Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

IAST??

Should Article-names be in IAST or standard English spellings? e.g. should it be Mahabharata (std. English) or Māhabhārata (IAST). Is there any MOS available? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, it was discussed. As that shows, this needs to be decided on case-by-case basis. I don't think we can do better than that, as there's an obvious need to support spellings that users could be expected to search for, as opposed to what's correct -- or, for that matter, hypercorrect. rudra (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for notable religious leaders in ISKCON

• Question On the official Governing Body Commission website it states that there are "around 48" members. [1] So my question is are all 48 notable due to membership on the GBC of ISKCON? These 48 could be a good starting place for a discussion on a minimum standard for notablilty for religious leaders in ISKCON. I believe there needs to be some criteria set for establishing, "what is a notable ISKCON religious leader?" Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographic identification of staff members of Indian cricket team

Hi everyone. I took some photos of the Indian squad recently and there were also pictures that I took of hte Indian managerial staff etc, who are former players (likely) and so forth. I need some help identifying them (link below). Also there were multiple attempts to take the same photo, so there are some photos to choose from. Everyone welcome to express an opinion or identify the Indian if possible. User_talk:Blnguyen#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_the_Indian_cricket_team_for_use_in_articles. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Devanagari in Chaat article

I added an etymology section sourced from the Oxford English Dictionary. I used an online tool [2] to generate the Devanagari script, but I am not an expert, so I would appreciate if someone would check to confirm if it is correct. Dforest (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is correct. - KNM ^Talk 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dahi and Strained yoghurt

Dahi is listed as a type of Strained yogurt. Someone posted a comment that Dahi is not necessarily strained yoghurt. I mentioned that I've heard it referred to as chakka or chakka dahi. But, I am not a native Hindi speaker, so would someone care to comment on Talk:Strained yoghurt? Dforest (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bharat-Rakshak - RS or non-RS

I see Bharat Rakshak being used as a source on several articles. Can somebody convince me that it is RS? Or I plan to start removing them. I took a peek here and the links detailing mainstream media coverage of BR certainly proves that they are 'notable'. But reliable? Who are these people who run that site? What are their credentials? Are they acknowldged experts in the field? Or are they just amateurs taking themselves too seriously?.. These are the things that concern me most. Also, the fact that some time back I'd seen them plagiarising content from wikipedia doesnt inspire confidence. Does anyone here have info about the people who run that site. Please come forward. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I had raised this same issue a few months ago and it did not lead to a logical conclusion. So I am raising it again. Sarvagnya 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, the best way to convince Bharat Rakshak is a reliable source is the fact so many books provide Bharat Rakshak as reference and not to mention many international think tanks. I ran a search on google and found 184 books provide Bharat Rakshak as a source.

i can give you few examples

• Fortifying Pakistan: The Role of U.S. InternalBy C. Christine Fair , Peter Chalk, ISBN 1929223889

• India's Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between by Ashley J. Tellis, ISBN 0833027743

• South Asia's Nuclear Security Dilemma: India, By Lowell Dittmer, ISBN 0765614189 Ajay ijn

(talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/main/Media.php has a collection of media articles pertaining to Bharat Rakshak. That should satisfy notability I guess.
2. If they were amateurs, I don't think 184 books would have used their pages as sources of information. (Google Books Search Result).
3. Even Government of India and Armed Forces papers use Bharat Rakshak as a source of information. For eg: Indian Navy - Indian Navy’s Role As An Instrument Of India’s Foreign Policy. Also see Analysis of multi-axis acceleration profile in a Supermanoeuvrable aircraft and Is backache a serious malady among Indian helicopter pilots
4. Bharat Rakshak Members have been acknowledged as reliable sources and experts in the field. They may not be experts, but 10 years of being involved in this field should count for something. Senior Bharat Rakshak Members have themselves written books and papers - for eg. The India-Pakistan Air War of 1965. Arun Vishwakarma, the manager for their missile website has been cited by Richard Speier, the person who created the MTCR in his paper on India's ICBM. PVS Jagan Mohan (who manages the IAF webpages) have been commended by the Chief of Air Staff, which is very rare, considering that this isn't usually given to Civilians. Additionally, Kapil Chandni, another Senior member, was part of a panel discussion on the Indian MRCA tender along with Generals and Air Marshals. All these should be ample proof of, if not expertise, at least, competence and reliability of the people who run Bharat Rakshak.
5. References for AFM-L Alfa, Global Security.org cites BR as a primary reference. The US Navy Centre for Contemporary Conflict also recommends Bharat Rakshak as a resource for information about South Asia (ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/southAsia.asp). As does the US Army [3]. And the US Air Force [4]. And the Navy [5].
6. Both the Indian Air Force and Navy have posted BR as a featured website for information. This endorsement by the armed services should be at least an indication (if not proof) that BR is a reliable source of information.
7. Another point to note - common members of the forum are not the people who write and manage the website (although they too are involved in the forum). readers shouldn't confuse the Forum with the website.

