| Revision as of 14:56, 2 November 2009 editRegentsPark (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,689 edits →Indian Independence Movement: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:56, 3 November 2009 edit undoAndrew Gray (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,899 edits →"British India" and terminological nuance: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| Would an appropriate start to the movement be in 1857 or 1885? Should the ] form a part of the movement itself or be considered as the background to it? Different sources make different claims, so I'm not sure as to how to structure this (the article's existing - and unreferenced - position is to consider 1857 as the start of the movement). Please help out by providing inputs on the ]. Regards, ] (]) 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | Would an appropriate start to the movement be in 1857 or 1885? Should the ] form a part of the movement itself or be considered as the background to it? Different sources make different claims, so I'm not sure as to how to structure this (the article's existing - and unreferenced - position is to consider 1857 as the start of the movement). Please help out by providing inputs on the ]. Regards, ] (]) 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I guess the way to go is to include both dates, making it clear that while some sources state that it started in 1857, the majority of historians believe it started in 1885 (I'm assuming that is the case). --] <small>(])</small> 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | :I guess the way to go is to include both dates, making it clear that while some sources state that it started in 1857, the majority of historians believe it started in 1885 (I'm assuming that is the case). --] <small>(])</small> 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == "British India" and terminological nuance == | |||
| There's a debate on ] at the moment about whether the article should refer to him as being born (and working, etc) in "British India" or simply in "India", and whether or not the former has Pakistani political overtones (to which I say, ?). Thoughts from someone more familiar with historic usage would be appreciated... ] | ] | 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:56, 3 November 2009
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.
| Shortcuts | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
iloveindia.com
There are a large number of "references" being added to articles without edit summary from an IP number that seem to me to be intended to promote an external website rather than as an actual source for the articles they are being added to. For examples see 159.91.151.97. See LINKSPAM. Before commencing a lot of deletions, I thought it should be discussed here. If there is a consensus that these links should be deleted, is there a simple way to do a mass reversion?--KenWalker | Talk 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Iloveindia.com was used by me because it was a great source. There is no other intentions. It is a great link that is why I used it. These is no reason that it should be deleted. I did a great amount of clean up work as well and I don't want them to get undone. Please keep them as it is! Also if you wish to delete the iloveindia.com reference will the other clean up edits I made be erased? (159.91.151.97 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
- IP, I noticed that you were doing some very useful cleanup work on several India related articles, and even left a welcome message on your talk page earlier today. Unfortunately www.iloveindia.com is just another generic website, and we have no way to be confident if the information it hosts is reliable or not (see WP:RS for the type of sources we consider reliable on wikipedia). Therefore we need to remove citations to this website that you added in good-faith, but there is no reason for us to undo any of your other clean-up work. In fact would you be willing to remove the links yourself ? You can access the list of pages you edited at Special:Contributions/159.91.151.97. I would also recommend getting an account on wikipedia, which will make both editing and communications easier. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed all the iloveindia.com reference. (159.91.151.97 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC))
- It looks like there are plenty of them left although I have not examined them to see which user has added them. They should all go. --KenWalker | Talk 00:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, 159.91,151.97! It looks like you're making some good progress on your editing technique! But I would agree with KenWalker that iloveindia.com isn't a reliable reference. A number of the articles I looked at seemed very casual or informal. (At random, I just picked "How to Watch Birds" . Statements such as "thoroughly enjoyed by people of all age groups" are WP:PEACOCK and "make sure that you stick to certain tips" isn't even correct English.) In that article there are no citations, no references, no links, no date, no author. Reliable references need things such as those. Otherwise, Regards Piano non troppo (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like there are plenty of them left although I have not examined them to see which user has added them. They should all go. --KenWalker | Talk 00:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya - more eyes please
Hi
I've been copyediting this page for some time now. Another editor is making good-faith amendments (he is a successful student from one of these schools) but his edits are a bit NPOV. I would appreciate it if someone with a bit more knowledge of the Indian schools system (particularly in Delhi) could give this article a look; as there are only the two of us currently editing it's potentially a bit confrontational, and I don't want to discourage the other editor. Thanks. pablohablo. 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey. Just checking quickly, your most recent edit here is "good" . You added a reference, dated it, and removed the original research phrase "came as an exception to the image of government schools with the best of facilities". The smallest bit of caution: my guess is the original research phrase is correct. I don't know about Indian schools, and that phrase was highly useful to me. If it could have been "saved" by adding a reliable reference, or by moderating the statement, that would have been optimal. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Darjeeling, Sugauli Treaty, and Greater Nepal
I noticed an addition to the Darjeeling page stating that Darjeeling was a part of Nepal and was ceded to India under the Sugauli Treaty in 1819, but the article also says that the area was leased by the British from the Chogyal of Sikkim in 1839 and these two pieces of information are contradictory. The leasing from Sikkim is cited, but I am not confident about the quality of that source. I trimmed some or from the sugauli treaty part but would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge about this could take a look at it.
