Revision as of 23:29, 8 May 2022 editIzno (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Interface administrators, Administrators113,371 edits std template← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:28, 14 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,341 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive 2. (BOT) | ||
(141 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{shortcut|WT:MOSIN}} | {{shortcut|WT:MOSIN}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
{{WP India}} | |||
{{WikiProject India}} | |||
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}} | {{WikiProject Manual of Style}} | ||
{{archives}} | |||
== Use of Slokas == | |||
Can we use slokas in articles. A on going debate is at ]. I think this may be incorpoareted into this MOS. ] ] 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Scope of this project== | |||
So far the main development here is the incorporation of most of the content of ]. I suggest that that Naming convention article should remain separate and active, and that this Manual of Style should only make reference to the it for appropriate cases. Reasons; | |||
*that naming convention would also apply to articles that were not specific to India (the modern country); including articles about some of the neighbouring countries, and to the Pali language. | |||
*that article was always intended to deal with old Indian languages (for history, religion and so on). India has names that do not derive from Indic languages. These include Arabic, Persian, and English names. | |||
*the naming convention was not intended or written with modern names in mind. For a current example, the naming convention (or this manual of style) would be of little help in the recent dispute over Bengaluru / Bangalore, which is the sort of thing that should be addressed here. (According to the naming convention, Bangalore should be renamed Bengalūru, not Bengaluru, and I don't suppose anyone will support that). The existing, very sketchy 'Modern names' section should be expanded to deal with these. | |||
] 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Biographical naming conventions== | |||
Editors behind this proposal may wish to step in at ] (see also the immediately preceding discussions) where there is a discussion about whether to change the article name of Mahatma Gandhi. Currently it is named 'Mohandas Gandhi' while others are in favour of 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi', while other prefer the original 'Mahatma Gandhi'. | |||
This MOS for India-related articles has been invoked at the current discussion but, despite saying so on the MOS articlespace that 'Mahatma Gandhi' is preferred, there is doubt as to whether this should be implemented on account of this MOS being a ''proposed'' guideline. So, in any case, editors may wish to step in over there and contribute their thoughts. Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Resurrection of this MoS page == | |||
A recent decision on the use of indic scripts in the leads of India-related articles was made (see main discussion ] and clarification ]). This decision has not been properly communicated and ] and I agree that it should be placed in the Manual of Style somewhere. The most appropriate place would be in this India-related articles subpage, but it is currently inactive. Surely there are now enough India-related article to warrant the resurrection of these guidelines. What are your thoughts? ] (]) 08:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I did not realise that this section of MOS had ever existed. By all means, resurrect it after a period of review. I'll wander through the thing over the next few hours. - ] (]) 09:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::One for a section on lead sections: ] reached a consensus sometime mid/late 2011 that specific ] status should not be referred to in the lead section of caste/community articles. I'll try to find the link to the discussion. - ] (]) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::] may be that varna discussion, although it seemed to deteriorate into a "bash Sitush" type of thread. Nothing new, then! - ] (]) 09:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::I can't be bothered to read all of that discussion now, but assumuing a decision was reached (which isn't clear from the little I've read), then that's exactly the sort of thing that should be in this MoS article. ] (]) 09:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
I'm no expert on India topics, so I will defer to the wider community: is there anything that's currently in this MoS article that shouldn't be there or needs to change? If not, I suggest taking the ''inactive'' template off the top, and relinking it into ], etc. We can then start to improve it with stuff about varnas and indic scripts and so on. ] (]) 09:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I think that it needs some discussion ''before'' the template is removed. For example, I can see that some people might have problems with the guideline preferring British English and Indian units (lakhs etc). If this is made active now then some pretty fundamental concepts are raised to the status of something that has current consensus when in fact the consensus may have changed. We need a ''structured'' discussion here of the various aspects. I emphasis ''structured'' because my experience is that discussion of such things tend to deteriorate pretty fast.- ] (]) 09:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I agree. One option would be to remove anything remotely controversial from the page, and make the uncontroversial stuff active (even if there isn't very much). Then separate discussions can be held about each controversial part, rather than one big amorphous bunfight of a discussion. The MoS page can then grow over time as (and if) consensus is reached for each discussion. ] (]) 10:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::I cannot really comment on the transliteration bit (I am monoglottal) but the section regarding district naming is also currently ]. Tbh, I do not think that there is much in the inactive version that does not require review. The only dead cert is probably the recent RfC regarding scripts in lead sections. - ] (]) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
I agree that this needs to be resurrected. IMO, the following are controversial: | |||
* Scope: "Religions originating in India, including Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism. Articles on Buddhism may follow this convention, Mythology of India" All wikiProjects related to Indian Religions need to be consulted before imposing the MOS on articles related to them | |||
* "Use only '''British English''' spellings as per the guidelines for India related pages": change to ]??? Eg. the word cock is usually used in Indian English for "the adult male of the domestic chicken", however America (or Britain not sure) use the vulgar connotation. The word "rooster" can be used in American English in this context. | |||
* ''This is another proposed addition to the naming convention'' needs to be updated | |||
* "However, exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title. Examples are ''']''' where Mahatma is an honorific" The page is no more at the title ''Mahatma Gandhi''. The honorifics are dropped. Need to update the honorific policy and form a consensus | |||
* "Naming and transliteration" is controversial. There are many written totally in IAST eg. ], which are affected. Needs to be discussed. | |||
IMO, ] (linked in here) also needs to be discussed and made a policy, rather than ''proposed'' one. --] <sup> ] </sup> 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
===MOS is now live=== | |||
Since no-one objected to the resurrection of this page, I have made a few amendments and reinstated it under ]. The changes that I have made to it are: | |||
# A few non-controversial spelling and punctuation fixes. | |||
# Removal of the "Geographic articles" section because each of its subsections was disputed. I would recommend discussing and reinstating this as soon as possible. | |||
# Change the spelling guideline from use of only ] to use of only ]. This seemed like an obvious change. | |||
# Removal of text about religion and mythology as per ]'s concern above. | |||
# Removal of the "Naming and transliteration" section as per ]'s concern above. | |||
# Removal of text about people who are widely known by honorific titles, as per ]'s concern above. | |||
I have not included anything about the decision mentioned above not to use Indic scripts in the leads of articles. This seems like a controversial decision requiring further discussion and consensus. The points raised above by ] also require further discussion. ] (]) 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Conflicting policies == | |||
At {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India#Indic scripts in lead}}, it says that Indic script is '''not''' to be used in the lede sentence of an article: | |||
: There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script. It is suggested that ] be used for help with pronunciation. For details, refer to this RfC: ]. | |||
However, at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/India-related articles|Preferred format for introducing the article subject}}, it says that Indic script '''is''' to be used in the lede and gives the example: | |||
:<nowiki>'''Sikhism''' ({{indic|lang=pa|defaultipa='siːkɪz(ə)m|defaultaudio=Seekism.ogg|indic=ਸਿੱਖੀ|trans=sikkhī|indicipa='sɪk.kʰiː| indicaudio=Sikkhi.ogg}}) is a ...</nowiki> | |||
:'''Sikhism''' ({{indic|lang=pa|defaultipa='siːkɪz(ə)m|defaultaudio=Seekism.ogg|indic=ਸਿੱਖੀ|trans=sikkhī|indicipa='sɪk.kʰiː| indicaudio=Sikkhi.ogg}}) is a ... | |||
This is more consistent with article practice, too. | |||
So, which is it? <font color="red">—[</font>](])<font color="red">]—</font> 06:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Translations in Infoboxes == | |||
In Infoboxes for places, there are the parameters {{para|name}}, {{para|official_name}}, {{para|other_name}}, {{para|native_name}}, and {{para|native_name_lang}} (ignoring the tranlit* params for now). The first three are specified to be in English with Latin script. | |||
The question is what to do with the others. The fact that {{Para|native_name_lang}} exists says to me that the design is to support the predominant non-English language/non-Latin script name of the place, like: | |||
{{Infobox settlement | |||
| name = Shahjahanpur | |||
| native_name = शाहजहाँपुर | |||
| native_name_lang = hi | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
| age =2160 | |||
or this, using the {{tl|Lang-hi}} template wrapper around the script to prepend the ] link: | |||
| archiveprefix =Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive | |||
{{Infobox settlement | |||
| numberstart =1 | |||
| name = Shahjahanpur | |||
| maxarchsize =75000 | |||
| native_name = {{Lang-hi|शाहजहाँपुर}} | |||
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| native_name_lang = hi | |||
| minkeepthreads =5 | |||
}} | |||
| format = %%i | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}} | |||
The notes say that if multiple names/languages are to be specified, to wrap the names in {{tlp|Lang|xx}}, but this doesn't specify which language the names are in like {{tl|Lang-xx}} does. Example: | |||
<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving --> | |||
{{Infobox settlement | |||
| name = Kashmir | |||
| native_name = {{Flatlist| | |||
* {{Lang-hi|कश्मीर}} | |||
* {{Lang-ur|کشمیر}} | |||
}} | |||
| native_name_lang = | |||
}} | |||
What about pronunciation guides, like {{IPAc-en|k|oʊ|l|ˈ|k|ɑː|t|ɑː}}? <font color="red">—[</font>](])<font color="red">]—</font> 09:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
BTW, this came up because of a string of edits by ], adding Indic script names to {{Para|native_name}} on various articles on places without moving what alternative names were already there or changing/adding the language to native_name_lang. <font color="red">—[</font>](])<font color="red">]—</font> 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Are you familiar with ] and the various discussions that gave rise to it and that have subsequently taken place at ]? - ] (]) 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry, you've posted two queries in two sections, and I missed the one above. Clearly, you are aware to some extent. The quick solution that avoids all this mess and more is not to have the scripts anywhere. They cause a phenomenal number of problems, including outright vandalism that doesn't get picked up because insufficient contributors can understand the scripts. - ] (]) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== City names == | |||
Is there a convention for handling new/old city names, (Mumbai/Bombay), specifically in historical articles? Thanks for the help! ] (]) 04:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Use the name that was used at the time the event occurred. This can be especially important for some geographical entities; for example, ] was geographically very different to India as it is known today. - ] (]) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Handling numbers == | |||
I have just amended the wording . - ] (]) 10:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Alphabetical order for names == | |||
When a list of personal names in an India-related article is sorted alphabetically, which ] should be used for sorting? If the family name is usually placed last (western order) then a list of names should probably be sorted by the last name. I am looking at ], which is currently sorted by the full name, so that ] is listed before ]. In a European or a North-American article I would change this. What should be the convention for India-related articles? ] (]) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Naming conventions == | |||
This article says "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only." This is not always true. Many people use the personal name. For example, see ], where he is known by his personal name (Narayanan) and not his surname (Rasipuram, actually village name). ] is Anbumani, son of Dr. Ramadoss. Another example is V. Anand, sometimes wrongly expanded as Vishwanathan Anand. (Anand is his given name and the correct expansion is Anand Vishwanathan.) Also, "The last name or the family name is placed before the first name for Telugu people." This is also found in Kerala, as in ], where Velikkakathu is his surname, and Achuthanandan his given name. As far as I know, this style is restricted to South India. ] (]) 11:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Merge ] to ]'s "Lead and infobox" section == | |||
{{Discussion top|result=After two months, no objection was raised, so the result of this discussion was to '''Merge'''. ] (]) 09:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
The rationale and consensus history (the links/diffs for which should be put into a footnote) at ] belong in the ] page; they serve no purpose buried on the wikiproject page where no one will see them but active participants in the wikiproject. Without that material, the one-liner in the present guideline looks like arbitrary nonsense, and is easily dismissed as some consensus-free ] someone added without discussion. | |||
I did some cleanup work on the material to make it "MoS-styled" language, and actually guideline-worthy. It had a bunch of ]ish wording (I don't mean that too critically, it's just a common problem in stuff written at wikiprojects), was very unclear in certain ways, and had some grammar problems). | |||
After merging, the ] shortcut (and a ] one) should redirect to what is presently the "Lead and infobox" section in MOS:INDIA, though this would be better named "Indic script in leads and infoboxes" since it does not cover anything else, and it doesn't stand out in the table of contents without "Indic" in it. | |||
<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 02:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' merge, and '''strong support''' ] redirect, which I've been acting as if it is anyway. However, leave a meaningful stub in the current place as well, since this is one of the most common project guidelines newcomers will need to know, and the more places it is mentioned the better. --] (]) 17:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 09:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
* '''Comment''' I may be too busy to implement this, should the idea gain consensus; I trust someone else can handle it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 11:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{Discussion bottom}} | |||
== Implementation == | |||
This is regarding the implementation per ]. | |||
I moved the relevant material and updated the links. There is, however, the matter of the "Preferred format for introducing the article subject" section and onwards, which now makes much less sense. The example given, ], is especially bad since it it can always be argued that it's not even predominantly within the scope of ] but more in the scope of ]. The entire point of the section was how to use {{tl|Indic}} in the lead section, are we now recommending its use at all? --] (]) 12:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
I read it again and it is just too confusing to keep. I commented out the entire thing, here it is for further discussion | |||
{{collapse top}} | |||
===Preferred format for introducing the article subject=== | |||
Ideally, when introducing an article that is covered by this guideline, IPA transcriptions (with audio files if possible) and transliterations of the Indic script should be included. The format is: | |||
:'''Simplified Transliteration''' ({{indic|lang=lang|defaultipa=English IPA text|defaultaudio=Audio file.ogg|indic=Indic Text|trans=ISO Transliteration|indicipa=Indic IPA text|indicaudio=Audio file.ogg}}) ... | |||
A special <nowiki>{{indic}}</nowiki> template has been made to take care of formatting issues. | |||
Use this format when you have the original script text, transliteration, IPA and audio pronunciation file. | |||
:<code><nowiki>'''Simplified Transliteration''' ({{indic | |||
| lang=Language code | |||
| defaultipa=English IPA text | |||
| defaultaudio=Audio file.ogg | |||
| indic=Indic Text | |||
| trans=ISO Transliteration | |||
| indicipa=Indic IPA text | |||
| indicaudio=Audio file.ogg | |||
}}) ...</nowiki></code> | |||
;Example: | |||
:<code><nowiki>'''Sikhism''' ({{indic|lang=pa|defaultipa='siːkɪz(ə)m|defaultaudio=Seekism.ogg|indic=ਸਿੱਖੀ|trans=sikkhī|indicipa='sɪk.kʰiː| indicaudio=Sikkhi.ogg}}) is a...</nowiki></code> | |||
:'''Sikhism''' ({{indic|lang=pa|defaultipa='siːkɪz(ə)m|defaultaudio=Seekism.ogg|indic=ਸਿੱਖੀ|trans=sikkhī|indicipa='sɪk.kʰiː| indicaudio=Sikkhi.ogg}}) is a... | |||
====Without audio==== | |||
Use this when you have the original script text, transliteration and IPA but do not have the audio pronunciation. This is likely to be the most used format. | |||
:<code><nowiki>'''Simplified Transliteration''' ({{indic | |||
| lang=Language code | |||
| defaultipa=English IPA text | |||
| indic=Indic Text | |||
| trans=ISO Transliteration | |||
| indicipa=Indic IPA text | |||
}}) ...</nowiki></code> | |||
;Example: | |||
:<code><nowiki>'''Mumbai''' ({{indic|lang=mr|defaultipa=mumbəi|indic=मुंबई|trans=mumbaī}}) is a...</nowiki></code> | |||
:'''Mumbai''' ({{indic|lang=mr|defaultipa=mumbəi|indic=मुंबई|trans=mumbaī}}) is a... | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
Pinging ] and ] --] (]) 12:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
:On a quick once-over, the problem appears to be that this is being written about leads when we don't want to use Indic in leads. If the material were rewritten to be about use of Indic in our text in general (with a reminder that we don't use it in the lead, "see above", then some of the material could be restored into "Non-English strings" somewhere, though Sikh stuff should just be an example. We would never do "'''Simplified Transliteration'''" which is against both ] and ] ("simplified transliteration" is just fine), and we would not normally include audio without a really good reason. The audio stuff is already covered, in a non-topic-specific manner, at <del>]</del> <ins>]</ins>, so it need not be covered here at all except with short cross-references, like "For when to include a link to an audio pronunciation file, see ]." <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
:: I'm thinking what I did as first-aid (commenting out the entire section) might be the best solution. The entire thing is just an explanation of how to use {{tl|Indic}} which does not seem to apply as a ] anyway and is covered elsewhere. --] (]) 19:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
I suggest not to mention state/UT name because when reorganization of any state will occur, each assembly constituency state will need to be changed. ] (]) 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
: {{u|Sid54126}}, I think you meant this to go elsewhere (probably three sections below). --] (]) 14:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Nonsense about wikiproject scope == | |||
Articles do not belong to wikiprojects. Someone added stuff about the "don't use Indic script in leads and infoboxes" somehow only applying to WikiProject India articles. I've objected to this, Corinne has as well, on another page, and it just doesn't make any sense. It's directly against ] and ] policy and the ] ruling against projects trying to assert authority over entire categories of articles. I've removed this twice and been reverted on the basis that there will allegedly be controversy if I"m not. Show us the controversy. | |||
The wording of the contested material has now been changed to "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries." What?! Articles about these religions are not magically disassociated from India as a topic. This result is literally {{em|not possible}} under policy. If Indic script is a problem for readers in articles that pertain to India, it does not magically become a non-problem when the topic is Bangladesh. Wikiprojects on Pakistan and Jainism cannot declare "their" article immune to guidelines that are based on a practical consensus that our leads and infoboxes should not have indic script in them for well-articulated reasons. That's Indic script, not Indian script. This is a site-wide MoS guideline, not a wikiproject ]. If projects on Hinduism and Bangladesh really want to assert that there is no consensus to apply this rule to any article they say is within their scope, then the Indic script rule actually does not have consensus. But I don't see any evidence of that. I see one editor trying very hard to shoe-horn wikilawyering language into this guideline for no clear reason. | |||
PS: If we need to explain that there can be exceptions, e.g. where the very topic is an Indic word like ], familiar even in written form around the world, then we should do so. There is no exception for "this politician is Maldivian, so we can use Indic script as much as we want to." <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:It's not about Indic scripts, and never has been, it's about "Indian" scripts. If an article is related to India, then the community has decided that it's not desirable to include native scripts in the lede or the infobox regardless of whether those native scripts are Indic or something else, e.g. Urdu. Clarifying the scope is kind of redundant: this is after all, the MOS page for ''India''-related articles (and before this was moved here, it was within WP INDIA's internal project space). However, ] is used and quoted so often that there was a history of incidents with editors missing that point and starting to remove e.g. Sanskrit names from Buddhism articles, or Urdu native names from Pakistan-related articles. | |||
:Anyway, if you'd like to change the guideline to have broader scope than it currently has, you can of course start and RfC, but unlike all the previous ones it will need to 1) be on a page different from the talk page of WP INDIA, and 2) be advertised to the projects concerned. However, this is unlikely to draw much support as the situation that led to the adoption of this guideline (= regular editors being sick of people edit-warring over which script(s) to include and in what order) doesn't hold for any of the related projects. – ] 00:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Really? I may be wrong but I thought the RfC etc said ''Indic''? The underlying problem, though, does have history either on this page or some other. Something to do with local (ie: project) consensus cannot over-ride general community consensus. That's a big issue because all someone has to do is add another project banner to a talk page and an article instantly becomes exempt from the India project consensus. Whether it is a problematic issue is another matter. Personally, I'd rather see it applied site-wide for the reasons that have already been discussed to death in numerous past threads and because I feel that if a project can re-work general notability guidelines with local consensus - NSPORT, NPROF etc - then we're on the cusp of doing the same sort of thing with Indic scripts anyway. The fact is, they're pretty much unworkable and the value of retention is really of minimal (not zero, but minimal) utility for our readership: if you know it, you know it ... and if you do not then you probably couldn't care less. - ] (]) 01:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::Sitush, do you suggest that any of the editors who opposed the inclusion of say Devanagari or Tamil scripts in the lede would have been happy with retaining Urdu? {{tq|all someone has to do is add another project banner to a talk page and an article instantly becomes exempt from the India project consensus}} – that's why that bit in the text says "predominantly India-related". – ] 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::Any script is a problem. Defining ''India'' is also a problem, eg: in theory most Pakistan-related tribe articles are also India-related: Pakistan has only been around for a few years and it was a part of India for much longer. We have to assume a bit of common sense here. - ] (]) 15:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
== blanket ban per ] == | |||
I understand the reasoning for ], but the ban seems excessive. For example, gujarati film ] has a clear case of indic script in lead and/or infobox. There are no claims of multiple language to be added here, so why can't we refine policy to allow such cases? ] (]) 13:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
: There has been quite a number of discussions on the matter over the years, and I think the simplest way is to explain it is that there is no way to leave the door half-open. Since the alternative was worse, the community has chosen to leave the door tightly closed. Maybe one day consensus will change. --] (]) 22:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Diacritics, use or not? == | |||
This guideline is unclear on whether or not to use diacritics, and in what circumstances. '']'' or ''Devanāgarī''? '']'' or ''Āryabhaṭa''? | |||
Should diacritics be "extended?" ('']'', ''Brihadiśvara'', or ''Brihadishvara''?) | |||
Should they be used for all terms that can be transcribed with IAST (this would be excessive, imo), or just technical Sanskrit terms/names for historical/religious topics? The latter is my preference, for words like '']''. | |||
Should they be used for article names? In leads? General text? | |||
Overall diacritic usage is very inconsistent across the wiki, I hope a standard can be set. - <strong>]</strong> <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|AMorozov}} The question is not one of whether to use diacritics or not, but which transliteration standard to use. As the section on ] outlines, ] should be used for all Indic languages except for Sanskrit, where ] is used conventionally. I have proposed to switch to ISO for Sanskrit as well (see ]), but that's the policy for the moment. By "without diacritics", I assume you mean using the ] scheme, the official scheme used by the Indian government. In that scheme, it can be written as ''Brihadishvara''. ''Brihadisvara'' is incorrect; it's not a matter of simply dropping the diacritics from the ISO/IAST transliteration to reach Hunterian transliteration. All in all, I'd say use ISO (preferably) or Hunterian for all Indic languages except for Sanskrit, for which you should be using IAST. ] (]) 01:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
== Gandhi == | |||
In section "Indic scripts in leads and infoboxes", we are admonished not to use Indic scripts in the lede section. In the very next section, "Linking to other Indian Language Wikipedias", an example lede fragment is given which violates this rule. The article it refers to, ], does not display the same lede. ] (]) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Avoidance of Indic scripts makes no sense == | |||
The decision was made because there are too many Indian languages? This makes no sense, because there are only 2 official languages in India, English and Hindi. Adding Hindi can help millions of people who only know, speak and write in Hindi to find articles on wikipedia. Not all English wikipedia articles have a hindi translation. Such a decision only prevents wikipedia's accessibility. For people, companies, and organizations that operate mostly on the state level. State languages can be included as an when deemed necessary. It seems regressive to avoid the usage of Indic scripts when for every other country, a local language translation is offered <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Prefer BCE/CE == | |||
I propose a policy of preferring the secular BCE/CE as opposed to BC/AD for Indian articles being added under the "Basic India conventions". Many articles on Indian topics seem to follow this convention already (e.g., ], ], ]), but my proposal is to codify it as a preference. ] (]) 04:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
== |
== The Kolkata "case", wider implications? == | ||
Apparently there is an Indian law against naming names in some crime contexts, a recent rfc on a specific such issue can be seen at ]. | |||
I propose preferring ] over ] for all Indic-language transliterations, and adding this to the conventions page. IAST is essentially a subset of ISO 15919, barring a couple cases where it's different, and the latter allows for all Indic languages to be unambiguously represented. Along the same lines, the recommended template for transliterations should be changed to <code><nowiki>{{transl}}</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>{{lang}}</nowiki></code>, as the former allow specifying the transliteration scheme used as well, which is important in many cases. ] (]) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
It strikes me that this is unlikely to be the only WP-article that bumps up against this law, there is ] and probably other areas as well. | |||
== '''Category:Government of Bangalore''' should be deleted since it is named after a an entity which never existed == | |||
So my question is, is this something that ] should address somehow? "Context matters and the usual ] processes apply as necessary." or something like that. Or very different. Ping @] and @] if you wish to comment. ] (]) 08:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Category:Government of Bangalore''' should be deleted since it is named after a an entity which never existed. | |||
Usage of terms Government of Karnataka and Government of India should be entertained but there is (or was) nothing by the name Government of Bangalore. | |||
If you want to categorize agencies associated with Bangalore, then we can use '''Category:Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike''' for Pages dedicated to Agencies associated with Municipal Corporation. | |||
Similarly other Pages which are using '''Category:Government of Bangalore''' can use '''Category:Bangalore'''. | |||
Talk Page ''']'''. -] (]) 17:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
:There have been other articles in the past where this came up. ] gave the example ], which was actually the first article I ever edited extensively, when I was a wee 16-year-old ], and I remember both the initial decision to name the victim and the subsequent removal. I don't think it's the law that's relevant, but rather the cultural norms it represents—much like how many images that some countries would consider obscene are proscribed under ], but because of their shocking nature, not because of those countries' laws. I don't have a strong opinion on whether MOS:INDIA should discuss this, but if it does, I think it should be a broad statement about respecting BLP/BDP; understanding that the Indian understanding of privacy here is not necessarily the same as the Western one, particularly regarding the deceased; and looking to high-quality reliable sources for guidance. We can see at ] the horrors unleashed by trying to tailor a guideline too closely to a specific set of cultural circumstances, and MOS:INDIA would do well not to repeat that mistake. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 09:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This is the wrong forum for deleting or merging a category. Take it to ] where it will have wider attention. ] (]) 19:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with ]. This is very well written. ]] 12:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Agree with Timrollpickering. --] (]) 21:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
::I also feel the arguments that 'what value does the name add for the reader that "a 31 year old female postgraduate trainee doctor at R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, India" does not?' are very compelling. I think perhaps our MOS should include specifically that we can weigh that value against any cultural norms for the victim's family. ] (]) 10:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::And yes, I definitely think we should be discussing in terms of cultural norms, not local law or court orders. Local law and court orders are only relevant in that they may be indicators of cultural norms and may be telling us, "Hey, maybe want to discuss this, it may be important in the context of the cultural norms, as we could be causing actual damage to these living people who are members of the victim's family." ] (]) 11:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It’s clear that naming victims in sensitive contexts raises significant concerns that go beyond local laws and touch on deeper cultural norms. I agree that any MOS guidance should emphasize the need to respect BLP/BDP principles while recognizing the different understandings of privacy in India compared to Western norms. To move forward, I propose that we create a clear guideline addressing the addition and removal of victims' names in relevant articles. This guideline should balance the value of including a name against the potential impact on the victim's family and cultural sensitivities. Establishing such a guideline will not only provide clarity for future articles but also help us avoid repetitive discussions if similar cases arise. Let’s work together to draft this guideline. | |||
::::What do you all think? ] (]) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Is this okay? == | |||
:::::If there is to be a guideline, I would suggest something simple like "Indian privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of sexual offenses, including the deceased. For living or ] people, ] and ] should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission." <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
So if on an India-related geography article, can I put Indic script and then Latin script? It doesn't say you can't according to ]. For example, can I put in the "nativename" section the Hindi name for a place and then below that the Latin transliteration? ] (]) 07:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
: That's requires a very imaginative reading of {{tq|Avoid the use of ]s in ] or ].|q=yes}}. Avoid it. --] (]) 09:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
:: Some geographical names in India have been used with multiple spellings in Roman. For example The name of the city in Hindi जबलपुर follows the exact native pronunciation and has not changed. In Roman it has been Jubbulpore, Jubbalpur, Jabalpur etc. In that case it is advantages to use the Indic text. One distinct advantage of using the Indic text is that the text string can be used to search publications in Indian languages (newspapers and books). For example see <ref></ref>which will search for जबलपुर in Hindi newspapers. | |||
{{rlt}} | |||
::] (]) 02:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::I know what you mean. I have a lot of examples, for one being ] which was written as ] which transliterates to ''Gunturu''. Can't say about other languages in other countries, but this is common in Indic scripts. For this change, you'll need to achieve consensus in the ] context. ] (]) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::'''Naming Victims of Sexual Offenses in India''' | |||
== All non-Sanskrit transliterations should use ISO 15919 == | |||
::::::In line with Indian privacy norms and legal restrictions, the names of victims of sexual offenses—both living and deceased—should generally not be included in Misplaced Pages articles. This guideline applies to all pages, including biographical articles, lists, infoboxes, and templates. The following outlines the considerations and handling of names in these cases: | |||
::::::*'''Living or Recently Deceased Victims:''' | |||
This policy is already implied in the current policy and followed on most articles, but my proposal is to make it explicit. If no one objects to this in about a week's time, I will be amending the text accordingly in {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/India-related articles|Non-English_strings}}. ] (]) 19:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::#'''General rule:''' The names of living victims or those recently deceased (within the past 20 years) should not be included unless they have chosen to publicly self-identify. This applies even if reliable sources report their name. When writing about a victim in such cases, use a descriptive phrase like "a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai" or "an 18-year-old student from Delhi," without disclosing their identity. | |||
:::::::#'''Reliable sources:''' Even if a name appears in reliable sources, the inclusion of the name should be weighed against privacy concerns. Misplaced Pages’s policies on ] and ] should guide editorial decisions, erring on the side of exclusion unless the subject’s name is already widely publicized, and no harm is likely to result from its inclusion. | |||
:::::::#'''Respecting family privacy:''' Especially in Indian contexts, the cultural norm around privacy for families of victims is particularly strong. Editors should avoid any actions that could harm or distress the victim's family or community. | |||
::::::*'''Deceased Victims of Past Crimes:''' | |||
:::::::#'''When to include names:''' For individuals who have been deceased for more than 20 years, editors may consider including the name, provided the practice in high-quality, reliable sources supports it. In cases where the victim’s name remains excluded in current sources, Misplaced Pages should follow that example. | |||
:::::::#'''High-quality sources:''' Reliable sources must be of the highest quality when naming victims of past crimes. Newspapers, academic studies, or recognized publications that handle these cases with sensitivity should be considered the primary guide. Avoid using tabloid or sensationalist sources to justify the inclusion of a name. | |||
:::::::#'''Cultural and legal context:''' Given that Indian law and cultural norms prioritize the privacy of victims of sexual violence, these factors should guide editorial decisions. Editors should remember that Western practices of disclosure may differ and are not always applicable in the Indian context. | |||
::::::*'''General Approach and Practical Application:''' | |||
==Legislative Assembly constituency names== | |||
:::::::#'''Omission unless strong reasons exist:''' Even in historical cases, the default should be to omit the name unless strong reasons exist to include it (e.g., the victim became a public figure after the incident, or their identity is well-known and widely discussed in reputable publications). | |||
I am noticing some confusion about what are the correct and uniform names for the Indian state assembly constituencies. Articles are titled using Vidhan Sabha constituency, Vidhana Sabha constituency, Assembly constituency, Legislative Assembly, State Assembly constituency and Union Territory Assembly constituency etc. | |||
:::::::#'''No automatic inclusion:''' The inclusion of names should never be automatic, even if they are part of a widely reported case. Each decision to include or exclude should be made carefully, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the practices in reliable sources. | |||
::::::*'''In Quotations or Citations''' | |||
I propose to name change of the all State and Union Territory assembly constituencies, for example, from ] to ], ] to ], ] to ] and ] to ] etc. ] (]) 14:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::#'''Paraphrasing and eliding names:''' When quoting or paraphrasing a source that includes the name of a victim, particularly in the case of living or recently deceased individuals, editors should replace the name with descriptive terms, using square brackets if necessary. For example: "The victim, , was attacked..." | |||
:::::::#'''Citations of works:''' When citing books or articles that use the victim's name in their title or author references, retain the original title or author name but refrain from including it in the prose of the article unless deemed absolutely necessary. | |||
::::::*'''Discussion and Consensus''' | |||
:The standard name should be "XYZ (Legislative Assembly constituency)". In the case of multiple constituencies in different states having the same name, the format should be "XYZ (ABC Legislative Assembly constituency)". Using "Vidhan Sabha" in the title will be a cause for conflicts. In the future, someone may argue that Karnataka constituencies should instead use the term "Vidhana Soudha". Better to go with the English term. ]] 15:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::#'''Consensus-based editing:''' Editorial decisions on victim names should be guided by community consensus, particularly when the circumstances are ambiguous or controversial. Discussion on the talk page before adding or removing a name is encouraged. Editors should provide clear, reasoned explanations for their choices, referring to this guideline, ]. | |||
:: <strike>I support Bharatiya suggestion, there is no need to list the state if no further disambiguation is needed.</strike> Number 57's proposal below is more complete so I prefer it. --] (]) 16:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::I too support Bharatiya's suggestion. ] (]) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::Bit of a late reply, but Karnataka's Legislative Assembly ''is'' called a Vidhan Sabha. It's only the building that's called the Vidhana Soudha. ] <sup>] | ]</sup> 03:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::This guideline aims to strike a balance between providing factual information and respecting the privacy and dignity of victims and their families, in alignment with both legal and cultural norms in India. We invite the community to discuss and refine this proposed guideline further to ensure it effectively addresses these concerns while maintaining Misplaced Pages’s standards of verifiability and neutrality. ] (]) 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I propose the uniformed nomenclature "XYZ (ABC Assembly constituency)", where XYZ is the constituency name and ABC is the State/UT name. That way we wouldn't need to put the titles, "State Legislative Assembly constituency" or "Union Territory Assembly constituency" separately the for the states and union territories. | |||
:::::::At 597 words, it's long. The current ] is 1020 words. Also "applies to all pages" will hamper talk page discussions. ] (]) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::20 years for "recently deceased" is also a significant departure from ] (part of the BLP policy) which says that the length of time that BLP protections apply to the recently deceased is context dependent but might be "two years at the outside". In the ] case which was cited as precedent, we have named the victim in the lead , eight years after the murder. ] (]) 10:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::@] In the case of the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, the victim's parents specifically requested that her real name be used instead of a pseudonym, which allowed reliable sources to include it. However, this may not be the case for all incidents. I suggest that we establish a guideline allowing for discussions on including the victim's name after a certain period, contingent upon the context and the weight it adds to the article. This approach would ensure sensitivity while providing flexibility based on the circumstances surrounding each case. ] (]) 13:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::@] I agree that the size of the norm can be significantly reduced, as my intention was to elaborate on key points rather than create a lengthy document. Regarding the phrase "applies to all pages," I want to clarify that it is intended only for articles within the same context, specifically related to sensitive cases like those involving victims of sexual violence. The time frame I mentioned, such as the 20-year period, was merely for discussion, and we can certainly adjust it to a shorter duration, similar to what was established in the Delhi case. I appreciate your input and look forward to refining the guideline further! ] (]) 12:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I think it's way too long and too specific to India and sex crimes. I'm sure there are other cultures where naming victims of certain crimes is taboo. I don't think we need to even mention laws in the policy, it's irrelevant except as a clue about cultural norms. ] (]) 13:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Well, we ''are'' talking about MOS:INDIA here. ] (]) 14:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I guess I feel like if we're crafting policy for an issue that might be similar to other issues in other cultures, why not address both? ] (]) 14:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Sure, but if we are talking about modifying ], this isn't a good place to discuss that. ] (]) 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::We probably should be discussing even the more limited language there, really. It's a pretty big change, even worded only to affect Indian BLPs, and we've only got six people in the discussion. I was thinking of this as workshopping, I guess? ] (]) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Fair enough. ] (]) 15:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'd edit Tamzin's suggestion to broaden it from sex crimes and India: | |||
:::::::"Some cultural privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of certain crimes, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission." | |||
:::::::] (]) 13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Where would you put it? ] (]) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::] and ] maybe, with links from MOS:wherever appropriate? ] (]) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Yes, your statement is clear and I think an example might help: "Some cultural privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of certain crimes, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, '''WP:BLPPRIVACY''' and '''WP:AVOIDVICTIM''' should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For example, instead of writing ''Jane Doe, a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai'', a more privacy-conscious version might be ''a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai''. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission." -- ] (]) 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::@], I think if this were to be incorporated into ], it would be in BLPPRIVACY, where a second sentence could be added to the second paragraph, something like "Privacy expectations vary across cultural contexts, and editors should look to how reliable sources that are familiar with a culture's privacy norms handle the situation." But that's almost tangential to whether something is added here. If something <em>is</em> added here, I think it should be India- and sex-crime-specific, because this is MOS:INDIA and the norm in question is principally about sex crimes. As to I.Mahesh' proposed wording above, I agree with others' critiques. Again, we don't want a second ] here—a guideline with its heart in the wrong place but which people chose to frame as an extraordinary exception, rather than an application of editorial best practices, leading to a drama-prone passage that doesn't actually give much good style advice. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I have no objection to whatever ends up here being worded more India-specific. ] (]) 12:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::@], @], @] So, what is the procedure now? Should we be waiting few more days for other reviews? A week ago, I have already posted about creation of a new guideline for this on India related articles Noticeboard, but I didn't receive any response from members. ] (]) 04:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Not sure. Regarding MOS:INDIA, I don't see much of a consensus for anything so far. On the BLP-aspects, those can't be decided here. ] (]) 08:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::So what's the driving factor for when to apply this? Where the incident happened, the nationality of the victim, both? | |||
::::::::::::::Also wondering if something that says to reference the practices of the local / national media for including a name would work here. Noting that these practices can change over time, and generally how more current sources reference the people involved should have more weight than those in the past. ''']''' (]) 02:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::@] Good point. Referring to local or national media practices is useful, especially since those practices often reflect cultural norms. However, in India, even though some media outlets might name victims, the legal framework (like Section 228A of the IPC) and cultural expectations heavily prioritize protecting victim identities in cases of sexual offenses. These norms have remained quite consistent over time, even if specific media practices shift. In Misplaced Pages’s context, this means that we often err on the side of caution, following Indian privacy laws rather than solely relying on changing media practices. ] (]) 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::In the case of the ], the victim’s name is mentioned only once in the title of a news citation provided as a reference for the article. However, on Misplaced Pages, we created a 'Victim' section and an infobox using the victim’s name. This highlights how, in some cases, we may be going beyond the media's treatment of such sensitive information, underscoring the need to reassess our approach in line with cultural norms and legal requirements in India. ] (]) 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Also the "XYZ (Legislative Assembly constituency)" as proposed by ] is unusually long title and thus not desirable. For example, "Ghosi (Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly constituency)" can simply be titled "Ghosi (Uttar Pradesh Assembly constituency)" — ]<sup>]</sup> 17:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::@] @] @] @] @] @] I don’t think we’ll get much input from the Indian community, even though I’ve sent a message to the India-related mailing lists, and it seems they have chosen not to engage. I believe it's time for us to move forward and draft a guideline for Indian-related sexual crime articles. This will help provide clarity and consistency moving forward. ] (]) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: There are two issues here. You propose to use "Assembly constituency" instead of "Legislative Assembly constituency". To this I do not oppose. However, you also propose to always use the state, which I think makes the titles unnecessarily too long in 99% of the cases. If there is no disambiguation needed, don't disambiguate. --] (]) 17:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::I would interpret the lack of reply here as meaning that there is not significant interest in creating a guideline. See also ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::+1. Lacking interest for a guideline, this maybe should simply be dealt with case-by-case. ] (]) 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::I'll try one last time to bring this up in the mailing list to gather more input. I believe that having a clear guideline is crucial, especially considering how previous cases might influence future discussions and judgments. It’s important for us to have a consistent approach to avoid any potential inconsistencies in our coverage. ] (]) 14:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::Inconsistencies in our coverage is kinda what we do here. ] (]) 14:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::Yeah, we don't actually need consistency across articles unless there's some good reason to require it. People are reluctant to create policy for overly-specific issues. | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::If you do bring this up in a mailing list, you'll need to disclose what exactly you said and which mailing lists, as it could be seen as off-wiki canvassing. ] (]) 14:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::@] You can find my mail at wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; it’s an open mailing list. I appreciate your input, but I must respectfully disagree. The lack of consistency in how we address sensitive topics, such as naming victims of sexual assault, can lead to significant legal and ethical repercussions for our community. Given the existing court orders and Indian laws that mandate the protection of victims' identities, it is crucial for Misplaced Pages to align with these cultural norms to avoid potential media backlash and legal scrutiny. | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::A consistent policy would not only safeguard the privacy of victims but also enhance the credibility of our content in the eyes of Indian users and media. This is not merely an overly-specific issue; it's about respecting the cultural and legal framework within which we operate. I urge you to reconsider the importance of establishing a clear guideline on this matter to ensure that we are not seen as continuous offenders of legal norms in India. ] (]) 16:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::It may be an open mailing list, but unless there's an archive somewhere, I assume I won't be able to see the emails you sent? ] (]) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::::You can find the message in the archive . I’d appreciate some clarity on how notifying Indian Wikimedians via the Wikimedia India mailing list about an ongoing Manual of Style discussion on India-related articles could be considered off-wiki canvassing. Given the relevance of this discussion to Indian legal and cultural norms, it seems reasonable to reach out to a community that may have valuable perspectives on the issue. ] (]) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::Thanks for the link. The notification isn't neutral, though. Notifications need to be neutral in order to be not considered canvassing. You're allowed to say something like: "A discussion at ] may interest members of this mailing list." That's really about it before people start thinking it's canvassing. ] (]) 17:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::Thanks for checking out the link. Just to clarify, my goal in notifying the ''Indian Wikimedian community'' through the Wikimedia India mailing list was to provide relevant information on a discussion that may impact content related to India, especially considering cultural and legal sensitivities around naming victims. ''Since the consensus had already been reached to avoid naming in this case'', the message aimed to invite users from the Indian community to participate in formalizing this guideline in the Manual of Style. The notification highlighted the importance of input rather than advocating a specific stance, especially as we are aiming for consistency with Indian norms. I’ve aimed to keep the language balanced to encourage participation, but I appreciate your feedback on ensuring neutrality in these discussions. ] (]) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::What you wrote in your email was not neutral. It was asking people to come in and express the opinion you wanted them to express. That's considered canvassing, even if your intentions were pure. ] (]) 17:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::I'm confused about why this discussion is dragging on. Every time a new case arises in India, we face the same issues with naming victims and sharing personal data. , and . We are frequently questioned about Misplaced Pages's lack of transparency regarding Indian cultural norms during our outreach activities. | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Why are we still debating this when a guideline could help us avoid these recurring issues? Instead of prolonging the conversation, I'd like to know what potential problems this guideline might cause by creating a culturally sensitive policy. ] (]) 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Speaking only from my own point of view (as someone who supports the idea that we should be including cultural sensitivity in our considerations of BLP), this would need to be discussed at ] before it could be implemented here. IMO it's a policy decision that would need to be discussed by more than a handful of people at a fairly-obscure talk page. ] (]) 18:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Thank you for your input, @]. I appreciate your perspective on the need for cultural sensitivity in our considerations of BLP. I will be participating in the ] shortly and will initiate the discussion at MOS:BLP when I return, provided there are no further developments on this page in the meantime. ] (]) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::Hello all, | |||
:::::::::::::::::::I am not an active editor on the En Misplaced Pages project but associated with Indic language projects and initiatives. I urge the admins and interested Wikimedians to not read the lack of numbers on this talk page as a sign of disinterested behaviour among Indian Wikimedians regarding the issue that ] has been advocating for. | |||
:::::::::::::::::::At a structural level the policy to have a consistent approach is to going to benefit a lot of Indic Wikimedians at their individual contribution level and for Indic Misplaced Pages projects at a policy level as well. It will also help us avoid negative attention from media trials and insinuations made from people who do not understand the Misplaced Pages ecosystem and can only observe that the information is in violation of the legal practice in India. | |||
:::::::::::::::::::Having a consistent approach across the manual of style will also help when news outlets and media houses pick up content from our platforms and recognise that it adheres to the legal and social practices followed here. | |||
:::::::::::::::::::In support of a consistent practice and adding of the earlier achieved consensus of not naming the victim into the Manual of Style ] (]) 16:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::@], did you end up here because of a post to an email list? ] (]) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::Hi ], | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::I ended up here because I have been following the discussion on this page. I am also subscribed to the mailing list where this was being discussed. ] (]) 16:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Out of curiosity, can someone point me to something ]-y I can read about this particular Indian cultural norm we are discussing in this thread? Preferably easily accessible. It may be unrelated, but I vaguely remember reading something about that mentioning suicide regarding ] on WP was objected to for similar reasons. ] (]) 09:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::There is no need to put State/UT in the title irrespective of the fact ehther the State name is mentioned or not. The legislative body of a state is called the legislative assembly for both states and partial states (Delhi, Puducherry, J&K). ]] 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:@], maybe ? ] (]) 13:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Keeping the name of a State/UT in titles will bring the uniformity in all of these constituency pages and at the same time it will rule out any chance of ambiguity. It'd look odd if some constituencies in a state (disambiguation pages) have the state name in titles and other constituencies don't have it. It's rather more practical to use State/UT name to achieve uniformity so we don't have to use different titles (one for disambigous pages and other for normal pages) for the various consistencies of a same State/UT. — ]<sup>]</sup> 22:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::@] Interesting, thanks. ''"Does the practice of protecting the anonymity of sexual assault victims save them from shame or perpetuate it?"'' is a good question. ] (]) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: While I see why uniformity can be valued, it is no excuse to needlessly extend all titles, and is generally not the way disambiguators work. There are thousands of examples of this in Misplaced Pages, but just one, in how song disambiguators work, we have ] because there are many songs with the title "Hope", but we have ], not ], although that would be more uniform. 99% of the titles will not need the state/UT, uniformity is not a reason to make the other 99% longer. --] (]) 11:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::While interesting, IMO one thing the article doesn't really touch that much on but is a key distinction here namely this also applying to deceased victims, even if their primary example is such a case. I touched on this in my (typical long) comment in the RfC but protecting the anonymity of living victims definitely isn't unique to India, actually it's IMO fairly common. Even in places like the US where there is no legal requirement to do so, some media do this. (From the Misplaced Pages PoV living vs deceased also makes a difference because long term it's not a BLP issue with deceased victims but it is for living victims.) And there are plenty of countries where there are legal requirements (always or sometimes). This came up recently in a high profile French case . That said, the French case does perhaps highlight another difference. I think in most "Western" countries where this is an issue, the media will generally name a victim who asks to be named if they legally can with the possible exception of cases where it might affect other victims or where the victim is underage. But the linked article suggests in India this isn't always the case there due to concerns that the victims might not have had the proper support to make this decision. ] (]) 20:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
My view is that we should always keep disambiguation to a minimum and unnecessarily long names are not helpful. Having a standard disambiguator, especially as long as that proposed by Italawar is unnecessary IMO. I would propose the following disambiguation hierarchy: | |||