^T/_@Sniperz11 _edits^sign 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not a worse source than the US Ministry of Defence. They definetly have a positive opinion of the Indian armed forces and reflect this with their well researched articles. Besides this POV issue there is nothing wrong with using this site as a source since they are not extremists. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Wandalstouring's assessment. One does have to distinguish between their news listings and articles, though. In my experience they are much more reliable than the regular Indian media when it comes to aerospace topics, even The Times of India or The Hindu. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree, I don't believe that any blanket judgments are possible about the website. Its actually a collection of websites, according to this page, and some of those are obviously personal sites with little or no oversight and no expert knowledge; others appear to have 'boards' that might or might not exercise editorial control. They are definitely a much worse source than either the Indian or any other defence ministries. Relata refero (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know about other defence ministries, but have you seen the official websites of the indian army, air force, navy and compared it with this? the official sites bear no comparision in terms of coverage depth or expertise. The original discussion initiated was whether the site is RS or not. The site is a collection of articles with many retired people penning their thoughts. who are we to decided whether a particular article is reliable or not? I can understand if the article came from a prev unknown person, but when someones rank, background etc is given, or someones publishing credentials is given, you cant argue with that.

"the fact that some time back I'd seen them plagiarising content from wikipedia doesnt inspire confidence." Care to substantiate this by posting any links to the pages on that site? and ofcourse if you knew Wikipedia and its GNU licensing, you shouldnt really give a fig about who 'plagarises' wikipedia . jaiiaf (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How many individuals who are retired with the rank of colonel and above are there? My estimate is in the thousands. Just because someone had a certain rank and a website doesn't mean that their views are notable, or that their facts are reliable.

The Indian army website may not look the best, and may not have information of the depth we would like, but what it has is more reliable than a self-published set of websites. Relata refero (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I (and others) say it is reliable based on the information we read - it is upto the original poster and you to substantiate it thru facts that it is not a reliable source where quoted. That should solve our issues and I am sure all of us would agree when we see evidence of unreliability , correct? jaiiaf (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"..reliable based on the information we read.." is precisely the test that we do not use, I'm afraid. Its up to you to demonstrate that each website you cite - and remember, B-R.com appears to be a "compendium" of websites - has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - I will keep using it whenever I feel the need to cite it for any relevant wikipedia article if I know it is reliable (as will others). Obviously someone with a greater knowledge will refute it if he knows better, citing facts and sources against it. Now what was it that we were disagreeing upon? jaiiaf (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will keep using it whenever I feel the need to cite it for any relevant wikipedia article if I know it is reliable - when you "know" it is reliable?? as in.. when it suits your POV? Sarvagnya 22:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"...The site is a collection of articles with many retired people penning their thoughts...." Retired with what background? I could only spot surgeons and software professionals and various other assortments there. Please point out any real experts with a background in military and political affairs that I may have missed. I dont give a "fig" how much time a novice has spent on reading up on a subject. Or how seriously deluded he is about his expertise. Neither of us is qualified to make such judgements and that is why we go by WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and such other non-negotiable statutes of wikipedia. The onus is not on me to prove the non-RSness of the site. It is for you to prove its credentials.

If experts have indeed cited/quoted from BR, it only means that they've taken the pains(and lots of it, I'm sure) to vet it themselves and seperate the wheat from the chaff - an exercise, we as editors of wikipedia shouldnt be expected to endure even if we thought of ourselves as being adequately equipped to carry out such an exercise. You cant be a little pregnant and a source cant be a little RS -- there's plenty of blinkered jingoistic puff pieces on that compendium of sites and this one, by an acknowledged 'leading light' of the site who heads its 'think tank' and one which BR counts proudly among its 'e-publications' is a case in point. The way the noble surgeon sets us up with a gem of a -

is particularly discomfiting. It is sources like these and their abuse that is at the heart of possibly every single 'content issue' on wikipedia. BR, to their credit are doing a good job and are certainly notable. 'Notability' however, doesnt automatically accord it 'reliability'. It is certainly a good place to start one's research but it cannot be counted as research itself. Some of wikipedia's articles are also of scholarly grade and many of them account for the very best you'll find anywhere on the internet. And yet, Wikipedia is not RS and for very good reasons. The same holds for BR too. And as for the plagiarism thing, this is what I was referring to back then. Sarvagnya 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Retired with what background? I could only spot surgeons and software professionals and various other assortments there.

You need to look closer like - [6] or [7] or [8] - How many surgeons and software guys do you count? Anyways what jingoistic stuff the site owners post is not my concern, but are the individual articles contributed by the individuals in the above link are upto the merit or not in terms of reliability - that is what I will count.

Eitherway, you have made up your own mind, as I have mine. I am not here to convince you otherwise, I am here to edit wikipedias articles and enrich them as i see fit. Others will change my inputs if they dont like them. So I really dont get the point of this discussion. jaiiaf (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you Depending on Bharat-Rakshak?? Just go to websites of Defence services you will get all your source http://armedforces.nic.in/ just see this site you will get the sources. PLEASE DONT 100% RELY ON Bharat-Rakshak Suyogaerospace (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

mangal font

I started an article about most used devnagari font created by Professor Raghunath k. Joshi with the help of some recent Marathi news paper sources. I hope and request you to join in editing this article.

Mahitgar (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Districts of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan article mentions the number of districts in Rajasthan as 32 in some places and 33 elsewhere. The Districts of India website has it as 32,^[9] and the Rajasthan government website counts 33.^[10] Does anyone know why there is this difference? Mkeranat (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the Rajasthan government has got it right. A new district called Pratapgarh was created in 2006. I've updated the Rajasthan article to reflect this change. Mkeranat (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts: Astronomical Dating of Indian Texts...

I am generaly unfamiliar with Indian History, which is no fault of mine but rather the lack of the existence of comprehensive non-pretentious works regarding our History.

But recently I have stumbled on articles pertaining to the Astrnomical Dating of certain events in Indian Texts where Celestial events were recorded in conjunction with the events taking place at the time. This (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=273107) Times of India Article is a fine example, where the assertion is made that based on the astronomical positionings recorded in the Ramayana, Lord Ram's birth can be dated to January 10, 5114 BCE (or BC).

Why aren't these assertions debated more often, these avenues explored more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.236.26 (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's blooming nonsense. ("The software proves that on that given day there was indeed a solar eclipse (with Mars in the middle)" Riiiiight). The earliest mention of planets (graha) is in the Atharvaveda Parishishtas, dated to 200BCE-200CE. Planetary configurations in the Epics were used for their portentive value, and indicate only the astrological notions current at the time of composition. You might also want to think about why the earliest text on Jyotisha, the Rk vedanga jyotisha that people want to date to 1400 BCE, had no mention of planets at all. Anachronism, any one? rudra (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you have proof for the dates you mention, at least the dates that I have mentioned are proved via establish astronomical software. Furthermore just because we associate Mars with being a planet today, that does not mean that all time ago it was simply another "object" in the night sky. Mars existed and was observable whether we knew it was a planet or not. Finally I don't believe the Article mentions that in the Ramayana there was this account of Mars being in the middle. It just so happened that when they read the results from the software they noticed that Mars was in the middle.

Also, one should note that the dates found in the software have nothing to do with the solar eclipse, per say, but more to the positions of the stars (or night sky shiny objects). I would like someone to address why the position of the Astrological Objects as mentioned in the Ramayana date to the era I mentioned before. 66.169.236.26 (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• For the AV Parisishtas, see BR Modak, The Ancillary Literature of the Atharva-Veda, New Delhi, Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan, 1993, ISBN 81-215-0607-7, p.470ff.
• For Jyotisha in general and the vedanga jyotisha in particular see either of two works by D Pingree

1. "History of Indian Astronomy" in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography
2. Jyotihsastra, Vol VI Fasc.4 of J Gonda (Ed) History of Indian Literature, Weisbaden, Otto Harrassowitz 1981.

• For Mars in the middle, a diagram of the Solar System should set you straight. rudra (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue with those books, as I do not have the ability to read them at the moment, not that I could or would in the future. But your failure to understand the Mars in the Middle depiction kinda sorta really does point to the whole "Indian Arrogant" thing. Mars being in the middle doesn't mean that it is between the moon and the sun; it means that if you were to line up the moon, the sun, and mars - mars would appear in the geometric center of the sun and moon, as seen from Earth.

Futhermore, you haven't fully refuted the other astronomical data sets used to verify the timeline. Unless your implying they just made it up.

Hello all I'm new here !

Just wanted to say Hello to everyone. Much to read and learn here, I'm sure I will enjoy ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.88.187 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We welcome you. Why don't you create a user account so that we can get to know you better? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Orient Longman

This wretched "article" certainly asserts notability and thus can't be "prodded". My guess is that the company really does merit an article, and so an AfD would just be a waste of everyone's time. However, googling turns up little. Does any of you have an actual book about the history of publishing in India, or is anyone here otherwise able to say some more that's worthwhile on the subject? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This would help: http://www.orientlongman.com/aboutus.asp =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

stub-ified. Doldrums (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible ISKCON subproject

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#ISKCON work group or subproject? regarding the possibility of creating a new work group for articles relating to ISKCON. Any individuals who have opinions on the creation of such a subproject, either as part of this project or the religion project, should feel free to share their opinions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai police

Hi all I am editing Mumbai Police's page for last 2 months I have added two sections to it. Now should i remove its stub status ?? If any one is having suggestion regurding this article please tell me. Thank you Suyogaerospace (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not classified as stub. What exactly is your question? gppande (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

on discussion page it is written as Stub. Suyogaerospace (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Law enforcement|class=stub is written in brackets on discussion page under edit button. Just like u edit article u can also edit discussion page. You can remove this tag if u think it good but let admins do this. Also dont create a new section for reply instead reply in same section (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (strikeout after thread consolidation. rudra (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Best way to rate the quality of an article is to add page here. Assessment team will give it the rating. gppande (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Portal India really maintained?

I noticed WP:PIN is not at all updated. The FP and FA are too old ... from 2006 & 2007. Is this portal maintained ? gppande (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Suyogaerospace (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

May be this portal is forgotten and some of us need to take a lead to revive it gppande (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been no FA or FP in 2008 (if i am correct), the selected pictures and articles are rotated automatically (computer programmed script) which are either FA or GA. If u find any FA which comes under Wikiproject india is not listed pls be free to inform me. However u are correct the News section is hardly updated. You may take the lead and do it urself, but dont forget to provide reference. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if an Indian article gets FA or GA it automatically refreshes this page and same with pictures. - right? So there is no selection process here as we have for main page. Actually I was trying find out the nomination process and couldn't find any page stating this and so left a message here. Maybe, we need to document this somewhere so people are aware of this automated fact. Nice work though, automation is good. gppande (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Any India related FA gets selected as a "Selected article" for India portal. But the selection process is not automated, someone has to do it. See Portal:India/Selected articles. On teh other hand, an India-related article which is not an FA can be a "Selected article" for portal India through the Nomination process. Unfortunately, this process has remained largely inactive for a long time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Euro-chauvinist sobriquets/titles

Please have a look at the Chanakya article. It is not any honourable, and on the contrary rather disgraceful to see Chanakya being described as the "Indian Machiavelli". It is stupid, because Machiavelli lived 2000 years after Chanakya. As an Indian I didn't even know about Machiavelli and found it funny that Chanakya was defined by someone who lived in Italy 2000 years after him. Is the English wikipedia only meant to serve Europeans or Americans or is it international in the true sense?
It's not just this particular case, but rather the general Eurochauvinism that is silly- I've heard of things like Telugu being called "Italian of the East" and Samudragupta as the "Napolean of India". I would request the WikiProject India to have a strong policy on this issue. Maquahuitl^talk! 09:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Very correct point. We hardly see mentions of Venice as 'the Alappuzha of the West', but do see Alappuzha as the 'Venice of the East'. I think we should be very stringent on these types of comparisons. --Soman (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to view India related topics through these types of Western comparisons. Ism schism (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support friends. On second thoughts, I decided that if I have the right to see things as an Indian, then Europeans have the same right too. Therefore, titles "given" by the Europeans can perhaps be mentioned as trivia where it is specifically mentioned the person who gave it. Maquahuitl^talk! 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that should be said though, is that there are lots of Western cultural references in Indian public debate, whereas there are far less Indian cultural references in Western public debate. This of course is part and parcel of the colonial legacy, but nevertheless is a real phenomenon. I think it of to state 'X is sometimes called the Y of India', on the condition that it is a common usage in India itself. --Soman (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I think it worth repeating the point in the first post that it is not just Eurocentric, it is more western-centric, since it includes the US as well. Second, much or maybe even most of the English language writing on India these days is by Indians. Many of these usages, even if they were originated by westerners, are continually repeated and reinforced by Indians. I doubt that they would have any staying power otherwise. The apparently obligatory description of Bangalore as the 'silicon valley of India' for instance. And there's the establishment of the originally derogatory name 'Bollywood' (not to mention its sillier derivatives of Lollywood, Tollywood, et.c.) for the cinema genres of India and neighbouring countries. Imc (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should do away with such Eurochauvinist(America is an extension of Europe anyway) titles completely in the lead section at least. There is no doubt that we ourselves carry forward some titles like Bollywood and so on, but I am not talking, or rather emphasising upon these current era entities. It's the historical characters that I am more concerned with. And more so, defining old in terms of the new is pure nonsense. Maquahuitl^talk! 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject India Transportation and Wikiproject India Education ??

anyone can start these two projects??Naveenpf (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the name can be Wikipedia:WikiProject Transportation in India and Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India. I can join them but i am busy in my real life, so will not be able to start it right now, may be i can help in April. If there is enough support (atleast five members) we can start it. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to convention, it is "Transport in India" and not Transportation (which is American English). The main problem is getting active contributors/members. However, it will be good to have those projects, especially transport.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. and Mrs. Iyer FAC

The article on the film Mr. and Mrs. Iyer (singlehandedly upgraded by User:Mspraveen) is up for Featured article candidacy here. Please express your opinion in the FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul and images: DEBATE NEEDED

Original Image

Nikkul's image

Please see this snapshot of Mumbai: [11]. User:Nikkul has added a lot of images that have little or no relation to the accompanying text. I have reverted Nikkul's edits and am trying to gain consensus here for the following:

1. Images must hold encyclopedic value. They should directly support the accompanying text. For example a reader should not deduce "that two palm trees signify a tropical climate"
2. If condition (1) is satisfied, images should be aesthetically pleasing.
3. Images should have a succinct caption.

Please lend your views. This is an important discussion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with each of those points with the proviso that they apply in contentious situations. (In other words, only if someone objects, or there are several alternatives.)

It should be plainly obvious that images are covered by the same prohibitions against original research that govern our words. Relata refero (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, particularly when it's a choice between two images. I would add that contentious images would also be covered by Reliable Sources - in other words, there should be a reliable source proving that the particular image is what the caption states (or the image's context implies), and that it relates directly to text in the article. ~ priyanath talk 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As a battle-scarred veteran of the India-page image wars, and as an admirer's of Nichalp's clear thinking and succinct writing, I can't agree more. Nikkul, apparently still hasn't figured out that Wikipedia is not a glossy brochure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the views of Nichalp and others. At the same time, we may suggest Nikkul to explore the possibility of uploading the images to Commons. --Bhadani (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• First off, I would like to note that Nichalp never let me know about this debate, which is a rather sneaky way of discussion.
• I have brought hundreds of images to Wikipedia to replace bad quality images.
• There is no rule on Wiki that says that a nicer image is inferior to a bad image as shown -->
• Images I have added in the Mumbai page:

1. The Gateway of India image is not only the icon of Mumbai. India got its freedom when the last of the British left through it in 1947. The gate is the birthplace of the nation's independence.
2. Mumbai has seen a huge population boom and a huge construction boom since independence. Its a huge part of the history and making of the present day city.
3. Cuffe Parade is an important financial district, home to the World Trade Center and numerous other business related enterprises.
4. The Bandra Kurla Complex is the newest business district and it has shifted businesses into the suburbs

Fowler's addition to Mumbai Economy section: A large part of the city's recycling is done manually in the district of Dharavi in central Mumbai.

• Fowler has added this image which supposedly represents Mumbais economy???...recycling...economy...recycling...economy...I see no connection. Maybe it is not I who is adding stupid images to the page. The image doesnt even show recycling!

1. Best bus and airport images are perfectly relevant
2. Nichalp himself took the Powaii Hiranandini gardens image and added it to the page. I simply added a better image.
3. Chowpatti is mentioned in the text and is a perfectly relevant thing to mumbai culture
4. Bollywood is the biggest part of Indian entertainment, its even bigger in Mumbai.

I think Fowler is being very hypocritical when insulting me about the images I bring to the page, when he himself has added the dharavi image under economy and an image of trash in demographics. I would also like to point out that any changes to images on the India page came with a huge consensus and thought the result didnt favor Fowler's opinions, there was strict consensus about every image on that page. So yeah, there was a discussion about images on the india page, but a huge consensus agreed that the images fowler favored were inappropriate for the India page, which is why Fowler claims he is "scarred". Nichalp is right in saying his 3 points, but I dont see how I have gone against that.

I would like to say that I am not getting paid to do this. My contributions to wiki are because of the love I harbor for Wiki and for the articles I edit. I have spent a huge part of my life trying to find images on flickr so that the reader can better understand India related articles. It is very unfair to deride my contributions to Wiki as well as all the images I have spent time finding and bringing to wiki.

I would also like to remind everyone, that there are many, many images that I have brought to this encyclopedia that have replaced bad quality images and that have been added to places where there was no image at all. You can see my contributions on my talk page. If my contributions were to be deleted, wiki's India related pages would be a lot worse off, image-wise. Nikkul (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler added this image to the Economy section of the India article. Apparently, this image is a fair representation of "India's economy" See here. Apparently, this image is also of the great quality that Fowler always complains about my images not having

user:Nikkul says above: "The Gateway of India image is not only the icon of Mumbai. India got its freedom when the last of the British left through it in 1947. The gate is the birthplace of the nation's independence." If he doesn't want to sound ludicrous, he should know that the last British soldiers, the first battalion of the Somerset Light Infantry, marched through the Gateway of India on 28th February 1948, many months after India attained its independence. The Gateway of India has nothing to do with India's independence. Quite the contrary, it was built to commemorate the arrival in India of King George V and Queen Mary in 1911 (to attend the Delhi Durbar). The only visit by a reigning King-Emperor to India, it was the high water mark of the British Raj.

It is this kind of relentless sloppiness both in language and photographic judgment that has made user:Nikkul the bane of India-related pages. As for the two BMC headquarters images above, the first image, although a little crooked, is nonetheless a high-resolution image that presents the facade in great detail. The image hasn't been post-processed. The sky is blue. user:Nikkul's image, on the other hand, is a low-resolution image, not much bigger than the thumbnail, and its sky is bleached white. It is really a vanilla image, a generic image, a characteristic common to the majority of images user:Nikkul has added to the Mumbai page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PS As for user:Nikkul's comments on my images, I have replied at the bottom of this section on the Talk:Mumbai page. In a city, with 54% of its population living in slums (according to the 2001 Census of India), you can't only have generic glossy enhanced pictures of anonymous airport terminals and the like. Visually, Mumbai is much richer than that. It's variety, including its seemingly unseemly side, is a part of that richness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, I wanted the opinion of what editors of India-related articles had to say. That is why I did not participate in the discussion, nor did I include you in the debate as you keep adding a lot of razzmatazz and hinder pure debate. This page is an open forum and the largest for India-related topics, and anyone is free to monitor it. As you can see, your aim to present a tourist brochure on the city is vastly outnumbered. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never wanted to present a tourist brochure. If I did, I would have added pictures of essel world, Rajabhai Tower, Marine Drivem etc. Adding images that look better does not make anything a tourist brochure.

• Having a discussion about a user behind his back is not a fair way of wiki discussion. It is sneaky and dishonest. An administrator should know better.

I dont think anyone is against me adding better pictures to wikipedia. And I feel that any image that I have replaced is very relevant to the topic. I think there is consensus that image should be relevant, have a succinct caption, and be pleasing. I dont think that there is consensus that I have broken that.

If Fowler adds an image of an empty room with pots under Mumbai economy section, then I dont think you have any right in telling me that my additions are not relevant. I added images of Bandra Kurla Complex and Cuffe Parade. Compare that with an image of steel pots in an empty room! Nikkul (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the image (of women washing clothes) Nikkul attributes to me, I think he is being a little disingenuous. The image had been added by another user with caption, "Despite economic growth, 27.5% Indians live below poverty line. As shown here, women washing their clothes in a sewer by a Road in Mumbai," who at the same time removed a vanilla image of the Ganges added by Nikkul. Since this edit was promptly reverted by user;Nikkul, I was merely reverting back to the original. Having said that, I stand by my revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah fowler, your tit for tat game isn't the most mature way of going about. Your edits to Wikipedia should be based on how relevant you feel an image or text is to an article, not on who reverts what after whom. Your addition of images makes much less sense than mine. At least when I add images, they relate to the topic.

Fowler&fowler adds images of an empty room with pots under the economy section because apparently, a significant enough part of Mumbai's economy is based on ...recycling and an empty room is the exact way of showing recycling and Mumbai's economy! Ridiculous! Nikkul (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So you have a better image to depict recycling? Relata refero (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What does recycling have anything to do with Mumbai's economy? People blame me for adding irrelevant images, but it is people like Fowler who add images that aren't even close in relevance to the topic. The images I add atleast have something to do with the topic. Nikkul (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, recycling in Dharavi alone is worth $1.3 billion a year. You're not paying attention. Relata refero (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow ! big figure....I am wondering how we can confirm this and maybe if it deserves an article? gppande (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How to prevent this ? This might be the first time that I am pitching into you guys. I have been reading your *friendly* discussions on Mumbai's talk page and I am glad that discussion has been moved by User:Nichalp to an appropriate page now. I don't want to comment on who does what or who is correct and who is wrong. But I am also facing a similar problem & so wanted to know how to get rid of it. I have been trying to maintain pages of Vidarbha & Nagpur for quite sometime now. But Nagpur seems to be the favorite editing page for people without an account on Wikipedia. People keep adding information of their housing societies & localities, keep boasting of Nagpur's great future (I am for it but not on Wikipedia) and also tons-and-tons of non-encyclopedic information. Is there not a way to prevent such edits as it degrades the article? It is waste of time & energy in first correcting the page and then move on to add some real good info. Does not wikipedia provide some way of preventing such changes? I know Wikipedia's motto - "Anyone can edit" but should there be not a way to limit "Anyone" ? Should people not create an ID atleast before doing edits?? If people have an ID, we can tell them via user_talk pages that they are doing wrong and can help in better way. I may sound possessive on these article pages - but let me say that my intentions are not possessive but of really genuine good Wikipedian. gppande (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether I should be writing her, so please excuse me if I'm not supposed to, but I'm disgusted by the images Fowler has brough to Wikipedia. Is he anti-Indian or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.245.8 (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

KANNADA SCRIPT AND TENALI RAMAKRISHNA

Hi everyone,

I would like to point out a few mistakes. First of all, there are many mistakes when using the kannada script. Please revise. For example, the name of the language kannada, is not KAN-NAN-NA-DA. Please revise. Another mistake that I have changed on the Tenali Ramakrishna page is the part where it says the he was from Andhra Pradhesh. How is this possible when those states didnt exist back then. I have appropriately written that he was a citizen of the Vijaynagar Empire.

PLEASE take care from now on.

THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.245.8 (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

hmm...Interesting. So shall we call Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Subhas Chandra Bose as citizens of British Raj and not Indian??? Sounds funny to me. BTW, get yourself an ID buddy. gppande «talk» 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Indian Christianity Launched

We are happy to announce the launch of Portal:Indian Christianity by Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity , a work force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Please share your comments and suggestions. - Tinucherian (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Scheduled Tribes in India

I have developed a template - Scheduled Tribes in India. I shall be grateful if other editors inspect it and add/delete information to make it more accurate. Many pages merely mention some people as 'tribes' or 'tribal' but do not clearly specify whether they are scheduled tribes but they are included in the List of Scheduled Tribes in India. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well thought; I mean- it was a good idea. I suggest that the tribes be classified according to state or better, the family of language they speak(Sino-Tibetan or Austro-asiatic). Maquahuitl^talk! 08:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea if the STs could be classified as per language family, but for the present I am looking forward to some editors helping me to get it completed. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)