Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by C0MRADE (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 18 May 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts WT:IN WT:INB

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

India Project‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

World Classical Tamil Conference 2010

Hope the members involved in improving the projects related to India can contribute a lot to this article about the upcoming World Tamil Conference. I need your help improving the article guys. --Ben (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

navin chawla

I need help with the article on Navin Chawla, the current CEC of India. Any Indian with interest in political history and who grew up in the 1980's best remembers Chawla as a remove blp vio Aditya Ex Machina 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) which in itself is hard to come by against bureaucracy in a country like India. Now his wikipedia page is being sanctified with references to Mother Theresa and praising Chawla for EC's functioning these 50 years. I would like to put up a NPOV message on the page's title until everything's been discussed. People have a right to know that all these praising poetry about Chawla is mostly not true. please help. Thank you.

WP:BLP issues apply to noticeboards too. Since he has not been convicted of anything, and since Misplaced Pages is not a courtroom, please avoid such allegations without reliable sources backing up your claims. Aditya Ex Machina 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

got it. will be careful from next time. Thanks for the prompt. Kc27 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Greater Punjab region

Haryana, Delhi and HP are termed as part of "Greater Punjab Region" based on a couple of references but this definition has been disputed. There's a discussion at Talk:Haryana#Recent_Revert and I would appreciate any opinions on this issue. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Om Gupta, "Encyclopedia of India Pakistan and Bangladesh" being used to support the "greater Punjab" terminology is an unacceptable circular reference. In particular, the exact quote that is being cited was formulated by User:Sukh in this edit to the Punjabi people article in Jan, 2006. More generally, none of the numerous compendiums created by the prolific Om Gupta should ever be used as references on wikipedia since they are simply outdated versions of wikipedia articles (and possibly article from other sources), and as far as I can see, violate GFDL/CC-BY-SA license too.
• That said, it is true that Delhi is located in the (historic) Punjab region, the "greater" apparently being appended to disambiguate it from the Indian and Pakistani states. However, I am not sure that it is useful to present this in the article lede without context, since readers are less likely to know the location of "Punjab region" than know the location of Delhi itself - so it serves little/no expository purpose. In my opinion, it would be better to add this detail (with proper context) in the history or geography section. Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Here are the original discussions on the Om Gupta references: at RSN and at WT:INB last year. Wish there was a way to blacklist references, as we can blacklist external links. Abecedare (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Very clearly Anupam's frame of reference is the British Indian Punjab as he has mentioned in one of his comments on the Haryana talk page. The British Indian era is a recent historical happening and quite obviously the Greater Punjab region he is trying to protect was a historical creation of the British. If we (other users and myself) are trying to highlight older history, which stayed true for much longer than 100-200 years of British India, then that is not equivalent to rewriting history. In fact, Anupam is doing a great injustice to the ancient Kuru Janapada and the brave peoples of Haryana by trying to belittle their historical identity. The British merged Haryana into Punjab only after the mutiny of 1857. That does not qualify for a sweeping statement that Haryana was historically a part of Greater Punjab region. Only true for British times in India. In the same way, "Delhi is located in the (historic) Punjab region" of when (which historical period)? Very clearly, Delhi was a capital of Haryana as early as 12th century if not before that. Quoting a source from a reputed American journal, Pasanaha Chariu of Vibudh Shridhar (VS 1189-1230) an Apabhramsha writer, provides the first reference to the legend of the origin of the name Dhilli for Delhi.

हरियाणए देसे असंखगाम, गामियण जणि अणवरथ काम|

परचक्क विहट्टणु सिरिसंघट्टणु, जो सुरव इणा परिगणियं|

रिउ रुहिरावट्टणु बिउलु पवट्टणु, ढिल्ली नामेण जि भणियं|

Translation: There are countless villages in Haryana country. The villagers there work hard. They don't accept domination of others, and are experts in making the blood of their enemies flow. Indra himself praises this country. The capital of this country is Dhilli.

Kindly consider all this and remove the reference to Punjab region from the Haryana wiki. Rorkadian (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Punjab region reference needs to be necessarily removed from the Haryana etc articles. All that is needed is to place the information in the right section, present it with proper context (eg, "under British Raj, the region was part of the Punjab province"), and keeping it short since the article(s) are written in summary style. Ditto for the Kuru Janapada claim. The History of Haryana article can go into more details. (This point also applies to Delhi and other articles). Abecedare (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, I am presenting two sources below. Do you feel they qualify the fact that the Pakistani province of Punjab, the Hazara region of NWFP, Islamabad, and the Indian states of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and the National Capital Region of Delhi constitute the Punjab region? One source that attests to this fact is the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, which states that the Punjab region is

A historical region of the northwest Indian subcontinent bounded by the Indus and Yamuna rivers. It was a center of the prehistoric Indus Valley civilization and after c. 1500 b.c. the site of early Aryan settlements. Muslims occupied the western part of the region by the 8th century, introducing Islam, and although they later conquered the eastern part, Hinduism remained entrenched there. The Moguls brought the region to cultural eminence until their empire declined in the 18th century. The Punjab was controlled by Sikhs from 1799 to 1849, when it was annexed by Great Britain. It was partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1947.