:<p>{{replyto|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} avoiding mention of suicide is also something that comes up with New Zealand articles. This isn't just a cultural thing as there are restrictions on reporting although these have been significantly relaxed in recent years . Still while it's slowly changing, I think the media is often still reluctant to report it even in ways they can. </p><p>In NZ case we are able to generally just get by with following the sources. If we have at least one source which mentions suicide (in some way) we generally mention it in our article if not we don't. (Over time these aren't BLP issues anyway.) I don't know much about the situation in India but I'd imagine one difference is the size of the media ecosystem there means it's likely that in most cases some sources might report it whereas this isn't necessarily the case in NZ. Also I suspect it's more likely other non Indian sources might report such deaths. </p><p>Two high profile cases might be ] and ]. Both of these did eventually receive mention that they took their own life and . In both cases the sources used to support this only came a while after death +. In most cases it's fairly transparent even in early articles what's being suggested but it's never stated. </p><p>In fact you can see see this source which does mention suicide does so with a link to this source . I also came across this Guardian source, so not even from a Kiwi publication which AFAICT despite talking a lot about the issue of suicide and depression, never actually mentions it was the cause or suspected cause of death. </p><p>] and ] are other cases although in those cases it was add fairly early on based on sources . </p><p>However all of those cases were catalysts for significant discussion on mental health and/or suicide; and perhaps with the exception of Boyed, there were significant other issues which IMO increase discussion and meant the cause was generally mentioned. (With Magasiva, the domestic violence allegations, and with King and Podmore the various pressures on defence lawyers and high performance cyclists respectively.) While the death of highish profile (and so people we're likely to have an article on) does often result in these discussions, I suspect there might still articles we have where we don't mention the cause of death due to a lack of sources. </p><p>] (]) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</p> | |||
#No other geographical area or entity with the same name: Do not disambiguate (e.g. ] as opposed to ]) | |||
::@] You’re correct that in some Western countries, victims who explicitly choose to be named are often reported as such. However, in India, there’s concern that victims or their families may not have had adequate psychological or legal support to make such a decision, which is why anonymity is often preserved, even when permission might be granted. The Sushant Singh Rajput case also reflects the complexity of balancing media reporting with respect for privacy, especially in sensitive circumstances like suicide. | |||
#Geographic entity with the same name, but not a constituency: Disambiguate with "(constituency)" (e.g. ] as opposed to ]) | |||
::It might be interesting to explore how Indian media practices differ from those in other countries, particularly when covering cases involving both living and deceased victims. The media ecosystem in India is vast, and sometimes, international outlets may report details that Indian outlets omit, creating further discrepancies in coverage. ] (]) 15:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
#Lok Sabha constituency with the same name: Disambiguate with "(Legislative Assembly constituency)" (e.g. ] as opposed to ]) | |||
#Legislative Assembly constituency with the same name in another state: Disambiguate with "(state name constituency)" (e.g. ] rather than ]) | |||
#Legislative Assembly constituency with the same name in another state and a Lok Sabha constituency with the same name: Disambiguate with "(state name Legislative Assembly constituency)" (e.g. ]). | |||
I don't see having slightly different titles across a range of articles as a significant issue – having unnecessarily long titles is more of an issue than a lack of uniformity IMO. Cheers, ] ]] 13:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
: {{re|Number 57}} I fully support your proposal as it captures my thoughts about how disambiguation should be done. However, is #4 the furthest disambiguation needs to go? Is it not possible to have a constituency which is both the same name another state and a Lok Sabha constituency? There might not be such a case, but if there is, it may require the obnoxiously long ].--] (]) 14:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, you're correct that it probably needs a #5 just in case such a situation did exist. I've added it above. Cheers, ] ]] 14:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::: Even better. {{ping|Italawar|Bharatiya29|TryKid|Hemant Dabral}} care to comment? --] (]) 18:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|Number 57}}'s proposal looks quite good to me. I think we should extend it to Lok Sabha constituencies as well. ] can be moved to ] as per point one. I am not entirely sure about how to manage Lok Sabha constituencies with the same name in different states. Should it be ] or ]? Because the current title gives a feeling that there is a different Lok Sabha for each state. ]] 21:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::Although I see your point about it making it look like there is a Maharashtra Lok Sabha, I think ] is still slightly preferable as it avoids a double disambiguation in the same title (using a comma and brackets). ] ]] 21:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:: ]'s proposal looks quite obnoxious and odd to me. For example: | |||
== Why not use regional names in regional scripts? == | |||
1. ] serves as a much better disambiguator than using "double brackets" ]. As an alternative, you can just use the official constituency number if you don't want double disambiguation. ] for Bihar and ] for Maharashtra. The constituency number is the part of official name of the constituency as it can be seen in the nomination papers filed by candidates. | |||
As i have read that we cant use regional names in regional scripts, But why the hell!? For example we should write "] (Hindi:लुधियाना Punjabi: Gurmukhi-ਲੁਧਿਆਣਾ Shahmukhi - لدھیاݨہ Iast: ......" So what's the problem! ] (]) 17:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
2. Suggesting the constituency title ] is also incorrect as there are Legislative Council constituencies too in the some states of same name. (Not in Madhya Pradesh though but I'm using Alirajpur as a reference point here) For example: ] in U.P. has three kind of constituencies — Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council and Lok Sabha, So it's better to clarify what kind of constituency is it, Assembly or Council or Lok Sabha. | |||
:] evolved because of massive edit warring over which scripts should be included/excluded, and what order they should appear in. Language-warring was a serious problem in Indian articles, and, although it has not disappeared, it is far less of a problem than it used to be. - ] (]) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Even within the Legislative Council, Saharanpur has three constituencies — Graduate's constituency, Teacher's constituency and Local Authority constituency. | |||
== Specify ] in MOS:INDICSCRIPT? == | |||
3. The title ] denote a general locality or geographical area of that city. It doesn't have an article on Misplaced Pages as of today but in future there's a possibility that there might be an article related to this geographic area so it's better to use disambiguator instead of using just a generic title for a constituency article page. | |||
Obviously, the ] is not an Indic script, and it is not typically used in India. However, MOS:INDICSCRIPT would clearly seem to apply to situations where editors would want to add Urdu alphabet, so maybe this should explicitly be stated? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
4. It would be very inconvenient for a Misplaced Pages user to search for a specific constituency located in a specific state with all these non-uniform title names. For example: A person looking for Betul Assembly constituency would be expecting the same keywords for Alirajpur Assembly constituency and Gwalior East Assembly constituency to search for the articles, but all three of them having three different non-uniform titles would prove to be very inconvenient to a Misplaced Pages user to locate them. | |||
== Use of the Official Script == | |||
— ]<sup>]</sup> 02:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::Happy to have a constructive debate, but I feel your first three points are a wilful misrepresentation/misinterpretation of my suggestion; regarding #1, I did not suggest using double brackets. Regarding #2 and #3, the examples I gave were illustrations of how it would work; if the specific examples I gave do require further disambiguation, then they would move to the next level (for example, if there are other Legislative Assembly constituencies called Alirajpurr, then they would fall under #4). | |||
:::The suggestion made to use ] is worth consideration. However, I think adding the number would have to be applied to all Lok Sabha constituencies if it were adopted. | |||
:::With regards to the final point, when editors search for a constituency, as they start typing its name in the search box, all the matches will come up. As a result, I don't see there being problems with locating articles, or that keywords are necessary in the title. ] ]] 11:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::I endorse all of ]'s four points. HD clearly knows the set of articles very well, and is familiar with the degree of ambiguity involved. | |||
::HD's description of it reminds me of the discussions we had in relation to Ireland, where a broad stable adminsitrative geography (Ireland has had the same set of counties for ~400 years) means that their names (and those of towns and cities) have been used for constituencies of | |||
:::#The ] (pre 1801) | |||
:::#The ] (since 1801 for ], and 1801–1922 for the ]) | |||
:::#The ] (1921–1972) | |||
:::#The ] (1996–1998) | |||
:::#The ] (since 1999) | |||
:::#], since 1918 | |||
:::#The ] (since 1979) | |||
:::.... and that's not even a definitive list. | |||
:::For examples of the permutations of name, see e.g. ] or ]. The Indian situation seems just as complex, and trying to impose a multi-level disambiguation hierarchy would create absurd complexity. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
* I strongly oppose {{u|Number 57}}'s suggestion. That creates a complex 5-level hierarchy of disambiguation, which means that editors and readers have to guess what the canonical name is, with an inevitably high rate of error. The problem is simple: | |||
:# every constituency is anmed after a pre-existing geographucal entity, so the bare name is always inherently ambiguous | |||
:#the bare name such as "FooTown" or "FooTown East" may refer to any of | |||
:#* an informal geographical area | |||
:#* an administrative division | |||
:#* a state assembly constituency | |||
:#* a Lok Sabha constituency | |||
:With a consistent naming format, readers and editors can ascertain the name of the constituency article just by applying the convention. | |||
:But without it, the article's name can be determined only with extensive prior knowledge. In other words, the reader or can find the article only if they are already have info which most will need to learn from the article. If Number 57's plan is implemented, the result will be that it is impossible to conduct a rules-based check for the accuracy of links. Every one of them will have to be checked by hand, and we simply don't have enough dedicated editors to sustain that level of manual checking of such huge variability across such a huge set of articles. | |||
: The same issues were debated at length in 2006/2007 in respect of constituencies in the UK and Ireland. Neither is a federal system, but both share the Indian characteristic have multiple types of constituency. In each case, the consensus was to use a consistent dismabiguator in all cases, and that consensus has remained stable ever since then. Similarly, see ]+subcats: all articles use "Foo (European Parliament constituency)" | |||
:So please, disambiguate ''all'' the constituencies, at least to the level of "Foo (assembly constituency)"/"Foo (Lok Sabha constituency)", and much preferably use the always-unambiguous "XYZ (ABC Assembly constituency)" proposed by ]. | |||
:Maintainability is massively enhanced by consistency. Please please please don't undermine that maintainability. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::'''PS''' Please note that the policy ] sets five criteria: | |||
::*Recognizability | |||
::*Naturalness | |||
::*Precision | |||
::*Conciseness | |||
::*Consistency | |||
::The format "XYZ (ABC Assembly constituency)" is a clear winner on 3 criteria: Recognizability, Precision, and Consistency. | |||
::Number 57's provision wins only on conciseness, but fails on at least three of the other criteria. | |||
::Some editors seem to prioritise conciseness over all the other 4 criteria, but there is no policy reason to do so. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::You have a point on consistency as I accepted above, but I disagree on the recognisability and precision criteria. We don't generally disambiguate where it's not necessary. I would imagine the vast, vast majority of readers would not know what the word ] refers to, but I doubt anyone would seriously suggest changing its name to ] to make it recognisable or precise. This debate effectively boils down to a decision between consistency vs conciseness. ] ]] 11:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
It's kinda discriminatory that other countries write their script in English articles, while India just can't. | |||
::::I agree with {{u|Number 57}} that this is primarily a consistency vs conciseness debate. But {{u|Hemant Dabral}}'s points are worth consideration. A lot of Lok Sabha constituency names can also refer to geographical entities. For example, ], ], ], etc. Terms like Gwalior East should mostly refer to the LS constituency, but that depends on one's perspective and hence we have to assume that all constituency names can also refer to the geographical location irrespective of the existence of a Misplaced Pages article about the same. The idea of hierarchical disambiguation is no longer practical due to legislative council constituencies. In light of all this, we have to sacrifice conciseness for practicality and consistency. I will like to propose a much simpler naming scheme: | |||
::::#All LS and legislative assembly constituencies should have "(Lok Sabha constituency)" and "(Legislative Assembly constituency)" in their title. Omitting the word "legislative" will not be appropriate IMO. | |||
::::#If two assembly constituencies in different states have the same name, the state name should be mentioned in the disambiguator: "ABC (XYZ Legislative Assembly constituency)". | |||
::::#If two LS constituencies in different states have the same name, the state name should be mentioned with a comma: "ABC, XYZ (Lok Sabha constituency)". | |||
::::This proposal is mostly based on consistency, but also provides some conciseness by omitting the state name in most cases. As for mentioning the constituency name in the title, that would practically solve all of these issues. But it will look quite odd and will fail ]. ]] 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::The use of titles like ] might lead to confusion for the reader as it can refer to either the ] or the ] ward. A constituency is defined as "a group of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body", and since municipal corporations are not legislative bodies, wards are technically not constituencies. But they do satisfy the first part of the definition and that can lead to confusion. ]] 17:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{yo||Number 57|Bharatiya29}} no, this ''not'' a simple consistency vs conciseness debate. That stance is just denialism of the precision and recognisability criteria. | |||
:::::Every constituency name is derived from an existing geographical term, so it is inherently ambiguous. Every constituency name (e.f. "FooTown", "FooTown Central", "FooTown and BarTown", "South DistrictName" etc) could equally well refer to a formal or informal geographical entity. So the undisambiguated form fails the precision criterion. Readers and editors are unlikely to know in advance whether we currently have an article on the informal area "South DistrictName", and the failure to disambiguate leaves them guessing. | |||
:::::Number47's comparison with ] is a red herring, because the name ] is not derived from an existing geographical entity. The constituency name is derivative, so it is almost never the primary topic for a geographical term, where as the village nearly always is primary (unless ambiguous with an other village of the same name). | |||
:::::Here's an example of the sort of absurdity which arises from the failure to disambiguate: ]. The article is about a constituency named after an administrative division ... but because the article on the division hasn't yet been created, the constituency is occupying the slot. | |||
:::::The undisambiguated term also fails the recognisability criterion, by failing to indicate that the article is about a primarily legal entity rather than a primarily geographical one. | |||
:::::And I'm sorry to see that Number57 pays no attention to maintainability. There are currently 4,227 articles on Indian constituencies, of which only 181 omit the word "constituency". Number57 wants to introduce avoidable ambiguity to an unquantified number of the 4,046 articles which are already dismabiguated: why? How does this help anyone? Who benefits from this? Where is all the extra editorial effort going to come from to maintain this 5-level hierarchy of disambiguation? --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
Instead, I propose a new way. We can write it in all official scripts, instead of none. | |||
<blockquote style="border-bottom: 1px solid #008000;border-right: 1px solid #008000;"> | |||
On National level in Hindi (and English), and on state level all the official languages. | |||
*There is no need to put State/UT in the title irrespective of the fact ehther the State name is mentioned or not. The legislative body of a state is called the legislative assembly for both states and partial states (Delhi, Puducherry, J&K). ]] 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:I oppose {{u| Bharatiya29}} for now ] (]) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
*Keeping the name of a State/UT in titles will bring the uniformity in all of these constituency pages and at the same time it will rule out any chance of ambiguity. It'd look odd if some constituencies in a state (disambiguation pages) have the state name in titles and other constituencies don't have it. It's rather more practical to use State/UT name to achieve uniformity so we don't have to use different titles (one for disambigous pages and other for normal pages) for the various consistencies of a same State/UT. — ]<sup>]</sup> 22:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:Isupport {{u| Hemant Dabral}} ] (]) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
*All LS and legislative assembly constituencies should have "(Lok Sabha constituency)" and "(Legislative Assembly constituency)" in their title. Omitting the word "legislative" will not be appropriate IMO. ]] 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
:I support {{u| Bharatiya29}} ] (]) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
* Number 57's ... | |||
:I strongly oppose {{u|Number 57}}'s suggestion. Probably a good compromise could be to use the official name of the constituency without number. ] ] ] (]) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Let's say the article is about Gangtok. We could write it as - Tripuri:Agartala Bengali:আগরতলা ] (]) 00:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Italawar|Bharatiya29|Number 57|TryKid|Muhandes|BrownHairedGirl}} Why the Karnataka Legislative Assembly constituencies pages were by ] when the discussion about the correct title format of constituencies is still ongoing? — ] (] • ]) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Italawar|Bharatiya29|Number 57|TryKid|Muhandes|BrownHairedGirl|Hemant Dabral}} I see there is no clear outcome of this discussion. May be we should go for an RfC. What do you think? -- ] (]) 13:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::@]: I agree. An RFC is needed to clear this up. | |||
::But please, before launching the RFC, let's collaborate to make a neutral summary of the issues. That makes for a much better discussion at RFC. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::{{re|BrownHairedGirl}} Yeah, thats the ideal way to go. --] (]) 13:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
=== Constituency names RFC drafting === | |||
*There are two topics here: Should we go for consistency or conciseness? If consistency, then how? | |||
:#'''Lok Sabha constituencies''' where there is already some consistency ] ''e.g.'' ] | |||
:#'''Legislative assembly constituencies''' where currently there is no consistency. Different proposals include: | |||
:## Option 1: Disambiguation by generic name: ] or ] | |||
:## Option 2: Disambiguation by State/UT name: ] or ] | |||
:## Option 3: Disambiguation by Indian language: ] or ] | |||
:I have tried to hit brief points, you may fill in your input--] (]) 13:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks for that valuable start, @]. | |||
:::However, I think the the hierarchy of questions and options is little confusing. So I suggest this redraft: | |||
:::'''Question 1: disambiguate selectively or always.''' Should constituency names in India be: | |||
:::: '''Option 1a) always as concise as possible, i.e. include a disambiguator only when needed'''?<br />(as with e.g. ] and ], which don't always disambiguate) | |||
:::: '''Option 1b) consistent, i.e. include a standard disambiguator in all cases'''?<br />(as with e.g. the various types of constituencies under ], ]. Each set of constituencies for those countries has a standard disambiguator for each parliament/assembly. ] uses a pair of consistent but unparethesised naming formats: "Division of Foo" for federal constituencies, "Electoral district of Foo" for state assembly constituencies) | |||
:::: Note that the underlying debate here is about two ways of viewing these titles: | |||
::::* One view is that every constituency title as inherently ambiguous, because it is named after an existing geographical entity on which we may or may not have an article. Under this view "FooTown", "North FooTown", "West FooDistrict", "FooTown and BarTown" etc are all ambiguous because they describe a geographical area on which we could reasonably have an article. | |||
::::* the other view is to individually test the ambiguity of each constituency article only by whether another article already exists with that title. | |||
:::'''Question 2: How should we disambiguate the Lok Sabha constituencies?'''. Note that: | |||
:::* this applies regardless of the answer to Q1, which decides whether we disambiguate in some cases or all cases. | |||
:::* Currently, all article on Lok Sabha constituencies are disambiguated either as "(Lok Sabha constituency)", except in five cases where that is ambiguous and the dab is ("''StateName'' Lok Sabha constituency)". | |||
:::*'''Option 2a''': disambiguate only as far as needed in this hierarchy: "constituency" / "Lok Sabha constituency" / "StateName Lok Sabha constituency" | |||
:::*'''Option 2b''': (status quo) disambiguate only as far as needed in this hierarchy: "Lok Sabha constituency" / "StateName Lok Sabha constituency" | |||
:::'''Question 3: How should we disambiguate the State Assembly constituencies?'''. Note that: | |||
:::* this applies regardless of the answer to Q1, which decides whether we disambiguate in some cases or all cases. | |||
:::* Currently, there is no consistency in the naming of State assembly constituencies | |||
:::;Options for Q3: | |||
::::* '''Option 3a''' disambiguation by generic name "Assembly constituency", e.g. ] | |||
::::* '''Option 3b''' disambiguation by generic name "state assembly constituency", e.g. ] | |||
::::* '''Option 3c''' disambiguation by specific name "' assembly constituency": e.g. ] | |||
::::* '''Option 3d''' disambiguation by specific name "'''' Legislative Assembly constituency": e.g. ] | |||
::::* '''Option 3e''' disambiguation by generic Indian-language name "Vidhan Sabha constituency": e.g. ] | |||
::::* '''Option 3f''' disambiguation by specific Indian-language name "'''' Vidhan Sabha constituency": e.g. ] | |||
:::--] <small>] • (])</small> 19:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::{{re|BrownHairedGirl}}, The draft looks good, there's one minor issue though. example for Option 3e is incorrect. ''Vidhan'''a''' Sabha'' is ]-language term while generic ]-language term is ''Vidhan Sabha''. There are other Indic language terms include, ''Sasana Sabha'' (]), ''Niyamasabha'' (]) etc. which are not in use at this point. | |||
::::It may also be worth mentioning that while there is no consistency for state assembly constituencies across India, there is consistency at state/UT level. "Assembly constituency" is used by ] and ]; "state (or) Union Territory assembly constituency" by ] and ]; " assembly constituency" by ]; "Vidhana Sabha constituency" by ]; "Vidhan Sabha constituency" used by several states, and so on. Hence, there is indeed an option of maintaining the status quo with consistency at State/UT level.-- ] (]) 19:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks, ]. How about an Option 3g for "retain existing format of consistency at State/UT level"? --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{re|BrownHairedGirl}} Sounds good -- ] (]) 20:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::Pinging past participants who are currently active {{ping|Hemant Dabral|TryKid|Muhandes}} Do you have any inputs? -- ] (]) 05:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' I don't think the state assembly options are precise enough for an RfC, as each of them gives two options. I would suggest only having one method for each option, which could potentially be: | |||
:#Option 1: Use (state assembly constituency), e.g. ] (adding state where there are two with the same name in different states) | |||
:#Option 2: Use (Assembly constituency), e.g. ] (adding state where there are two with the same name in different states) | |||
:#Option 3: Use (Vidhana Sabha constituency), e.g. ] (adding state where there are two with the same name in different states) | |||
:#Option 4: Use the full name of the state assembly, e.g. ] | |||
:Cheers, ] ]] 16:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::{{re|Number 57}} Yeah, this version is better. But I'm not sure if you have realized ''Vidhana Sabha'' (]-language) and ''Vidhan Sabha'' (]-language) are also different. This would open a pandora box as each Indian language has its own name e.g., ''Sasana Sabha'' (]), ''Niyamasabha'' (]) etc. which are not in use at this point. -- ] (]) 17:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::We can add ] in option 1 as an example for UTs. (Now there's an unaddressed issue of caps). Following options may also be added | |||
:::Option 5 Use (State Legislative Assembly constituency), ], e.g. ] | |||
:::Option 5.a Use '''ConstituencyName (StateName/UnionTerritoryaName State/Union Territory Legislative Assembly constituency)''', e.g. ], ], ], ] or ] etc. for assembly constituencies and Use '''ConstituencyName (StateName/UnionTerritoryaName State/Union Territory Lok Sabha constituency)''', e.g. ], ] etc. for Lok Sabha constituencies. | |||
:::Option 6 Use (Legislative Assembly constituency), concise official name, e.g. ] -- ] (]) 17:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::Does anyone actually advocate ]? The word "state" seems redundant. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{re|BrownHairedGirl}} I think no one yet (including me). I was brainstorming all possible options. -- ] (]) 20:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{re|Ab207|BrownHairedGirl}}The word "state" or "union territory" may require to rename ] to ] (Historic) and ] (Future). ] (]) 14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::@], fair enough. Probably best to put everything on the table at the outset. Options added later get confusing. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::Ah, I didn't mean to write Vidhana – that was a typo... On a related note, is ] actually the right name for that article? Not ]? ] ]] 20:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{re|Number 57}}I think it uses . Alternatively it could be ] -- ] (]) 20:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::A user actually mass moved all the constituencies in Karnataka from ''Vidhan'' to ''Vidhana'' as recently as June. So we should be specific. -- ] (]) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
I have a more fundamental note / question. Since this ''is'' in English and we're trying to be clear to typical readers, we should look at the common meaning / interpretation of the word "constituency": | |||
#'''98%''' I think that 98% of the time it means the group of supporters or group of people being represented, and so this is how the readers are going to read the word "constituency" | |||
#'''1%''' of the meanings are the geographic district being represented | |||
#'''1%''' of the meanings is that it is the assembly itself. | |||
:Absolutely not. This would simply return us to the massive language-warring problems that led to the introduction of ] in 2012, and its gradual refinement over the following 5 years. Although we still have some language-warring, this is nowhere near the levels prior to its introduction. - ] (]) 19:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Keeping this in mind, IMO the above possibilities are confusing to the typical reader and/ or sometimes redundant. It appears that the "98%" meaning is not intended under any of the above. My suggestion is: | |||
*Don't even use the word "constituency" in the title. | |||
*Call a "district" simply a "district" | |||
*Call an "assembly" simply an "assembly" | |||
Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
== ] has an ]== | |||
*'''Comment''': The Page names should always give an idea on the content of the Page. Hence it is also necessary to retain the names as used in local terminologies. '''(Assembly constituency)''' was the early used suffix for Legislative Assembly Constituency Pages (Example: ]). There were other forms of usage as well (mentioned and listed by many, above). The use of Indic terminology started with using '''(Vidhan Sabha constituency)''' as a suffix (Example: ]). So if more usage is considered, what we call popular usage or most Commonly used name in Misplaced Pages, '''(Vidhana Sabha constituency)''' suffix gets justified (Example: ]. So, if title Vidhan Sabha Constituency stands valid, Vidhan'''a''' can also co-exist.... If consistency is the key, I would suggest using '''(Assembly constituency)''' as suffix for all pages across India without mentioning State name or the word ''State'' / ''Union Territory'' or even mentioning the words ''Legislative'', since these characters makes the title lengthy. However, in case of disambiguation, we should use state name in the title. (Example: ] and ] Since we have multiple seats in different states with same name. Whereas, ] page title can continue without modification since no page exist with the given name else where in India. Vijeth N Bharadwaj 18:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with "The Page names should always give an idea on the content of the Page." IMHO, for the majority of English readers, using "constituency" would violate that concept. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion at ]=== | |||
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC) <!-- ] --> | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 01:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
=={{tl|Cleanup Indic script}}== | |||
FYI {{lt|Cleanup Indic script}} has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 06:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 15:28, 14 December 2024
ShortcutThis project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives | ||
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The Kolkata "case", wider implications?
Apparently there is an Indian law against naming names in some crime contexts, a recent rfc on a specific such issue can be seen at Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim.
It strikes me that this is unlikely to be the only WP-article that bumps up against this law, there is Category:Rape in India and probably other areas as well.
So my question is, is this something that MOS:INDIA should address somehow? "Context matters and the usual WP:DR processes apply as necessary." or something like that. Or very different. Ping @Tamzin and @JSutherland (WMF) if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- There have been other articles in the past where this came up. Fowler&fowler gave the example 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, which was actually the first article I ever edited extensively, when I was a wee 16-year-old burba, and I remember both the initial decision to name the victim and the subsequent removal. I don't think it's the law that's relevant, but rather the cultural norms it represents—much like how many images that some countries would consider obscene are proscribed under MOS:OMIMG, but because of their shocking nature, not because of those countries' laws. I don't have a strong opinion on whether MOS:INDIA should discuss this, but if it does, I think it should be a broad statement about respecting BLP/BDP; understanding that the Indian understanding of privacy here is not necessarily the same as the Western one, particularly regarding the deceased; and looking to high-quality reliable sources for guidance. We can see at MOS:DEADNAME the horrors unleashed by trying to tailor a guideline too closely to a specific set of cultural circumstances, and MOS:INDIA would do well not to repeat that mistake. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 09:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Tamzin. This is very well written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I also feel the arguments that 'what value does the name add for the reader that "a 31 year old female postgraduate trainee doctor at R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, India" does not?' are very compelling. I think perhaps our MOS should include specifically that we can weigh that value against any cultural norms for the victim's family. Valereee (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, I definitely think we should be discussing in terms of cultural norms, not local law or court orders. Local law and court orders are only relevant in that they may be indicators of cultural norms and may be telling us, "Hey, maybe want to discuss this, it may be important in the context of the cultural norms, as we could be causing actual damage to these living people who are members of the victim's family." Valereee (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It’s clear that naming victims in sensitive contexts raises significant concerns that go beyond local laws and touch on deeper cultural norms. I agree that any MOS guidance should emphasize the need to respect BLP/BDP principles while recognizing the different understandings of privacy in India compared to Western norms. To move forward, I propose that we create a clear guideline addressing the addition and removal of victims' names in relevant articles. This guideline should balance the value of including a name against the potential impact on the victim's family and cultural sensitivities. Establishing such a guideline will not only provide clarity for future articles but also help us avoid repetitive discussions if similar cases arise. Let’s work together to draft this guideline.
- And yes, I definitely think we should be discussing in terms of cultural norms, not local law or court orders. Local law and court orders are only relevant in that they may be indicators of cultural norms and may be telling us, "Hey, maybe want to discuss this, it may be important in the context of the cultural norms, as we could be causing actual damage to these living people who are members of the victim's family." Valereee (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you all think? I.Mahesh (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- If there is to be a guideline, I would suggest something simple like "Indian privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of sexual offenses, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission." -- Tamzin (they|xe) 17:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you all think? I.Mahesh (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Naming Victims of Sexual Offenses in India
- In line with Indian privacy norms and legal restrictions, the names of victims of sexual offenses—both living and deceased—should generally not be included in Misplaced Pages articles. This guideline applies to all pages, including biographical articles, lists, infoboxes, and templates. The following outlines the considerations and handling of names in these cases:
- Living or Recently Deceased Victims:
- General rule: The names of living victims or those recently deceased (within the past 20 years) should not be included unless they have chosen to publicly self-identify. This applies even if reliable sources report their name. When writing about a victim in such cases, use a descriptive phrase like "a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai" or "an 18-year-old student from Delhi," without disclosing their identity.
- Reliable sources: Even if a name appears in reliable sources, the inclusion of the name should be weighed against privacy concerns. Misplaced Pages’s policies on WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BDP should guide editorial decisions, erring on the side of exclusion unless the subject’s name is already widely publicized, and no harm is likely to result from its inclusion.
- Respecting family privacy: Especially in Indian contexts, the cultural norm around privacy for families of victims is particularly strong. Editors should avoid any actions that could harm or distress the victim's family or community.
- Deceased Victims of Past Crimes:
- When to include names: For individuals who have been deceased for more than 20 years, editors may consider including the name, provided the practice in high-quality, reliable sources supports it. In cases where the victim’s name remains excluded in current sources, Misplaced Pages should follow that example.
- High-quality sources: Reliable sources must be of the highest quality when naming victims of past crimes. Newspapers, academic studies, or recognized publications that handle these cases with sensitivity should be considered the primary guide. Avoid using tabloid or sensationalist sources to justify the inclusion of a name.
- Cultural and legal context: Given that Indian law and cultural norms prioritize the privacy of victims of sexual violence, these factors should guide editorial decisions. Editors should remember that Western practices of disclosure may differ and are not always applicable in the Indian context.
- General Approach and Practical Application:
- Omission unless strong reasons exist: Even in historical cases, the default should be to omit the name unless strong reasons exist to include it (e.g., the victim became a public figure after the incident, or their identity is well-known and widely discussed in reputable publications).
- No automatic inclusion: The inclusion of names should never be automatic, even if they are part of a widely reported case. Each decision to include or exclude should be made carefully, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the practices in reliable sources.
- In Quotations or Citations
- Paraphrasing and eliding names: When quoting or paraphrasing a source that includes the name of a victim, particularly in the case of living or recently deceased individuals, editors should replace the name with descriptive terms, using square brackets if necessary. For example: "The victim, , was attacked..."
- Citations of works: When citing books or articles that use the victim's name in their title or author references, retain the original title or author name but refrain from including it in the prose of the article unless deemed absolutely necessary.
- Discussion and Consensus
- Consensus-based editing: Editorial decisions on victim names should be guided by community consensus, particularly when the circumstances are ambiguous or controversial. Discussion on the talk page before adding or removing a name is encouraged. Editors should provide clear, reasoned explanations for their choices, referring to this guideline, WP:AVOIDVICTIM.
- This guideline aims to strike a balance between providing factual information and respecting the privacy and dignity of victims and their families, in alignment with both legal and cultural norms in India. We invite the community to discuss and refine this proposed guideline further to ensure it effectively addresses these concerns while maintaining Misplaced Pages’s standards of verifiability and neutrality. I.Mahesh (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- At 597 words, it's long. The current Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/India-related articles is 1020 words. Also "applies to all pages" will hamper talk page discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- 20 years for "recently deceased" is also a significant departure from WP:BDP (part of the BLP policy) which says that the length of time that BLP protections apply to the recently deceased is context dependent but might be "two years at the outside". In the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case which was cited as precedent, we have named the victim in the lead since 2020, eight years after the murder. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Caeciliusinhorto-public In the case of the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, the victim's parents specifically requested that her real name be used instead of a pseudonym, which allowed reliable sources to include it. However, this may not be the case for all incidents. I suggest that we establish a guideline allowing for discussions on including the victim's name after a certain period, contingent upon the context and the weight it adds to the article. This approach would ensure sensitivity while providing flexibility based on the circumstances surrounding each case. I.Mahesh (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I agree that the size of the norm can be significantly reduced, as my intention was to elaborate on key points rather than create a lengthy document. Regarding the phrase "applies to all pages," I want to clarify that it is intended only for articles within the same context, specifically related to sensitive cases like those involving victims of sexual violence. The time frame I mentioned, such as the 20-year period, was merely for discussion, and we can certainly adjust it to a shorter duration, similar to what was established in the Delhi case. I appreciate your input and look forward to refining the guideline further! I.Mahesh (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- 20 years for "recently deceased" is also a significant departure from WP:BDP (part of the BLP policy) which says that the length of time that BLP protections apply to the recently deceased is context dependent but might be "two years at the outside". In the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case which was cited as precedent, we have named the victim in the lead since 2020, eight years after the murder. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's way too long and too specific to India and sex crimes. I'm sure there are other cultures where naming victims of certain crimes is taboo. I don't think we need to even mention laws in the policy, it's irrelevant except as a clue about cultural norms. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we are talking about MOS:INDIA here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I feel like if we're crafting policy for an issue that might be similar to other issues in other cultures, why not address both? Valereee (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but if we are talking about modifying WP:BLP, this isn't a good place to discuss that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- We probably should be discussing even the more limited language there, really. It's a pretty big change, even worded only to affect Indian BLPs, and we've only got six people in the discussion. I was thinking of this as workshopping, I guess? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- We probably should be discussing even the more limited language there, really. It's a pretty big change, even worded only to affect Indian BLPs, and we've only got six people in the discussion. I was thinking of this as workshopping, I guess? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but if we are talking about modifying WP:BLP, this isn't a good place to discuss that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I feel like if we're crafting policy for an issue that might be similar to other issues in other cultures, why not address both? Valereee (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we are talking about MOS:INDIA here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- At 597 words, it's long. The current Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/India-related articles is 1020 words. Also "applies to all pages" will hamper talk page discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd edit Tamzin's suggestion to broaden it from sex crimes and India:
- "Some cultural privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of certain crimes, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission."
- Valereee (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where would you put it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM maybe, with links from MOS:wherever appropriate? Valereee (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, your statement is clear and I think an example might help: "Some cultural privacy norms favor omitting the names of victims of certain crimes, including the deceased. For living or recently deceased people, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM should be understood through this lens, meaning that such names should be omitted absent strong arguments to the contrary. For example, instead of writing Jane Doe, a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai, a more privacy-conscious version might be a 30-year-old woman from Mumbai. For people who died less recently, look to the practice of the highest-quality reliable sources, erring on the side of omission." -- I.Mahesh (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee, I think if this were to be incorporated into WP:BLP, it would be in BLPPRIVACY, where a second sentence could be added to the second paragraph, something like "Privacy expectations vary across cultural contexts, and editors should look to how reliable sources that are familiar with a culture's privacy norms handle the situation." But that's almost tangential to whether something is added here. If something is added here, I think it should be India- and sex-crime-specific, because this is MOS:INDIA and the norm in question is principally about sex crimes. As to I.Mahesh' proposed wording above, I agree with others' critiques. Again, we don't want a second MOS:DEADNAME here—a guideline with its heart in the wrong place but which people chose to frame as an extraordinary exception, rather than an application of editorial best practices, leading to a drama-prone passage that doesn't actually give much good style advice. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 20:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection to whatever ends up here being worded more India-specific. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee, @Tamzin, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång So, what is the procedure now? Should we be waiting few more days for other reviews? A week ago, I have already posted about creation of a new guideline for this on India related articles Noticeboard, but I didn't receive any response from members. I.Mahesh (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure. Regarding MOS:INDIA, I don't see much of a consensus for anything so far. On the BLP-aspects, those can't be decided here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- So what's the driving factor for when to apply this? Where the incident happened, the nationality of the victim, both?
- Also wondering if something that says to reference the practices of the local / national media for including a name would work here. Noting that these practices can change over time, and generally how more current sources reference the people involved should have more weight than those in the past. Ravensfire (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ravensfire Good point. Referring to local or national media practices is useful, especially since those practices often reflect cultural norms. However, in India, even though some media outlets might name victims, the legal framework (like Section 228A of the IPC) and cultural expectations heavily prioritize protecting victim identities in cases of sexual offenses. These norms have remained quite consistent over time, even if specific media practices shift. In Misplaced Pages’s context, this means that we often err on the side of caution, following Indian privacy laws rather than solely relying on changing media practices. I.Mahesh (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure. Regarding MOS:INDIA, I don't see much of a consensus for anything so far. On the BLP-aspects, those can't be decided here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee, @Tamzin, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång So, what is the procedure now? Should we be waiting few more days for other reviews? A week ago, I have already posted about creation of a new guideline for this on India related articles Noticeboard, but I didn't receive any response from members. I.Mahesh (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection to whatever ends up here being worded more India-specific. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM maybe, with links from MOS:wherever appropriate? Valereee (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where would you put it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- This guideline aims to strike a balance between providing factual information and respecting the privacy and dignity of victims and their families, in alignment with both legal and cultural norms in India. We invite the community to discuss and refine this proposed guideline further to ensure it effectively addresses these concerns while maintaining Misplaced Pages’s standards of verifiability and neutrality. I.Mahesh (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder, the victim’s name is mentioned only once in the title of a news citation provided as a reference for the article. However, on Misplaced Pages, we created a 'Victim' section and an infobox using the victim’s name. This highlights how, in some cases, we may be going beyond the media's treatment of such sensitive information, underscoring the need to reassess our approach in line with cultural norms and legal requirements in India. I.Mahesh (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Tamzin @Valereee @Ravensfire @Nil Einne I don’t think we’ll get much input from the Indian community, even though I’ve sent a message to the India-related mailing lists, and it seems they have chosen not to engage. I believe it's time for us to move forward and draft a guideline for Indian-related sexual crime articles. This will help provide clarity and consistency moving forward. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would interpret the lack of reply here as meaning that there is not significant interest in creating a guideline. See also WP:WEAKSILENCE. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- +1. Lacking interest for a guideline, this maybe should simply be dealt with case-by-case. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try one last time to bring this up in the mailing list to gather more input. I believe that having a clear guideline is crucial, especially considering how previous cases might influence future discussions and judgments. It’s important for us to have a consistent approach to avoid any potential inconsistencies in our coverage. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Inconsistencies in our coverage is kinda what we do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, we don't actually need consistency across articles unless there's some good reason to require it. People are reluctant to create policy for overly-specific issues.
