage. I fail to understand how a term not considered neutral & is linked to British Raj rule more suitable for inclusion in concerned articles. - The referenced maps for the concerned articles also use "A Historical Atlas of South Asia".
- Here is an article discussing South Asia's history.[1]
- South Asia is clearly more appropriate as it maintains NPOV, is used by academics, and is also considered the politically neutral term and ends all disputes. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- But that is your own editorial opinion. South Asia should be preferred when talking about post 1947 topics. India/Indian subcontinent is the historical term should be preferred for the Raj and before period. PadFoot (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- I would support Indian subcontinent or simply India here for pre-1947 historical articles regarding the India–Pakistan–Bangladesh only, i.e, the region historically called India or Indian subcontinent. India (or now in full, the Indian subcontinent) is the historical region consisting of the modern day Indian Republic and Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thus India or Indian subcontinent should be preferred in a historical context. South Asia is a different, much broader term encompassing a wide region including Iran (UN definition) or Afghanistan (more common definition) to the Maldives. Besides, it is a modern term used for the post-1947 era. Pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche, a big contributor to India-related topics, for his opinion. PadFoot (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't ping anyone. If you want a consensus, have an RfC and advertise in history, linguistics, MOS, and WikiProjects India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also advertise the RfC in Geography, Archaeology, etc. Take especially care to word the RfC neutrally and not express any opinion in the statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Also pinging @Rawn3012, @Kautilya3, @Abecedare, @SKAG123 and others. PadFoot (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Again: PLEASE DO NOT ping anyone. There is no hallowed editor here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- Sorry, I didn't see your comment. Also since, we are talking of replacing subcontinent here and not South Asia, why notify country projects outside India–Pakistan–Bangladesh? I am not saying anything about Nepal or Afghanistan. PadFoot (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because Indian subcontinent is also applied to the subducted part of the Indian tectonic place under the more Eurasian plate parts of Nepal such as Mustang, Nepal Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes but this only concerning India–Pakistan–Bangladesh, not any other country at all. PadFoot (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because Indian subcontinent is also applied to the subducted part of the Indian tectonic place under the more Eurasian plate parts of Nepal such as Mustang, Nepal Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see your comment. Also since, we are talking of replacing subcontinent here and not South Asia, why notify country projects outside India–Pakistan–Bangladesh? I am not saying anything about Nepal or Afghanistan. PadFoot (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Padfoot2008, you are wasting community time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- I apologised already, I didn't see your comment, how in the world am I wasting community time? I would have deleted the comment, but you know that wouldn't work. PadFoot (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. We both missed each other's comments. But a neutrally worded RfC is the best way to go. It should be advertised in a broad range of relevant Wikiprojects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I apologise once again as well. I agree that a wide range of projects should be notified but the discussion is concerning only India–Pakistan–Bangladesh not any other South Asian country. It might give a false impression otherwise. PadFoot (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are knowledgeable editors on this topic in Wikiprojects History, Geography, MOS, Asia, .... We cannot leave Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, etc out as (according to the OED) that term is sometimes applied to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but I started this discussion, and only regarding India–Pakistan–Bangladesh. That would be like adding an issue. I am not saying that there should be any changes in the historical articles regarding the other countries, this is not regarding the Indian subcontinent, this is regarding historical articles regarding IPB only, not the entire subcontinent. PadFoot (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are knowledgeable editors on this topic in Wikiprojects History, Geography, MOS, Asia, .... We cannot leave Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, etc out as (according to the OED) that term is sometimes applied to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I apologise once again as well. I agree that a wide range of projects should be notified but the discussion is concerning only India–Pakistan–Bangladesh not any other South Asian country. It might give a false impression otherwise. PadFoot (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. We both missed each other's comments. But a neutrally worded RfC is the best way to go. It should be advertised in a broad range of relevant Wikiprojects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I apologised already, I didn't see your comment, how in the world am I wasting community time? I would have deleted the comment, but you know that wouldn't work. PadFoot (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't ping anyone. If you want a consensus, have an RfC and advertise in history, linguistics, MOS, and WikiProjects India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- When referencing sources, it's crucial to use the exact terminology mentioned in the source. If a source uses 'Indian subcontinent,' then 'Indian subcontinent' should be used; if the source uses 'South Asia,' then 'South Asia' should be used. The terms 'South Asia' and 'Indian subcontinent' are not interchangeable, and editors should not substitute one for the other based on personal preference, especially when countries like Afghanistan have no relevance to the context where the term is being used. It is highly recommended to adhere strictly to the terminology used in reliable sources. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from changing 'Indian Ocean' to 'South Asian Ocean'? DangalOh (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- So in describing the anthropology of the Third Reich we should use their terminology, in particular "Aryan" with their meaning? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whaaaat???? That escalated quickly. Which scholars are you comparing to Nazis? All those people who referred to that area as the Indian subcontinent? Everyone pre-1947? What kind of argument is this? What the Nazis did was historical and cultural revisionism. They deleted names they didn’t like, and they added names they did like, irrespective of what major scholars had to say. That’s exactly what you’re trying to do here, not me. Lol what an example. DangalOh (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- So in describing the anthropology of the Third Reich we should use their terminology, in particular "Aryan" with their meaning? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- In general I think "South Asia" is right for post-independence periods, but I get less happy with that going further back. The article title using "ancient South Asia" is I think the first time I've seen that term, & I think ancient India is still a valid term, in for example Buddhist contexts including most of Nepal. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the titles with "Ancient South Asia," see not only that book of Himanshu Prabha Ray, but also these books of George Erdosy, Raymond Allchin, Bridget Allchin, J. Mark Kenoyer, Robin Coningham, Ruth Young (archaeologist).
- I believe it is especially used by archaeologists, and applied to the prehistory of South Asia, i.e. the one that predated recorded Indian history, i.e. IVC, Neolithic (Mehrgarh), if only for the inconvenient reason that most is in what is today Pakistan. Only highly biased India-POV scholars would consider Mehrgarh to be a feature of what is commonly called "Indian civilization," and not instead the neolithic as influenced by Iran and eventually Iraq. Similarly, it is also applied to Modern History, as in Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's Modern South Asia, which begins at least with Company rule, if not the late Mughals, or Ian Talbot's, A History of South Asia, Yale, 2016. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pov pushing goes both ways. As per the article itself: Jean-Francois Jarrige argues for an independent origin of Mehrgarh. Jarrige notes "the assumption that farming economy was introduced full-fledged from Near-East to South Asia,"and the similarities between Neolithic sites from eastern Mesopotamia and the western Indus Valley, which are evidence of a "cultural continuum" between those sites. However, given the originality of Mehrgarh, Jarrige concludes that Mehrgarh has an earlier local background," and is not a "'backwater' of the Neolithic culture of the Near East."
- And the current topic is not even about who influenced whom. Ok lets even assume everything about indus valley is from near east. So what? I would suggest instead of diverting the topic and blaming scholars for having a point of view, make a good argument for why the Indian subcontinent without Afghanistan should be labeled as South Asia if sources don’t mention it that way. DangalOh (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a backwater, and by the way, I've read the Jarriges. The neolithic diffusion was from western Asia, but that doesn't mean that Mehrgarh was not original. For one the flora and fauna were different. The first attested use of cotton, of the drilling of teeth in vivo with a bow drill no less, of the domestication of Bos indicus, and so forth. What does it have to do with this topic?
- I was merely pointing out that Mehrgarh has little to do with the Indian civilization that resulted from another kind of diffusion, i.e. from Central Asia ca. 1500 BCE. For that reason archaeologists prefer the neutral terms such as South Asia. After all, the terms "Indo-Pakistani subcontinent," and "South Asian subcontinent" were also used once upon a time.
- The main issue is that the term "subcontinent" itself, which suggests a cohesive, self-contained geography and/or culture is increasingly outdated. Who uses it now? India by the way is a late arrival at the subcontinent table. There term was originally used for North or South America, later for Australia. My suspicion is that "Indian subcontinent" was originally a feature of British grandiosity about the Jewel of its Crown, which became bequeathed or was appropriated by the Republic of India and is now a feature of Indian grandiosity. Best to do away with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your suspicion is irrelevant, incorrect and shows your ignorance. I doubt you even know why Columbus named that different area as 'India'. You start by diverting topic to Mehrgarh and when someone replies then you accuse them of changing the topic. Like what? And what do you mean by Indian civilization only starting in 1500 bc? You mean only Indo aryan migrations are responsible for the start of indian civilization? And Please stop using the term "Indo-Pakistani subcontinent." Enough is enough. No one in history referred to that geographical area as South Asia or Pakistan. It was not British South Asia either. "South Asia" is a very modern and political term, especially used post-independence to provide newly formed religious states some validity and assign them some history (I suspect). And while that is fine, it doesn’t mean you can easily engage in historical revisionism and change or remove names as per your own will because you feel those names are now outdated. Additionally, South Asia is not equivalent to the Indian subcontinent, even in geographical terms. As @Vanamonde93 correctly suggested: south asia should be used in socio cultural context (even genetics) but Indian subcontinent should be used in strictly geographical sense. DangalOh (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
"South Asia" is a very modern ans political term, especially used post-independence to provide newly formed religious states some validity and assign them some history (I suspect).
- What is it that you are suggesting? You do realize both India & Pakistan got their independence from the British Empire right? History was not "assigned" to any state. It has always existed in the areas of the respective countries. The use of the term 'Indian subcontinent' began in the British Empire. Most of the Indus, the river which gave name to the present-day 'India', flows mostly through Pakistan, its delta is situated there too in Sindh. Can you answer why this Britannica article [8] leads with
Indus River, great trans-Himalayan river of South Asia.