Another reputable source, The encyclopedia Americana, Volume 23 states that the Punjab region "extends between the Indus River on the west, in Pakistan, and the Yamuna (Jumna) River on the east, in India." The Pakistani province of Punjab and the Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh, and Delhi fall under this historical Punjab region, spreading from the Indus to the Yamuna. I would like to mention that in India, Punjabi is an official language of the states of the region: Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and Delhi. In light of these facts, as well as the knowledge you possess, I humbly request you to formulate a conclusion on this issue. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, Anupam 08:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear enough. I don't dispute that Delhi belonged to the (historical) Punjab region as defined by the sources above, the Punjab province during the British rule etc. I think it is fine to mention this in the article, though (as I said above), it is better placed in the Geography or History section, where the meaning of those terms which may not be familiar to many readers can be defined briefly, else they are likely to inadvertently confuse it with Punjab (India). Does that make sense ?

§: An example of what I talking about: "Anne Hathaway was born in 1555/56" is a perfectly accurate statement, but it is likely to confuse a reader who is only familiar with Anne Hathaway, the actress (this actually occurred with me when I saw this diff a few hours back). So when we can foresee that readers may be confused, it is better to spell out what we mean (eg, "Shakespeare's wife, Anne Hathaway, was born ..."). In the case of Punjab region, Punjab province etc, this is best done in the relevant section instead of the lede. Abecedare (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Abecadare, thank you for your comment. I really appreciate it. However, can you please evaluate the sources I mentioned above and comment as to whether they verify the claim that the Indian states of Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and the NCR of Delhi fall under the historical Punjab region of India and Pakistan? This is the issue that a one editor is disputing although I feel that this is a well attested fact that is given in the sources mentioned above. If you do not dispute this claim could you please restore your removal of the content from the article on Delhi as it is buttressed by other sources as well. Thanks for your understanding. With warm regards, Anupam 04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the historical geographic associations of Delhi alongside the description of it's current surroundings. The edit may have introduced a bit of redudancy, so if anyone can think of way to avoid that, please feel free to take a stab at it. It may be better to continue any further discussion on this topic on Talk:Delhi page. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Anupam, if what you are saying is history, then what is this stuff being written by proper specialists, who are experts and not generalists compiling dictionaries and encyclopediae. What I am referring to is works like this, "India, the ancient past: a history of the Indian sub-continent from c. 7000 BC to AD 1200" by Burjor Avari, Publisher Taylor & Francis, 2007, ISBN 0415356164, 9780415356169. On page 68, the author says, "The centre of Kuru power was Kurukshetra while the Panchala base was further east. With the steady drying of Saraswati and Drshadvati, the Kuru moved base to Hastinapur. A new center called Indraprastha (modern Delhi) was founded. However, depite constant warfare, the Kuru and Panchala always stayed together in crucial moments and maintained a strong hold on Madhyadesa".

Very clearly, Haryana (Kuru Janapada) is being talked of in conjunction with Panchala, a state to the east of Haryana. Which is obviously referring to the present Western UP, where Haryanvi is still widely spoken and understood. This Kuru-Panchala combination is being referred to as the holding power of Delhi as well as Madhyadesa (whole of North India basically). Punjab does not come into the picture from any angle whether it be with reference to Haryana or Delhi. Kind regards Rorkadian (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rorkadian, I do not and never had any objections to your insertion of "Kuru" into the article on Haryana. You are welcome to keep it and I appreciate your efforts in researching on Haryana related topics. My argument is that the state of Haryana also fell under the historical Punjab region and therefore should merit an inclusion in the article since this is attested by encyclopædic references. I hope this clears things up. With warm regards, Anupam 04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Anupam, thanks a lot for the kind words. In fact, I've browsed through your article on the Pathans' descent and I appreciate it. Well, coming back to the issue at hand. It is a touchy subject because the incorrect choice of words can make it sound like hegemonistic designs or thoughts. On the other hand, if we record this on the Delhi page, then it may also become necessary to record Delhi's past as the capital of Haryana in the times of the Tomars and Chauhans. Anyway, whatever we do, we must be careful in presenting it in a way that it does not hurt people's sentiments. And the other thing is about historical perspective. It may be necessary to qualify the phrase "historical Punjab region" by letting readers' know that it pertains to recent history and not ancient and medieval histories. Kind regards, Rorkadian (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rorkadian, thanks for your compliments! I do not mind if we use the phrase "historical Punjab region" and we can format it similarly to the way Abecedare formatted the clause in the Delhi article. Let me know what you think. Also, I have no objections to stating that Delhi served as the capital for the Tomara dynasty and the Chauhans; feel free to include that in the History section of the Delhi article. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With warm regards, Anupam 07:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New article Battle of Attock needs appropriate category!

Hi WikiProject India, the above article should probably be categorized within WikiProject India, however I am not sure which category it would best fit under so thought I would leave it to those more experienced with this project to have a look at the article and add the appropriate project banner to the talk page. Thanks for your time! ialsoagree (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bihari lal

Hello, could an Indian editor please review the above article and assist in finding sources? It looks like it's primarily suffering from systemic bias. Sincerely, Blurpeace 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not Systemic bias, the problem is its notability. It is a speedy-delete. I found no RS on the net about this Bihari lal. I searched for "Bejing common games in 2008", which seem non-notable or a hoax. --Redtigerxyz 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Language template question

in the template for indian state languages, Manipuri is shown, but the languages more correct name is Meitei, or Meitei-lon, and the article on this language is titled Meitei language. should the template be changed to reflect this, or perhaps the common name put in parenthesis after the official name? i would guess template changes should be discussed before being made, even if they seem routine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Have replied there too. The official list of the Indian constitution lists it as Manipuri. --Redtigerxyz 16:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at Template talk:Languages of India. Please add your comments at the template talk. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Project-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• Project-Class India articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject India articles