As a follow-up, I searched JSTOR for Sugauli Treaty and all I could find was an Economic and Political Weekly article that indicated that all the territory seized by the British was subsequently returned (see my note on Talk:Sugauli Treaty). The Greater Nepal article makes similar claims about the treaty (though, this may be ok because the article is about a movement and claiming that the movement rests on a belief says nothing about the veracity of that belief). Again, if someone who knows something about this can take a look, that would be great. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- According to this source Darjeeling was ceded to to the EIC on Feb 1st 1835. It's just a listing though and doesn't have treaty details. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The gazetteer of Sikhim (1894) confirms the cession (not lease) of Darjeeling in Feb 1835, with some details of the circumstances. Is this good enough ? Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The actual history as it relates to Darjeeling is much more complex than what I said above, and involves the Treaties of Segauli (1816), Titaliya (1817), Tunlong (1861) and Sinchulia (1865) besides the 1835 bit I mentioned, and some fighting in 1849-50. See This paper (pages 47-48) and EB1911 for more gory details (the dates in the two don't match up exactly but I guess that is because of the differnce in the timings of the skirmishes, signing of the treaties, transfer of land etc.) Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting. EB1911 says that Darjeeling was taken by the British by the 1816 treaty and handed over to Sikkim (apparently because Nepal had 'wrested' the region from Sikkim at an earlier unstated date). So, I guess Darjeeling was a part of the Sugauli treaty after all though apparently not in the way it is currently described. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that's interesting. I never delved so much into the history during the improvement of the article (back in 2006). So, what do you guys suggest? Do you need to change anything in the History portion of Darjeeling article? Or, any change in History of Darjeeling? What needs to be removed is that additional small sub-paragraph from History segment of Darjeeling article (and discussion in talk page in case of any dispute). Also, the article Sugauli Treaty definitely needs copy-edit, and use of more encyclopedic language.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- It does appear that the treaty of 1816 affected the status of Darjeeling, so that is a useful addition to the history of Darjeeling and that part of the subpara should be corrected and merged into the main history section (a separate connection with Nepal is unnecessary). I agree that the Sugauli Treaty is a bit of a mess and needs cleaning up and verification (I'm not sure if the treaty is better called Anglo-Nepal treaty of 1816 - some legwork may be necessary. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that's interesting. I never delved so much into the history during the improvement of the article (back in 2006). So, what do you guys suggest? Do you need to change anything in the History portion of Darjeeling article? Or, any change in History of Darjeeling? What needs to be removed is that additional small sub-paragraph from History segment of Darjeeling article (and discussion in talk page in case of any dispute). Also, the article Sugauli Treaty definitely needs copy-edit, and use of more encyclopedic language.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Help needed reading the Dravidian language
Please see the Navagraha image. Can someone read the text and tell description of the deities written on the plank, or at least their names in sequence from top to bottom. I want to separate the images so that they can be used in the Category:Graha articles. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can't read Telugu, but here's what I've been able to identify (or at least think I've identified):
- anyone, feel free to correct if I've made an error :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is it Telugu? Identifying them like thsi would be WP:OR. PLease somebody read the planks. --Redtigerxyz 05:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- References
- I can read Telugu. I had a difficult time with Kujudu, but was able to find a reference. HTH. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Saw the lion and id'd 5 as Budha, didn't pay attention to the snake lower body! -SpacemanSpiff 19:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Everyone. User:Nvvchar also left a message on my talk, confirming the list. --Redtigerxyz 03:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
New Pages - Indian villages and towns
There have been a large number of articles added recently about small villages and towns in India. Do they warrant inclusion into the project? I can start tagging them all as I patrol them if you'd like. Ferrantino (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Villages and towns are inherently notable and are covered by the gazetteer function of our five pillars. Also see Misplaced Pages:AFDP#Places. The pages will not get deleted without an AfD, and even then only if they are not verifiable. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I was asking if I should tag them as part of WikiProject:India or wait until they're more substantial. I assume the whole point of the project is to better flesh articles like these out, but I figured I'd ask first. Ferrantino (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry; when anyone says tag, I assume they mean "tag for deletion". Tagging the WP project will be helpful, but I think User:Tinucherian runs a bot that tags pages if they have the necessary categories on them. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I'll let the bot do its thing then, no sense jumping in and ruining any consistency. Take care. Ferrantino (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry; when anyone says tag, I assume they mean "tag for deletion". Tagging the WP project will be helpful, but I think User:Tinucherian runs a bot that tags pages if they have the necessary categories on them. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I was asking if I should tag them as part of WikiProject:India or wait until they're more substantial. I assume the whole point of the project is to better flesh articles like these out, but I figured I'd ask first. Ferrantino (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Collaborate on M. S. Subbulakshmi?
Anyone interested in collaborating on M. S. Subbulakshmi with a GA goal? I'm having a tough time finding biographical sources on my own, and can use some serious help on this article. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Featured list candidate
List of India women ODI cricketers is a candidate for FL status. Comments welcome here. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Indian Independence Movement
Would an appropriate start to the movement be in 1857 or 1885? Should the Indian rebellion of 1857 form a part of the movement itself or be considered as the background to it? Different sources make different claims, so I'm not sure as to how to structure this (the article's existing - and unreferenced - position is to consider 1857 as the start of the movement). Please help out by providing inputs on the article talk page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the way to go is to include both dates, making it clear that while some sources state that it started in 1857, the majority of historians believe it started in 1885 (I'm assuming that is the case). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"British India" and terminological nuance
There's a debate on Talk:Rudyard Kipling at the moment about whether the article should refer to him as being born (and working, etc) in "British India" or simply in "India", and whether or not the former has Pakistani political overtones (to which I say, ?). Thoughts from someone more familiar with historic usage would be appreciated... Shimgray | talk | 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Categories: