Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is a noticeboard for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(84 more...)

Proposed deletions

(9 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

(2 more...)

Redirects for discussion

(3 more...)

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(10 more...)

Featured list removal candidates

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

(5 more...)

Articles to be merged

(35 more...)

Articles to be split

(15 more...)

Articles for creation

(77 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot
Shortcuts

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Mani Majra

[edit]

The lead paragraph is somewhat bizarre, Sector 13? Commercial hub? You have multiple instances of Manimajra together, and then also split apart to be Mini Marjra, there doesn't seem to be any consistency in the article. Then clearly it's written to be a town, so why not open the lead paragraph saying it's a town? Govvy (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport to Mumbai International Airport

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Maharaj_International_Airport#Requested_move_13_August_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janakiram

[edit]

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Janakiram and assess it per WP:BIO? The page might also need to be moved as well because it's not clear whether this is a one-word name or the person's first and last names mistakenly mushed together. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FULLNAME

[edit]

It is regarding the use of fullname of the subject according to MOS:FULLNAME as supported by sources. Kindly provide your views at Talk:Prashant Kishor#August 2024. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments at Talk:Mughal dynasty#RfC: Mughal dynasty lead

[edit]

PadFoot (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Ancient history of Fooland

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Ancient history of Fooland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Should Category:Ancient India be moved to Category:Ancient history of India? Ham II (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Nidamanuru, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nidamanuru, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tadepalle, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tadepalle, Vijayawada#Requested move 19 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 2024 Wayanad landslides

[edit]

2024 Wayanad landslides has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on sources and Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike

[edit]

Feedback on what the reliable sources allow us to say in an NPOV fashion about the motivations and goals of Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike is requested at: Talk:Mahatma Gandhi RfC on Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia"

[edit]

With regard to this discussion, there is, as far as I know, an 'informal consensus' to use "South Asia" rather than "Indian subcontinent." Is that correct? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is concerning articles about the pre-1947 history of the Indian subcontinent. (Edit: Only India–Pakistan–Bangladesh). PadFoot (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would apply to the pre-1947 history as well, witness Joya Chatterji's Shadows at Noon: The South Asian Twentieth Century, Yale University Press, November 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One has to be considerate and thoughtful in making changes though to pre-existing usage in articles. "South Asia" is less specific than India-Pakistan-Bangladesh. For example, Himanshu Prabha Ray's Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia" is about some other Indian Ocean rim countries as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best for all editors who often participate in this topic area to provide their opinions regarding this matter and form a formal consensus. PadFoot (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, PadFoot2008, and Sir Calculus: Yes. Unless one means something very specific in the geophysics of the very northern Indian tectonic plate, South Asia is the NPOV geopolitical and now also historical term for what was the "Indian subcontinent," and this applies also to the use of "India," "Indian," or "Indo-" for what was the geographical extent of the British Indian Empire. It made some sense in the days of the British Raj, as it was one country, but today "India" refers only to one successor state, and is highly problematic. For the same reasons, the formerly "Indology departments" in universities worldwide and almost unanimously adopted "South Asia(n) studies" departments.
Similarly, though this is not exactly the same topic, terms such as "Indo-Pakistani," "Indo-Chinese," "Sino-Indian," should not be employed if other more neutral (and not to mention unambiguous) terms such as "India-Pakistan," "India-China," "China-India" are there (unless it is something of longstanding convention (such as Indo-European languages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is your own editorial opinion. South Asia should be preferred when talking about post 1947 topics. India/Indian subcontinent is the historical term should be preferred for the Raj and before period. PadFoot (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Indian subcontinent (n.),” June 2024, (subscription required), "The part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical."Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings @Fowler&fowler! Thank you for pinging me here.
Firstly. It is important to mention the context which resulted in this discussion in the first place. A user made changes to a series of neutral articles over the course of some days, most of them territories in present-day Pakistan. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
The user who opposes the term "South Asia" in the concerned articles believes that "Indian-subcontinent" or simply "India" is more appropriate and considers it to be better & neutral.
This is why 'South Asia' appears to maintain WP:NPOV better:
Here is some text from Indian subcontinent: "Since the Partition of India, citizens of Pakistan (which became independent of British India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which became independent of Pakistan in 1971) often perceive the use of the Indian subcontinent as offensive and suspicious because of the dominant placement of India in the term". Further more, it also says the term is closely linked to the region's colonial heritage. I fail to understand how a term not considered neutral & is linked to British Raj rule more suitable for inclusion in concerned articles.
The referenced maps for the concerned articles also use "A Historical Atlas of South Asia".
Here is an article discussing South Asia's history.[1]
South Asia is clearly more appropriate as it maintains NPOV, is used by academics, and is also considered the politically neutral term and ends all disputes. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Indian subcontinent or simply India here for pre-1947 historical articles regarding the India–Pakistan–Bangladesh only, i.e, the region historically called India or Indian subcontinent. India (or now in full, the Indian subcontinent) is the historical region consisting of the modern day Indian Republic and Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thus India or Indian subcontinent should be preferred in a historical context. South Asia is a different, much broader term encompassing a wide region including Iran (UN definition) or Afghanistan (more common definition) to the Maldives. Besides, it is a modern term used for the post-1947 era. Pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche, a big contributor to India-related topics, for his opinion. PadFoot (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ping anyone. If you want a consensus, have an RfC and advertise in history, linguistics, MOS, and WikiProjects India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also advertise the RfC in Geography, Archaeology, etc. Take especially care to word the RfC neutrally and not express any opinion in the statement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Rawn3012, @Kautilya3, @Abecedare, @SKAG123 and others. PadFoot (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: PLEASE DO NOT ping anyone. There is no hallowed editor here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see your comment. Also since, we are talking of replacing subcontinent here and not South Asia, why notify country projects outside India–Pakistan–Bangladesh? I am not saying anything about Nepal or Afghanistan. PadFoot (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Indian subcontinent is also applied to the subducted part of the Indian tectonic place under the more Eurasian plate parts of Nepal such as Mustang, Nepal Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this only concerning India–Pakistan–Bangladesh, not any other country at all. PadFoot (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Padfoot2008, you are wasting community time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologised already, I didn't see your comment, how in the world am I wasting community time? I would have deleted the comment, but you know that wouldn't work. PadFoot (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We both missed each other's comments. But a neutrally worded RfC is the best way to go. It should be advertised in a broad range of relevant Wikiprojects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I apologise once again as well. I agree that a wide range of projects should be notified but the discussion is concerning only India–Pakistan–Bangladesh not any other South Asian country. It might give a false impression otherwise. PadFoot (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are knowledgeable editors on this topic in Wikiprojects History, Geography, MOS, Asia, .... We cannot leave Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, etc out as (according to the OED) that term is sometimes applied to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I started this discussion, and only regarding India–Pakistan–Bangladesh. That would be like adding an issue. I am not saying that there should be any changes in the historical articles regarding the other countries, this is not regarding the Indian subcontinent, this is regarding historical articles regarding IPB only, not the entire subcontinent. PadFoot (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When referencing sources, it's crucial to use the exact terminology mentioned in the source. If a source uses 'Indian subcontinent,' then 'Indian subcontinent' should be used; if the source uses 'South Asia,' then 'South Asia' should be used. The terms 'South Asia' and 'Indian subcontinent' are not interchangeable, and editors should not substitute one for the other based on personal preference, especially when countries like Afghanistan have no relevance to the context where the term is being used. It is highly recommended to adhere strictly to the terminology used in reliable sources. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from changing 'Indian Ocean' to 'South Asian Ocean'? DangalOh (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So in describing the anthropology of the Third Reich we should use their terminology, in particular "Aryan" with their meaning? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whaaaat???? That escalated quickly. Which scholars are you comparing to Nazis? All those people who referred to that area as the Indian subcontinent? Everyone pre-1947? What kind of argument is this? What the Nazis did was historical and cultural revisionism. They deleted names they didn’t like, and they added names they did like, irrespective of what major scholars had to say. That’s exactly what you’re trying to do here, not me. Lol what an example. DangalOh (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I think "South Asia" is right for post-independence periods, but I get less happy with that going further back. The article title using "ancient South Asia" is I think the first time I've seen that term, & I think ancient India is still a valid term, in for example Buddhist contexts including most of Nepal. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the titles with "Ancient South Asia," see not only that book of Himanshu Prabha Ray, but also these books of George Erdosy, Raymond Allchin, Bridget Allchin, J. Mark Kenoyer, Robin Coningham, Ruth Young (archaeologist).
    I believe it is especially used by archaeologists, and applied to the prehistory of South Asia, i.e. the one that predated recorded Indian history, i.e. IVC, Neolithic (Mehrgarh), if only for the inconvenient reason that most is in what is today Pakistan. Only highly biased India-POV scholars would consider Mehrgarh to be a feature of what is commonly called "Indian civilization," and not instead the neolithic as influenced by Iran and eventually Iraq. Similarly, it is also applied to Modern History, as in Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's Modern South Asia, which begins at least with Company rule, if not the late Mughals, or Ian Talbot's, A History of South Asia, Yale, 2016. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that makes sense. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pov pushing goes both ways. As per the article itself: Jean-Francois Jarrige argues for an independent origin of Mehrgarh. Jarrige notes "the assumption that farming economy was introduced full-fledged from Near-East to South Asia,"and the similarities between Neolithic sites from eastern Mesopotamia and the western Indus Valley, which are evidence of a "cultural continuum" between those sites. However, given the originality of Mehrgarh, Jarrige concludes that Mehrgarh has an earlier local background," and is not a "'backwater' of the Neolithic culture of the Near East."
    And the current topic is not even about who influenced whom. Ok lets even assume everything about indus valley is from near east. So what? I would suggest instead of diverting the topic and blaming scholars for having a point of view, make a good argument for why the Indian subcontinent without Afghanistan should be labeled as South Asia if sources don’t mention it that way. DangalOh (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it was a backwater, and by the way, I've read the Jarriges. The neolithic diffusion was from western Asia, but that doesn't mean that Mehrgarh was not original. For one the flora and fauna were different. The first attested use of cotton, of the drilling of teeth in vivo with a bow drill no less, of the domestication of Bos indicus, and so forth. What does it have to do with this topic?
    I was merely pointing out that Mehrgarh has little to do with the Indian civilization that resulted from another kind of diffusion, i.e. from Central Asia ca. 1500 BCE. For that reason archaeologists prefer the neutral terms such as South Asia. After all, the terms "Indo-Pakistani subcontinent," and "South Asian subcontinent" were also used once upon a time.
    The main issue is that the term "subcontinent" itself, which suggests a cohesive, self-contained geography and/or culture is increasingly outdated. Who uses it now? India by the way is a late arrival at the subcontinent table. There term was originally used for North or South America, later for Australia. My suspicion is that "Indian subcontinent" was originally a feature of British grandiosity about the Jewel of its Crown, which became bequeathed or was appropriated by the Republic of India and is now a feature of Indian grandiosity. Best to do away with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suspicion is irrelevant, incorrect and shows your ignorance. I doubt you even know why columbus named that different area as 'India'. You start by diverting topic to Mehrgarh and when someone replies you accuse them of changing the topic. Like what? And what do you mean by indian civilization only starting in 1500 bc? You mean only indo aryan migrations are responsible for the start of indian civilization? And Please stop using the term "Indo-Pakistani subcontinent." Enough is enough. No one in history referred to that geographical area as South Asia or Pakistan. It was not British South Asia either. "South Asia" is a very modern ans political term, especially used post-independence to provide newly formed religious states some validity and assign them some history (I suspect). And while that is fine, it doesn’t mean you can easily engage in historical revisionism and change or rwmove names as per your own will because you feel those names are now outdated. Additionally, South Asia is not equivalent to the Indian subcontinent, even in geographical terms. As @Vanamonde93 correctly suggested: south asia should be used in socio cultural context(even genetics) but Indian subcontinent should be used in strictly geographical sense. DangalOh (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding has been that "South Asia" is distinctly preferable in socio-cultural contexts, while "Indian subcontinent" might be more appropriate in strictly physical geographic uses. It does get a bit fuzzier as we move back in time, but in general I would default to the usage of contemporary academic sources, where "South Asia" is increasingly prominent, though it is clearly context-dependent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RegentPark mentioned the same thing in the talk page of the Mughal empire and Mughal dynasty articles. “South Asia”is typically the preferred terminology. Although sometimes it may depend on context. Nonetheless, I still think “South Asia” should be used in most cases. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://sai.columbia.edu/content/very-short-history-south-asia-six-key-themes-and-timeline
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=1242811870"