And not Indian subcontinent? Are they engaging in 'historical revisionism'? 'Removing' names? - The NPOV term 'South Asia' is used by academics as well as political bodies. @Fowler&fowler gave you some examples. We rely on academia. Also, it is not nice of you to call someone with significantly more editorial experience ignorant. Who is more familiar with Wikipedian policies than both of us. Sir Calculus (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- All i hear is ranting which translates into " It hurts our feelings so the term should be avoided" and with extreme examples which dont even fit. I am not here to debate on "Pakistan's independence" or "Creation of Pakistan by partition". Whatever floats your boat. NPOV dosent mean you can change or censor a geographic regions historical name. Britannica article states : "Indus River, great trans-Himalayan river of South Asia" mainly because its referring to the region "post 1947" which also includes southern part of modern Tibet (as its the origin). And what part of Vanamonde's , @PadFoot's and my suggestion and explaination is so hard to understand? What part of "use whatever term the source you are citing is using" is hard to understand? What part of " socio-culture vs geographic" is hard to understand? You cannot force south asia on Indian subcontinent "everywhere". Context matters. DangalOh (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- First attested use of "Indian subcontinent" according to the OED is 1905, 10 November: The busy harbour [of Bombay]..has become the chief centre of direct communication between Europe and the Indian sub-continent., The Times
- First attested use of South Asian as a fixed collocation (i.e. in its present-day meaning) is 1880: "Many of the birds are much more nearly allied to South Asian or Malayan forms than to those of Africa." James Sibree, The great African island, chapters on Madagascar 1880. London
- OK, I'm done with this thread. My vote is for South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- And first attested use of "India"? Why so selective? - The first attested use of the term "India" can be traced back to ancient Greek sources. The name "India" is derived from the Old Persian word "Hindush," which referred to the region around the Indus River. The Greeks adopted this term as "Indos" to describe the land beyond the Indus River, which is modern-day India and Pakistan.
- The earliest known use of the term "India" in Greek literature appears in the works of Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian, in the 5th century BCE. Herodotus refers to "India" when describing the easternmost lands known to the Greeks.
- In Sanskrit, the region was historically known as "Bharata" or "Bharatavarsha," but the term "India" became more prominent through interactions with the Persian and Greek civilizations.
- Also, this is not simply a vote. I do not wish to have useless fights. My suggestion or vote is : Context Matters DangalOh (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- All i hear is ranting which translates into " It hurts our feelings so the term should be avoided" and with extreme examples which dont even fit. I am not here to debate on "Pakistan's independence" or "Creation of Pakistan by partition". Whatever floats your boat. NPOV dosent mean you can change or censor a geographic regions historical name. Britannica article states : "Indus River, great trans-Himalayan river of South Asia" mainly because its referring to the region "post 1947" which also includes southern part of modern Tibet (as its the origin). And what part of Vanamonde's , @PadFoot's and my suggestion and explaination is so hard to understand? What part of "use whatever term the source you are citing is using" is hard to understand? What part of " socio-culture vs geographic" is hard to understand? You cannot force south asia on Indian subcontinent "everywhere". Context matters. DangalOh (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your suspicion is irrelevant, incorrect and shows your ignorance. I doubt you even know why Columbus named that different area as 'India'. You start by diverting topic to Mehrgarh and when someone replies then you accuse them of changing the topic. Like what? And what do you mean by Indian civilization only starting in 1500 bc? You mean only Indo aryan migrations are responsible for the start of indian civilization? And Please stop using the term "Indo-Pakistani subcontinent." Enough is enough. No one in history referred to that geographical area as South Asia or Pakistan. It was not British South Asia either. "South Asia" is a very modern and political term, especially used post-independence to provide newly formed religious states some validity and assign them some history (I suspect). And while that is fine, it doesn’t mean you can easily engage in historical revisionism and change or remove names as per your own will because you feel those names are now outdated. Additionally, South Asia is not equivalent to the Indian subcontinent, even in geographical terms. As @Vanamonde93 correctly suggested: south asia should be used in socio cultural context (even genetics) but Indian subcontinent should be used in strictly geographical sense. DangalOh (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding has been that "South Asia" is distinctly preferable in socio-cultural contexts, while "Indian subcontinent" might be more appropriate in strictly physical geographic uses. It does get a bit fuzzier as we move back in time, but in general I would default to the usage of contemporary academic sources, where "South Asia" is increasingly prominent, though it is clearly context-dependent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- RegentPark mentioned the same thing in the talk page of the Mughal empire and Mughal dynasty articles. “South Asia”is typically the preferred terminology. Although sometimes it may depend on context. Nonetheless, I still think “South Asia” should be used in most cases. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Follow the sources! There is no hard and fast rule about this, from what I have seen we usually go by this on a topic-by-topic basis and either of the terms may be used but that is context and WP:3PARTY dependant, the best bet is to see what most of the tertiary sources are using (at least for the leads). In certain cases there may not be a need to insert these terms at all. Gotitbro (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is best that the term used should be based on the source that is being referenced. My vote: based on the source (if that can count as a vote). MohReddy (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- In 2016 there was extensive discussion on the change in California school textbooks of "India" into "South Asia"; see, for example, The New York Times. Not surprisingly, the HAF opposed the changes; this context may also be in play here at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#Requested move 22 August 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
CK Birla Group - Changes made by IP address user in lead paragraph
[edit]I have been monitoring this CK Birla Group for the last couple of weeks. The user with an IP address changes the content often. The topic is related to International Sponsors of War, and it was presented under National Engineering Industries. I have taken the help of live support & started with a discussion. However, it is not working. Check the Talk page Talk:CK Birla Group. My message WP:BRD or WP:EW -> Hello, many unwanted edits have been made by a user with IP Address 2405:201:404b:a3:dc64:5c61:c9c2:a1a9 over the last few days. I have tried reverting it, however, that user is still changing it. Behaviour - The statement he is adding to the Lead Paragraph is related to International Sponsors of War & removing a statement under the section Orient Electric. The reason - I am reverting is because the International Sponsors of War is related to National Engineering Industries & it is already present under its section. It is getting repeated. Another edit on Orient Electric is authentic & it was present long back. Therefore, would like to address this & look for a solution. I have checked with Live Help & got to know about WP:BRD or WP:EW. I have read both articles & the user is an IP Address, so mentioning my thoughts here. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 06:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @VKG1985. I think best practice, in my opinion, would be to see how much coverage in reliable secondary sources has National Engineering Industries received as a result of directly being mentioned in the International Sponsors of War. If it is relatively minor coverage of the company being named in the International Sponsors of War, that information can remain under the National Engineering Industries section in the main body. If there is more substantial coverage, then I suppose it becomes a more pertinent piece of information and so could be mentioned or kept in the lead section. MohReddy (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks MohReddy, I checked in Google with query -> "ck birla group" international sponsors of war -wikipedia and found only 1 reliable source which says DecconHerald Article Kyiv had, in May, also moved against C K Birla Group of Companies and its subsidiary National Engineering Industries Limited (NEI) for helping the military industry of Russia to replace critical bearings in its tanks. Sourced Reference The New Voice of Ukraine says CK Birla Group and its NBC Bearings brand, stepped in to fill the gap left by the exit of Western firms, NAZK says. According to customs data, for the period from April 2022 to March 2023, NBC Bearings' share in the import of bearings from India to Russia was 38.4%, totaling $12.3 million.. In either case, it is stating NBC company which is a subsidiary of the group. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @VKG1985, seeing as it is mainly about National Engineering Industries, I agree with you that it is probably best to keep it under that section. However, as you have pointed out, this information has also been published in ThePrint, DeccanHerald and The New Voice of Ukraine, which is not insignificant coverage given the type information being covered. If that IP user persists with changing the content, perhaps you can edit the content to completely indicate that National Engineering Industries is the group company that is specifically named in the International Sponsors of War. Let me be clear, I do agree with you. I am merely just suggesting this as a way for you to avoid the headaches of an WP:EDITWAR. MohReddy (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks MohReddy, I checked in Google with query -> "ck birla group" international sponsors of war -wikipedia and found only 1 reliable source which says DecconHerald Article Kyiv had, in May, also moved against C K Birla Group of Companies and its subsidiary National Engineering Industries Limited (NEI) for helping the military industry of Russia to replace critical bearings in its tanks. Sourced Reference The New Voice of Ukraine says CK Birla Group and its NBC Bearings brand, stepped in to fill the gap left by the exit of Western firms, NAZK says. According to customs data, for the period from April 2022 to March 2023, NBC Bearings' share in the import of bearings from India to Russia was 38.4%, totaling $12.3 million.. In either case, it is stating NBC company which is a subsidiary of the group. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Science fiction in India/Indian science fiction article is needed
[edit]For now I've redirected it to Bengali science fiction, but obviously this is just a temporary solution. Perhaps someone would like to at least stub it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would note that while The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction hosts an entry for Bengal ([9]), it lacks a broader one for India. Though that is probably due to the lack of expert subject matter writers on the topic for that project. Gotitbro (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Ravi Modi - Need help (article is eligible or not)
[edit]Hi, I would like to get some clarity regarding the article Draft:Ravi Modi as it has been declined 5 times. The article was made live once and later it was removed from livespace to draftspace. Please check the history for content. The current version which is rejected is the full content version. The reason I am mentioning it here is because it was again guided by Live Chat as help. I get full support from Live Chat & they have done with fact-check as well for the Forbes article which was released in the print version as well. Request to check the article and suggest whether it is eligible to create an article or else I will drop the plan. This is my last resort. Read many Wiki pages, notability, perennial sources, etc. I am getting mixed reviews that's why not feeling well. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @VKG1985, I read the Draft: Ravi Modi, and I have some thoughts. I typed in "Ravi Modi Vedant Fashions" in google and had a quick look. Ravi Modi seems to be somewhat notable. It does look like there is some coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. However, some of those sources look promotional. My advice, looking at the draft of the article and googling him, it is obvious Ravi Modi is notable for his success in business, therefore you should expand the section on his career. You can add more notable information and then reference the information with other reliable secondary sources. Make sure these sources do properly cover him though (see: WP:SIGCOV). MohReddy (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi Team, Those who are interested in developing this Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian caste system are most welcome. This project has been in an idle state for a while. So editors are invited to help develop this project. @Ekdalian: @MaxA-Matrix:. Thanks--2409:40E0:101E:B099:64A6:F246:64CE:5B20 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
WP Project Add/Remove on Hindutva-related articles
[edit]Hi Team, I added WP Discrimination and WP Terrorism project in Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, but, User:Rasnaboy has removed it citing there has been an discussion that took place last month in the Talk:Narendra Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination. Their I noticed @Abecedare: said that he is against removing these projects' templates systematically from all wikipedia article talkpages. @Rasnaboy has already removed wikiprojects (discrimination, terrorism, crime) from the some the articles which are mentioned in the talk page of Narendra Modi. My argument is there has been no consensus on removing these projects from all articles particularly related to BJP-RSS-Hindutva. But, @Rasnaboy has been systemically removed it from all these related to BJP-RSS-Hindutva. Moreover, article like Violence against Muslims in independent India, Violence against Christians in India, Hindu terrorism point out that right-wing Hindu organization who follow Hindutva / Hindu nationalist ideology are the main culprit against minorities in India. Shouldn't we go on a case by case basis rather than going all hog. Some of the WP projects are in active or semi-active status hence editors who are member of these projects can help do collaborative editing and contribute to these articles. WP Discrimination was in an inactive mode but now it is in semi-active mode. So editors who are members of these projects can contribute to these articles. And even if the project become inactive in future they might become active so new editors who become members of such project can contribute. And what is interesting is if you read the articles of organizations who follow the ideology of Hindutva / Hindu nationalism have commited some heinous crimes against minority communities in India and they're well sourced. I would like to know view from some of the experinced editors @Vanamonde93: @Doug Weller: @RegentsPark: @Fowler&fowler: @Valereee: @C.Fred: @S Marshall: @Girth Summit:. Thanks 2409:40E0:44:FEF6:C02D:6A0A:B8C4:D3EB (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those WikiProjects are inactive. What's the benefit of adding them to this article's talk page?—S Marshall T/C 07:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @S Marshall: WP Discrimination Project is in semi-active status; earlier it was in inactive status. WP terrorism is inactive right now, but in the future it might be in active mode. WP Crime is a very active project. Point I'm making is that if WP projects are added, even if they remain inactive, semi-active, or active, editors who are members of such projects will be able to contribute to the respective articles, and if WP projects aren't added, then members won't be able to contribute to these articles. Today if some projects are inactive tomorrow they might be in active mode. New editors who have interest in these projects will contribute to these articles. Moreover, in the main article, the discriminatory action against the minority community is clearly mentioned, and they are well documented and well sourced. Hence, adding such WP projects won't be a waste; rather, it will be beneficial for such articles.--2409:40E0:55:459B:111D:B737:4409:CDA2 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are you adding those Wikiprojects to attract editors interested in improving the pages? Or are you adding them because you think that by listing Wikiproject:Terrorism, you are somehow tarnishing the image of the RSS? The latter isn't appropriate; the former seems to be a bit of a stretch. I personally could not care less which Wikiprojects are represented on the talk, but edit-warring over it is silly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @S Marshall: WP Discrimination Project is in semi-active status; earlier it was in inactive status. WP terrorism is inactive right now, but in the future it might be in active mode. WP Crime is a very active project. Point I'm making is that if WP projects are added, even if they remain inactive, semi-active, or active, editors who are members of such projects will be able to contribute to the respective articles, and if WP projects aren't added, then members won't be able to contribute to these articles. Today if some projects are inactive tomorrow they might be in active mode. New editors who have interest in these projects will contribute to these articles. Moreover, in the main article, the discriminatory action against the minority community is clearly mentioned, and they are well documented and well sourced. Hence, adding such WP projects won't be a waste; rather, it will be beneficial for such articles.--2409:40E0:55:459B:111D:B737:4409:CDA2 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I defer to the superior wisdom of all the others you have pinged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Vanamonde93: How come adding WP projects can tarnish someone's image? It is an utterly ridiculous argument. The purpose of the WP project is where editors who are members of such projects would be able to contribute to the articles; their purpose is to add value. Moreover, I'm not adding anything unrelated projects, considering the article where heinous crime has been properly described, particularly where discrimanatory action and crime have been described. WP Discrimination and WP Crime can certainly be added; WP Terroism can be debatable. Thanks--2409:40E0:5F:620F:45E:A913:769F:E328 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- If other editors aren't objecting to my proposal, then I will add WP Discrimination and WP Crime Project to the respective Hindutva-related articles. And in articles where right-wing Hindu organisations are involved in terrorist activities, then WP Terrorism, I will add. Sir you can also share your views. @Jimbo Wales:. Thanks & Regards--2409:40E0:1002:F56C:D5EF:D258:716F:AD97 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Vanamonde93: How come adding WP projects can tarnish someone's image? It is an utterly ridiculous argument. The purpose of the WP project is where editors who are members of such projects would be able to contribute to the articles; their purpose is to add value. Moreover, I'm not adding anything unrelated projects, considering the article where heinous crime has been properly described, particularly where discrimanatory action and crime have been described. WP Discrimination and WP Crime can certainly be added; WP Terroism can be debatable. Thanks--2409:40E0:5F:620F:45E:A913:769F:E328 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"Will ask government to block you": Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia
[edit]For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI defamation case
[edit]Some of you might know that Asian News International (ANI) is suing Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court for defamation. The first hearing was on 20 August, which doesn't seem to have been covered in the press. Now we learn that the High Court ordered Wikimedia to divulge the identity of the editors within 2 weeks, and when Wikimedia failed to comply, held it in contempt.[1] If anybody knows what happened in the 20-August hearing, please let me know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. What is ANI? There used to be a UNI, or was it UPI, or both? Any connection? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- UPI is American. My bad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I expanded the name above and added a wikilink. See also WP:RSPANI.
- An earlier article in The Indian Express points out that ANI is treating Wikipedia as a "social media intermediary" (like twitter, for example), which is just a "transmitter" of information.[2] That means that the editors who wrote the content are the original "authors", the real targets that ANI intends to sue. Wikimedia looks like it is out of depth in figuring out the Indian law. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- :) Presumably, these editors have cited sources for said content. What did the court say about the cited authors, especially if they are Indians?
- Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the case hasn't gotten to that point yet. That is why I am asking, what happened on the 20th August hearing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- On the hearing held on August 20, 2024, in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia, the following key events took place:
- Wikimedia's Appearance: Representatives from Wikimedia appeared in court. ANI contended that Wikipedia had not disputed the involvement of three individuals, who were also defendants in the case, in editing the contentious content.
- Court's Directive: The Delhi High Court directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details of the three individuals involved in the case within two weeks. This information was demanded because ANI had accused Wikipedia of defaming them by allowing edits that labeled the news agency as a "propaganda tool" of the Indian government.
- ANI's Complaint: ANI reinforced its claim that Wikipedia was permitting defamatory content and sought ₹2 crore in damages along with the removal of the alleged defamatory statements.
- Contempt Petition Filed: ANI filed a contempt petition against Wikipedia for not complying with the court’s earlier order to disclose the required information.
- In other words : Wikimedia Foundation was ordered to present a representative in court due to their failure to provide the requested subscriber details of individuals involved in editing ANI's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's legal team argued that the platform's content is created and managed by volunteer editors and that they do not interfere directly with edits. However, the court was displeased with Wikipedia's non-compliance and delay in submitting the required information. Justice Navin Chawla warned that continued non-compliance could result in the platform being blocked in India. The words were "I will impose contempt...It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia...Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India." The court issued a contempt notice to Wikimedia and directed a representative to appear at the next hearing scheduled for October 25, 2024 DangalOh (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Information is available through multiple Indian news sources. I just summarised it. However, if you are referring to "the sources" that Wikipedia deems infallible and most reliable, I am not certain. The objective here is not to introduce this material into Wikipedia with citations to further any agenda. The intent was simply to inform. Whether one chooses to believe it or not is not my concern; that responsibility falls on Wikimedia and the editors involved. This issue extends beyond ANI; it affects all Indian news sources that do not align with leftist, globalist, or Islamist ideologies. Funnily enough, ANI is labeled as a propaganda tool for the Indian government, regardless of whether it's the BJP or Congress in power. It's even a further step towards an anti-India bias, not just anti-right wing. Notably, the primary source used to defame ANI was Alt News, run by Mohammed Zubair. Unfortunately, I do not have Alt News reporting on this matter. Whether you choose to accept this information or not is entirely up to you; it is not my concern. If you have any other contradictory information from 'most reliable' sources, then please share or i would request you to at least give some benefit of the doubt. DangalOh (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Source please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the case hasn't gotten to that point yet. That is why I am asking, what happened on the 20th August hearing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- UPI is American. My bad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
For reference, here is the link to Delhi HC - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new?sno=1&ctype=CS%28OS%29&cno=524&cyear=2024 - Case Type CS(OS) (or CS(OS) - S), Case number - 524, Year - 2024. It was not immediately clear to me who the defendants 2, 3, 4 (WP Admins as stated in the order) are. Does anyone know where to lookup?
Also, direct links to orders: 9 July 2024, 20 August 2024 — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The names of defendants 2, 3, and 4 in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia were not publicly disclosed in the available reports from August 20, 2024. However, it was noted that these three individuals were involved in making the contested edits on the Wikipedia page of ANI, and they are subject to a court order requiring Wikipedia to disclose their subscriber details. ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks. DangalOh (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The case was listed yesterday (case history link) but the order is not (yet?) available (link). Is there an update from yesterday? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- There has been no specific update on the order from the September 5 hearing that I am aware of as of now. The developments I initially mentioned to Kautilya are the latest updates, especially Justice Navin Chawla's vocal warning. I will keep my eyes and ears open. This situation could seriously escalate. I would personally hate to see Wikipedia get banned in India. India has the largest English-speaking population in the world, especially as a second or third language. A ban could affect access to a valuable source of information for millions, and it would certainly impact Wikipedia’s presence in one of the largest user bases in the world. I don’t know if it will affect Wikipedia Hindi as well. Only time will tell. DangalOh (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- India certainly won't be the first to censor Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but India banning Wikipedia would seriously be impactful. Most of the countries that previously censored Wikipedia are not even English-speaking. We are talking about one of the biggest user bases of Wikipedia here. The impact will be felt if such a scenario occurs.
- Unlike other countries that have restricted Wikipedia, India is not only one of the largest contributors in terms of users but also generates a significant amount of content, including in multiple regional languages. This would create a ripple effect, especially on the availability of regional knowledge and the diversity of perspectives online. DangalOh (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- India certainly won't be the first to censor Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- There has been no specific update on the order from the September 5 hearing that I am aware of as of now. The developments I initially mentioned to Kautilya are the latest updates, especially Justice Navin Chawla's vocal warning. I will keep my eyes and ears open. This situation could seriously escalate. I would personally hate to see Wikipedia get banned in India. India has the largest English-speaking population in the world, especially as a second or third language. A ban could affect access to a valuable source of information for millions, and it would certainly impact Wikipedia’s presence in one of the largest user bases in the world. I don’t know if it will affect Wikipedia Hindi as well. Only time will tell. DangalOh (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks.
I'd be curious to see what the reasoning there was. Why is it relevant whether the editors were administrators or not? jlwoodwa (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The case was listed yesterday (case history link) but the order is not (yet?) available (link). Is there an update from yesterday? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
It follows from the comment defendant no.1 submits that they have no connection with defendant nos.2 to 4
(20 August order) that the defendants 2 to 4 would need to appear before the court themselves. What exactly is the legal status of English Wikipedia? DougWeller, do you know? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- You probably pinged the wrong @Doug Weller account — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. As this Wikipedia is part of the Foundation they are suing them. I can’t imagine they would reveal any names. That would set a terrible precedent. They haven’t revealed no names before. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- If that happened and they disclosed the name, it would be a really big issue for Indian editors. Others might also start filing cases, such as OpIndia, for writing that it spread ‘fake news’. The interesting part is that the editors who added that part may have left Wikipedia forever, and one day, the court could come to their door, saying, ‘Go to jail or pay a fine.’ GrabUp - Talk 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is highly unlikely that Wikipedia will disclose any real names, and I seriously doubt whether Wikipedia even possesses the actual identities of the individuals involved. What could they potentially share? IP ranges, fabricated usernames, or random email addresses, which are not even required for creating new accounts these days. In the rare event that Wikipedia does decide to share IP addresses or ranges (which is highly improbable), a legal notice to the ISP would be necessary to obtain the exact subscriber details tied to the specific IP address at the time of the edit. If the individual was using a VPN service, however, this would significantly complicate matters, making identification nearly impossible.
- Moreover, Wikipedia is known for its staunch commitment to protecting user privacy. In this case, it is likely that Wikipedia itself, rather than the individual editors or even the sources cited, would bear responsibility considering wikipedia wont reveal anything. As I understand Indian law, Wikipedia, as an intermediary, is primarily accountable for what transpires on its platform — whether it concerns the sources its community deems reliable, those it disqualifies, or how it handles users who revert edits to a preferred version or block dissenting views. This also includes the types of communities it allows to flourish within itself and which it systematically restricts. My understanding is that the issue here, compared to platforms like X (formerly Twitter), is that users on Wikipedia are often exposed to a single narrative, with certain viewpoints censored to push specific agendas (referred to as POV pushing in Wikipedia’s terms). You even have to adhere to a NPOV, based on sources that are more or less ideologically similar, as many sources from the other side are outright dismissed as unreliable by the community or removed by mob rule (coincidence that only one side is most of the time considered correct?). The fact which makes wiki more important is that Wikipedia, unlike X, is an educational platform involved in shaping future minds. This does not bode well for Wikipedia’s operations in India. They may be required to pay fines to continue their operations, or possibly face some form of a ban.
- However, I doubt that any individual editor will be identified. What if the editors are foreign nationals? Will they face restrictions on entering India, as was the case recently with a British-Indian writer who was barred from entry? Only time will tell. Wikipedia may be reverting to its roots. It was initially meant for Western audiences, and it might end up being read only by Western audiences in the end. And I suppose that's fine. DangalOh (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- If that happened and they disclosed the name, it would be a really big issue for Indian editors. Others might also start filing cases, such as OpIndia, for writing that it spread ‘fake news’. The interesting part is that the editors who added that part may have left Wikipedia forever, and one day, the court could come to their door, saying, ‘Go to jail or pay a fine.’ GrabUp - Talk 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. As this Wikipedia is part of the Foundation they are suing them. I can’t imagine they would reveal any names. That would set a terrible precedent. They haven’t revealed no names before. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- In the light of this, there might shortly be an article on Navin Chawla (judge), and I hope experienced editors will watch it to ensure its content remains scrupulously appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Some IPs are directly threatening Indian editors with legal action on the talk pages of ANI and the recent Kolkata rape case. Should they be blocked per WP:LEGAL, or can we protect the talk page to autoconfirmed? GrabUp - Talk 07:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GrabUp I can't find them. Can you be more precise? Doug Weller talk 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Most of the time, one IP range is consistently threatening Indian editors. It seems they may be associated with an organization called ‘Hindu Raksha Dal,’ as the same IP repeatedly claims they have filed a complaint with the ‘National Task Force for Doctor Safety’ against editor @VSankeerthSai1609. They are repeatedly sharing this email on the talk page of the Kolkata Rape Case. For example, the IP range initially threatened Tito Dutta, an Indian editor and admin, and other editors with legal action. Today, the same IP range has again threatened editors who opposed the removal of the victim’s name, warning them of legal proceedings. I believe a block is not the solution, but temporary protection for 3 to 6 months with autoconfirmed-only editing might be necessary. GrabUp - Talk 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- This one from Asian News International. GrabUp - Talk 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, found some biased and threatening message on my talk page a few days ago. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please report and/or block this IP 49.36.178.108 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here is the IP range, [10]. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please report and/or block this IP 49.36.178.108 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, found some biased and threatening message on my talk page a few days ago. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- What complaint have they filed. Is this supposed to be a serious issue? There is nothing offensive about anything on the page of National task force for safety medical professionals wiki. I have just added the names of the members of the taskforce. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GrabUp Protrcted. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- This one from Asian News International. GrabUp - Talk 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Most of the time, one IP range is consistently threatening Indian editors. It seems they may be associated with an organization called ‘Hindu Raksha Dal,’ as the same IP repeatedly claims they have filed a complaint with the ‘National Task Force for Doctor Safety’ against editor @VSankeerthSai1609. They are repeatedly sharing this email on the talk page of the Kolkata Rape Case. For example, the IP range initially threatened Tito Dutta, an Indian editor and admin, and other editors with legal action. Today, the same IP range has again threatened editors who opposed the removal of the victim’s name, warning them of legal proceedings. I believe a block is not the solution, but temporary protection for 3 to 6 months with autoconfirmed-only editing might be necessary. GrabUp - Talk 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GrabUp I can't find them. Can you be more precise? Doug Weller talk 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Some IPs are directly threatening Indian editors with legal action on the talk pages of ANI and the recent Kolkata rape case. Should they be blocked per WP:LEGAL, or can we protect the talk page to autoconfirmed? GrabUp - Talk 07:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, when I clicked on this section, I was actually expecting it to be about defamation on WP:ANI. That poor acronym… jlwoodwa (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order, The Hindu, 5 September 2024.
- ^ Khadija Khan, Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?, The Indian Express, 11 July 2024.
Requested move at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Film Award for Best Short Film#Requested move 29 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 06:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Change name of YSR University to NTR University
[edit]The government of Andhra Pradesh has recently changed the name of Dr. YRS University of health sciences back to Dr. NTR University of Health sciences. Requesting to apply the same to the wiki page: Dr. YRS University of Health sciences.
Here are the articles: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/its-official-govt-undoes-name-change-of-ntruhs-to-ysruhs/article68442287.ece
https://www.chennaionline.com/news/andhra-pradesh-reverts-university-name-to-ntruhs/ VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)