Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:03, 16 January 2006

1911 EB

Misplaced Pages:1911 Encyclopedia topics/India has just 66 topics that are not covered in Misplaced Pages. Requesting all editors to fill in the red links if they have heard of the place or know more about it. Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of them may just be alternate spellings, such as Dev Prayag being spelt in EB as Deo Prayag etc., hence some care needed to avoid later-day merges. --Gurubrahma 10:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

True, I managed to weed out some of the ones I knew of. Topics which I had little knowledge of were kept there to be corrected/filled/redirected by our regional experts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's important. I'll fill in wherever I can. deeptrivia (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I had earlier did a number of them, and shall do some more. --Bhadani 11:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

have KO 6 from the list after creating them. --ΜιĿːtalk 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Now only 44 topics are left. --Bhadani 12:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Created Parandhar (Purandhar), Munshi, Najibabad and Nagina. Now, 36 are still left. utcursch | talk 10:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

28 remaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miljoshi (talk • contribs)

24 now. Khamgaon, Coringa, Ferozeshah and Irulas gone. utcursch | talk 12:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Down to 14. Nuked a few! =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yipee!!! Its Complete!!! Thanks everyone for helping out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Characterisation of Indians on the Missionaries of Charity page

I noticed the following text on the Missionaries of Charity page

Such criticisms as the auspiciously poor condition of health care may stem from cultural misunderstanding. Among some in India there is a conception of karma - the idea that people deserve their pain on the basis of the previous life, and there is no need to help them. The Misionaries of Charity on the other hand strive to help these "poorest of the poor" - people who otherwise die alone on the streets. The Sisters bring not only basic medical treatment, but much more importantly love and care. Opponents for critics of Theresa argue that such critics do so from the comfort of their Western opulence without serving the world's poor with nearly the selflessness that characterized her life.

My understanding of the Indan conception of Karma and Indians in general suggest this is a very unfair characterisation to say that some Indians feel that people deserve their pain on the basis of their previous life so there is no need to help them. Perhaps there are a few Indians who think like this but my understanding is that generally speaking, if anything for most Indians who believe in karma this would mean they should help people in pain not ignore them. But I'm not an Indian and this appears to be the best place to get the opinion of whether this text in it current form is fair, NPOV and accurate. You are welcome to discuss it here, but the talk page of the missionaries of charity will probably be the best place to do so. Also, I probably won't be taking any further part in this discussionNil Einne 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New category

I just created a new category, Category:Indian plays. I believe that this category should contain plays from all vernacular languages of India apart from English plays written by Indians. Old plays such as those by Kalidasa and new plays such as those by Girish Karnad, apart from several plays from the rich tradition of Marathi Theatre are notable and hence should fit well in this category. Hence, I request you to populate this category. --Gurubrahma 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Political Integration of India

Hi guys - I request your opinions and advice on elevating this article to FA status. I've started a peer review, and I ask for your input.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

India, Indian subcontinent, South Asia

Is there any clear policy regarding when to use which? Some editors are fast replacing all "India"s and "Indian subcontinent"s with "South Asia", even if it looks crazy, e.g. something like "Alexander invaded northwestern South Asia", etc. Would be great if we could evolve some formal guidelines. deeptrivia (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica -

• South Asia: "South Asia, in the limited sense of the term, consists of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, peninsular India, and Sri Lanka. The Indo-Gangetic Plain is formed from the combined alluvial plains of the Indus, Ganges (Ganga), and Brahmaputra rivers, which lie in a deep marginal depression running north of and parallel to the main range of the Himalayas..."
• Indo-Gangetic Plain: "also called North Indian Plain, extensive north-central section of the Indian subcontinent, stretching westward from (and including) the Brahmaputra River valley and the Ganges Delta to the Indus River valley. The region contains the subcontinent's richest and most densely populated areas. The greater part of the plain is made up of alluvial soil, deposited by the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers..."

In other words, "South Asia" is not equal to "Indian Subcontinent" but there is an overlap. It may be a politically correct term of recent times (presumably coined by merica). However, "Indian Subcontinent" continues its historical , geographical , geological , anthropological , genealogical (Genealogical_DNA_test#Biogeographical_ancestry) and cultural relevance, and is used for the correctness of references. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if we all editors from this region (and elsewhere) decide once and for all, about usage of these terms, possibly somewhere on a WP:MoS related page. deeptrivia (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we use the term South Asia when we speak in political terms. For geographical, historical etc, we use the Indian subcontinent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do have the same understanding. -- Sundar 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I have accordingly requested one of the users to use the term as per the context of the contents - my message to Siddique. Moreover, I find a requirement that there should be an independent page for Indian subcontinent as this is a geographical and historical reality. A redirection link from there to South Asia looks highly unusual and unreal. --Bhadani 11:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui (talk · contribs) has even changed the terms inside quotations, and sometimes the sentences have become grammatically incorrect. I don't care if South Asia or India/Indian sucontinent is used, but maybe they should both be used equally to keep the text diversified? But Siddiqui (talk · contribs) has also in various articles deleted text and references without any explanation on the talk page or in the edit summary, which I think is bad behaviour. For example and other examples. --Kefalonia 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this user myself, and he does seem to have a policy of deleting things that he doesn't agree with - even if they are appropriate for the article. I have been meaning to change some of his changes made to the Punjab (Pakistan) article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, some of the edits are hilarious. Like he replaced the sentence about enslavement of women with "Some of the Maratha women chose to marry the handsome Afghan soldiers. " LOL. deeptrivia (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Khalistan and Operation Blue Star

I'd just like to bring to everyone's attention the very very very long running revert wars on Operation Blue Star and Khalistan. Can anyone do something about this? As we all know, both these issues are quite 'explosive' and everyone has their own opinion as to what happened and why.

It's at the stage now when both articles are a load of POV crap no matter which version they are reverted to. They need serious collaborative work to sift through all the inaccuracies not only in the articles, but also inaccuracies reported in the media (or more commonly, little concrete information at all reported in the media).

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indian wikipedians on the Arbcom election

This might interest you. Magicalsaumy is standing for Arbcom elction. Do add other Indian wikipedians candidates you might know. - 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New India image uploads

Please use them where you find appropriate:

Image:Spicesindia.jpg
Image:Mirrorwork.jpg
Image:Secondclassrail.jpg
Image:Rajghat.jpg
Image:Jaipurgarments.jpg
Image:Danceindia.jpg
Image:Assamveggie.jpg
Image:Mysorepalace.jpg
deeptrivia (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancient India

Currently above page takes one to History of India, which is perhaps not correct. I would like to share my thoughts with the editors interested in the above topic. On the talk page of Ancient India, I had given my comments. We must strive to create a proper page for Ancient India. This is a challenging task, but not impossible. I invite further comments. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How "ancient" is Ancient India? When did that period end? That's the question that needs to be answered first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are many issues to resolve first, regarding both temporal and geographical scope of the article. An article like that would definitely mention places like Taxila, which might attract people to rename it as Ancient South Asia :). A common "end" of the ancient period is considered to be the end of Harsha's empire. deeptrivia (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

India related Bot ideas

Do India related Bots exist? I am trying to learn the Python framework for writing Bots. I already learnt how to touch a category. Touching involves making no edits to an article, but opening and saving it. If you guys need a new category that was recently added to a template touched, do let me know. I have some ideas for India related bots. Would like your ideas too. Please list below your ideas and comments.

• Census Bot: A bot that looks at Census (2001) website and creates non-existent city articles as stubs. This will help create thousands of Indian city/town stubs and reduce a lot of manual work. The bot could create a sentence in the lines of "This <town> is part of the state of <state> in ]" and add a ] category to it.

- Ganeshk/_C\ 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought about this one too, since they've done a similar thing with US towns. The only thing is, I have no clue how to write a bot. deeptrivia (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wictionary Bot: A bot that looks up page titles from the wictionary, and searches Indian language dictionaries like http://www.shabdkosh.com/, and adds the meaning at an appropriate place (alphabetical order among other language entries). deeptrivia (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here know some programming? Bots desperately needed to populate articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Rambot. This bot does the same thing for US towns and cities. It would be great if someone could modify the source code of this bot to make it work Indian towns and cities. deeptrivia (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How about asking at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests ? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Udham Singh

A user named user:Deepakkamboj has created a page called Deepak Kamboj which is an exact copy of Udham Singh. While he says in one place in the article that Kamboj was known as Udham Singh, that is not very unconvincing. The google hits that I get when I give both "Deepak Kamboj" and "Udham Singh" is from a Kamboj society. Does anyone know whether Udham Singh was also known as Kamboj, or if it is a vanity page ?

Btw, Udham Singh had a category 'Indian murderer' which I deleted. There is still one called 'assassin', which I am not sure about. Tintin Talk 20:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if this is true. None of the links provided in the article use the word "Deepak Kamboj." Most probably a hoax. --Gurubrahma 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it as user experiment/vanity/your_reason_here. utcursch | talk 10:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Prosperous Pongal

I wish you all a prosperous Pongal. --Gurubrahma 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy and prosperous Pongal to everyone from me also -- just discovering this page; will participate more in future. ImpuMozhi 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Useless custom?

This is a question that I have been wanting to raise with other Indian Wikipedians in general and now I have found the place for it: In most English-language page dealing with some 'Indian' subject (place/person/deity/whatever), it is the custom to translate the 1-or-2 word page heading into an appropriate Indian language. Note, the whole page is purely in English, just the name is translated. What is the point in this?? What purpose is served? Whom does it help, and in exactly what way? Any argument of "clarifying pronounciation" falls flat because:

• it does not help anyone (Indian or foreign) who cannot read that language;
• people who can read that language surely already know the pronounciation? Because nothing new is being translated: just the name.

I know that a few other cultures (Arab, for instance) do the same thing, but perhaps we could take a step towards eliminating this futile custom. The Europeans (incl. the Americas) and Africans seem to have no interest in this kind of thing. What do the other Indian WP's think on this point? ImpuMozhi 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)