- If you do bring this up in a mailing list, you'll need to disclose what exactly you said and which mailing lists, as it could be seen as off-wiki canvassing. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee You can find my mail at wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; it’s an open mailing list. I appreciate your input, but I must respectfully disagree. The lack of consistency in how we address sensitive topics, such as naming victims of sexual assault, can lead to significant legal and ethical repercussions for our community. Given the existing court orders and Indian laws that mandate the protection of victims' identities, it is crucial for Misplaced Pages to align with these cultural norms to avoid potential media backlash and legal scrutiny.
- A consistent policy would not only safeguard the privacy of victims but also enhance the credibility of our content in the eyes of Indian users and media. This is not merely an overly-specific issue; it's about respecting the cultural and legal framework within which we operate. I urge you to reconsider the importance of establishing a clear guideline on this matter to ensure that we are not seen as continuous offenders of legal norms in India. I.Mahesh (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It may be an open mailing list, but unless there's an archive somewhere, I assume I won't be able to see the emails you sent? Valereee (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can find the message in the archive here. I’d appreciate some clarity on how notifying Indian Wikimedians via the Wikimedia India mailing list about an ongoing Manual of Style discussion on India-related articles could be considered off-wiki canvassing. Given the relevance of this discussion to Indian legal and cultural norms, it seems reasonable to reach out to a community that may have valuable perspectives on the issue. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. The notification isn't neutral, though. Notifications need to be neutral in order to be not considered canvassing. You're allowed to say something like: "A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles#The Kolkata "case", wider implications? may interest members of this mailing list." That's really about it before people start thinking it's canvassing. Valereee (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking out the link. Just to clarify, my goal in notifying the Indian Wikimedian community through the Wikimedia India mailing list was to provide relevant information on a discussion that may impact content related to India, especially considering cultural and legal sensitivities around naming victims. Since the consensus had already been reached to avoid naming in this case, the message aimed to invite users from the Indian community to participate in formalizing this guideline in the Manual of Style. The notification highlighted the importance of input rather than advocating a specific stance, especially as we are aiming for consistency with Indian norms. I’ve aimed to keep the language balanced to encourage participation, but I appreciate your feedback on ensuring neutrality in these discussions. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- What you wrote in your email was not neutral. It was asking people to come in and express the opinion you wanted them to express. That's considered canvassing, even if your intentions were pure. Valereee (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused about why this discussion is dragging on. Every time a new case arises in India, we face the same issues with naming victims and sharing personal data. Courts issue orders, and media outlets highlight our inconsistencies repeatedly. We are frequently questioned about Misplaced Pages's lack of transparency regarding Indian cultural norms during our outreach activities.
- Why are we still debating this when a guideline could help us avoid these recurring issues? Instead of prolonging the conversation, I'd like to know what potential problems this guideline might cause by creating a culturally sensitive policy. I.Mahesh (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking only from my own point of view (as someone who supports the idea that we should be including cultural sensitivity in our considerations of BLP), this would need to be discussed at MOS:BLP before it could be implemented here. IMO it's a policy decision that would need to be discussed by more than a handful of people at a fairly-obscure talk page. Valereee (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, @Valereee. I appreciate your perspective on the need for cultural sensitivity in our considerations of BLP. I will be participating in the Commons Education Project:Adilabad shortly and will initiate the discussion at MOS:BLP when I return, provided there are no further developments on this page in the meantime. I.Mahesh (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking only from my own point of view (as someone who supports the idea that we should be including cultural sensitivity in our considerations of BLP), this would need to be discussed at MOS:BLP before it could be implemented here. IMO it's a policy decision that would need to be discussed by more than a handful of people at a fairly-obscure talk page. Valereee (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking out the link. Just to clarify, my goal in notifying the Indian Wikimedian community through the Wikimedia India mailing list was to provide relevant information on a discussion that may impact content related to India, especially considering cultural and legal sensitivities around naming victims. Since the consensus had already been reached to avoid naming in this case, the message aimed to invite users from the Indian community to participate in formalizing this guideline in the Manual of Style. The notification highlighted the importance of input rather than advocating a specific stance, especially as we are aiming for consistency with Indian norms. I’ve aimed to keep the language balanced to encourage participation, but I appreciate your feedback on ensuring neutrality in these discussions. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. The notification isn't neutral, though. Notifications need to be neutral in order to be not considered canvassing. You're allowed to say something like: "A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles#The Kolkata "case", wider implications? may interest members of this mailing list." That's really about it before people start thinking it's canvassing. Valereee (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can find the message in the archive here. I’d appreciate some clarity on how notifying Indian Wikimedians via the Wikimedia India mailing list about an ongoing Manual of Style discussion on India-related articles could be considered off-wiki canvassing. Given the relevance of this discussion to Indian legal and cultural norms, it seems reasonable to reach out to a community that may have valuable perspectives on the issue. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It may be an open mailing list, but unless there's an archive somewhere, I assume I won't be able to see the emails you sent? Valereee (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Inconsistencies in our coverage is kinda what we do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello all,
- I am not an active editor on the En Misplaced Pages project but associated with Indic language projects and initiatives. I urge the admins and interested Wikimedians to not read the lack of numbers on this talk page as a sign of disinterested behaviour among Indian Wikimedians regarding the issue that I.Mahesh has been advocating for.
- At a structural level the policy to have a consistent approach is to going to benefit a lot of Indic Wikimedians at their individual contribution level and for Indic Misplaced Pages projects at a policy level as well. It will also help us avoid negative attention from media trials and insinuations made from people who do not understand the Misplaced Pages ecosystem and can only observe that the information is in violation of the legal practice in India.
- Having a consistent approach across the manual of style will also help when news outlets and media houses pick up content from our platforms and recognise that it adheres to the legal and social practices followed here.
- In support of a consistent practice and adding of the earlier achieved consensus of not naming the victim into the Manual of Style Lahariyaniyati (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Lahariyaniyati, did you end up here because of a post to an email list? Valereee (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Valereee,
- I ended up here because I have been following the discussion on this page. I am also subscribed to the mailing list where this was being discussed. Lahariyaniyati (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Lahariyaniyati, did you end up here because of a post to an email list? Valereee (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try one last time to bring this up in the mailing list to gather more input. I believe that having a clear guideline is crucial, especially considering how previous cases might influence future discussions and judgments. It’s important for us to have a consistent approach to avoid any potential inconsistencies in our coverage. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- +1. Lacking interest for a guideline, this maybe should simply be dealt with case-by-case. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would interpret the lack of reply here as meaning that there is not significant interest in creating a guideline. See also WP:WEAKSILENCE. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Tamzin @Valereee @Ravensfire @Nil Einne I don’t think we’ll get much input from the Indian community, even though I’ve sent a message to the India-related mailing lists, and it seems they have chosen not to engage. I believe it's time for us to move forward and draft a guideline for Indian-related sexual crime articles. This will help provide clarity and consistency moving forward. I.Mahesh (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder, the victim’s name is mentioned only once in the title of a news citation provided as a reference for the article. However, on Misplaced Pages, we created a 'Victim' section and an infobox using the victim’s name. This highlights how, in some cases, we may be going beyond the media's treatment of such sensitive information, underscoring the need to reassess our approach in line with cultural norms and legal requirements in India. I.Mahesh (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, can someone point me to something WP:RS-y I can read about this particular Indian cultural norm we are discussing in this thread? Preferably easily accessible. It may be unrelated, but I vaguely remember reading something about that mentioning suicide regarding Sushant Singh Rajput on WP was objected to for similar reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, maybe this? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee Interesting, thanks. "Does the practice of protecting the anonymity of sexual assault victims save them from shame or perpetuate it?" is a good question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- While interesting, IMO one thing the article doesn't really touch that much on but is a key distinction here namely this also applying to deceased victims, even if their primary example is such a case. I touched on this in my (typical long) comment in the RfC but protecting the anonymity of living victims definitely isn't unique to India, actually it's IMO fairly common. Even in places like the US where there is no legal requirement to do so, some media do this. (From the Misplaced Pages PoV living vs deceased also makes a difference because long term it's not a BLP issue with deceased victims but it is for living victims.) And there are plenty of countries where there are legal requirements (always or sometimes). This came up recently in a high profile French case . That said, the French case does perhaps highlight another difference. I think in most "Western" countries where this is an issue, the media will generally name a victim who asks to be named if they legally can with the possible exception of cases where it might affect other victims or where the victim is underage. But the linked article suggests in India this isn't always the case there due to concerns that the victims might not have had the proper support to make this decision. Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Valereee Interesting, thanks. "Does the practice of protecting the anonymity of sexual assault victims save them from shame or perpetuate it?" is a good question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: avoiding mention of suicide is also something that comes up with New Zealand articles. This isn't just a cultural thing as there are restrictions on reporting although these have been significantly relaxed in recent years . Still while it's slowly changing, I think the media is often still reluctant to report it even in ways they can.
In NZ case we are able to generally just get by with following the sources. If we have at least one source which mentions suicide (in some way) we generally mention it in our article if not we don't. (Over time these aren't BLP issues anyway.) I don't know much about the situation in India but I'd imagine one difference is the size of the media ecosystem there means it's likely that in most cases some sources might report it whereas this isn't necessarily the case in NZ. Also I suspect it's more likely other non Indian sources might report such deaths.
Two high profile cases might be Greg Boyed and Pua Magasiva. Both of these did eventually receive mention that they took their own life and . In both cases the sources used to support this only came a while after death +. In most cases it's fairly transparent even in early articles what's being suggested but it's never stated.
In fact you can see see this source which does mention suicide does so with a link to this source . I also came across this Guardian source, so not even from a Kiwi publication which AFAICT despite talking a lot about the issue of suicide and depression, never actually mentions it was the cause or suspected cause of death.
Greg King and Olivia Podmore are other cases although in those cases it was add fairly early on based on sources .
However all of those cases were catalysts for significant discussion on mental health and/or suicide; and perhaps with the exception of Boyed, there were significant other issues which IMO increase discussion and meant the cause was generally mentioned. (With Magasiva, the domestic violence allegations, and with King and Podmore the various pressures on defence lawyers and high performance cyclists respectively.) While the death of highish profile (and so people we're likely to have an article on) does often result in these discussions, I suspect there might still articles we have where we don't mention the cause of death due to a lack of sources.
Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne You’re correct that in some Western countries, victims who explicitly choose to be named are often reported as such. However, in India, there’s concern that victims or their families may not have had adequate psychological or legal support to make such a decision, which is why anonymity is often preserved, even when permission might be granted. The Sushant Singh Rajput case also reflects the complexity of balancing media reporting with respect for privacy, especially in sensitive circumstances like suicide.
- It might be interesting to explore how Indian media practices differ from those in other countries, particularly when covering cases involving both living and deceased victims. The media ecosystem in India is vast, and sometimes, international outlets may report details that Indian outlets omit, creating further discrepancies in coverage. I.Mahesh (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Why not use regional names in regional scripts?
As i have read that we cant use regional names in regional scripts, But why the hell!? For example we should write "Ludhiana (Hindi:लुधियाना Punjabi: Gurmukhi-ਲੁਧਿਆਣਾ Shahmukhi - لدھیاݨہ Iast: ......" So what's the problem! Maheep Singh24 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOINDICSCRIPT evolved because of massive edit warring over which scripts should be included/excluded, and what order they should appear in. Language-warring was a serious problem in Indian articles, and, although it has not disappeared, it is far less of a problem than it used to be. - Arjayay (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Specify Urdu alphabet in MOS:INDICSCRIPT?
Obviously, the Urdu alphabet is not an Indic script, and it is not typically used in India. However, MOS:INDICSCRIPT would clearly seem to apply to situations where editors would want to add Urdu alphabet, so maybe this should explicitly be stated? Remsense ‥ 论 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Use of the Official Script
It's kinda discriminatory that other countries write their script in English articles, while India just can't.
Instead, I propose a new way. We can write it in all official scripts, instead of none. On National level in Hindi (and English), and on state level all the official languages.
Let's say the article is about Gangtok. We could write it as - Tripuri:Agartala Bengali:আগরতলা Shubhsamant09 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. This would simply return us to the massive language-warring problems that led to the introduction of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT in 2012, and its gradual refinement over the following 5 years. Although we still have some language-warring, this is nowhere near the levels prior to its introduction. - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers has an RfC
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: