Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#rfc 1E8B30B

Hi all.

I wondered if it might be possible for an editor who has experience of dealing neutrally with caste-related article to read through Vanniyar? A recently-banned user made a complaint about the neutrality of the article, and while their behaviour was clearly unacceptable and they failed to actually say what the problem was, they specifically mentioned footnotes. I checked the footnotes and found one of them was indeed a misrepresentation of the source, making me suspect there might be more problems which I lack the expertise to detect.

Thanks for your time. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If you can help, please join the discussion there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Requested move 25 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a noticeboard discussion about the use of the Swarajya website in the Guru Paramartha article. If you are interested, please participate at {{slink|WP:RSN#Reference about Guru Paramartha in swarayamag}}. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• India cuts off the Wikimedia Foundation's funding of the "Access to Knowledge" program, 1 May 2025, The Signpost

HaeB, Oltrepier, and I reported the halt to CIS-A2K funding in the 1 May 2025 issue of The Signpost, which is English Wikipedia's newspaper. If anyone has more to say then feel free to post in the comments section of that article. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mangalore International Airport#Requested move 27 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The number of articles related to this subject just keeps increasing everyday. So far, these articles have been created and most of them require not more than 1 article:

• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict protests
• 2025 India–Pakistan standoff
• Operation Bunyanun Marsoos
• 2025 India–Pakistan strikes
• Indo-Pakistani war of 2025
• 2025 India–Pakistan air engagements

Gaining consensus towards a reasonable solution is simply not possible because of heavy POV pushing from both sides. This attitude is also affecting the quality of these articles which are full of the claims made by either the Indian side or Pakistani side, contrary to our articles like 2019 Balakot airstrike, 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes which heavily relied on reliable independent sources. Such sources are available on this 2025 conflict[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/09/fighter-jets-india-pakistan-attack/][https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/india-pakistan-attack-kashmir-tourists-intl-hnk#cmadq2i4j00003b6tu7krhsys] but their reports are not getting enough weight. In some versions, such reports have been wrongly termed as "third party claims".

How should we proceed to address these issues? {{Ping|Kautilya3|Fowler&fowler|Abecedare|Capitals00|Ngrewal1|Vanamonde93|RegentsPark}} Share your thoughts. Thanks Orientls (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is probably too early for the dust of rumor to settle. Why don't you open a separate talk page thread below, titled something like, "User Orientls's reliable third-party sources?" Then make a chronological list of reports from the major third-party English-language newspapers for international reporting: NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, San Francisco Chronical, Los Angeles Times, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail (Canada), The Times (London), Guardian, Financial Times, Independent, Le Monde (English), South China Morning Post, Japan Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and The Australian, with urls. I would avoid the Middle Eastern sources, whether Israeli or Arab, and, needless to say, South Asian. I would also avoid magazines (such as Newsweek, Economist, etc) or websites, such as BBC etc. At the top add a note: "Please do not add anything to this section." In other words, updating that section will be your responsibility. We can then examine the sources in a couple of weeks' time. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some of the issues at these articles were an inevitable result of the events being so fast moving, and being clouded by actual fog of war as well as deliberate and partisan misinformation. Now that a ceasefire has been announced, hopefully the pace of events/news will slow down, both India and Pakistan will acknowledge (at least some of the) losses on their own sides, and more and better secondary sources will become available. And then involved and experiences editors can slowly work out which of these many articles should be retained, how each should be structured, and the specific content and sources. Abecedare (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:There has been a lot of disinformation over this conflict. I agree that we will have to rely on third party sources that are independent of both belligerents. I also agree with the above that posting a list of sources, whether here or on the talk page of the main article of all those listed articles, would be a good start. It may help other editors to finally replace the sources with the better quality sources. Capitals00 (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Ideally, there should be one main article, say 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, which summarises everything that transpired after the 2025 Pahalgam attack. WP:CONTENTFORKs can be spawned for substantial subtopics.

It seems to me that the diplomatic standoff warrants a subarticle, because two major treaties have been suspended, and their impact will be felt long after the crisis itself has ended. I don't know if the border skirmishes warrant a subarticle. Such articles tend to be dry lists of events without much narrative and I doubt if they attract any readership. But I guess we have good precedents for such articles. The protests article can be merged into the main articles mentioned above. The other articles are already gone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Want to add to this thread about a spate of recent contentious changes at Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 by newer users. Visited this article to compare stable articles of past conflicts but was surprised to see much back and forth editing and significant recent changes particularly to the infobox with glaring sourcing and POV issues.

Particularly see Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Contentious edits. I remember there being a past consensus for the lead and the result in the infobox but the recent changes target the losses, casualties etc. parameters which I don't think has been particularly addressed previously. I am bringing this here as there appears to be a coordinated effort to keep a quite problematic version of these articles online. Quoting my comment from the Talk below:

{{Talk quote|I am coming here after the recent clashes, expecting to see a stable article to compare with the newly minted ones. Surprised (though not really) to see much recent activity here. I am especially vary of newer users making major edits without first gaining consensus at the Talk page which is absolutely the case here. ...
Coming to the content itself, the losses are cited to WP:3PARTY [meant tertiary] encyclopedias, already a red flag, which themselves don't cite their sources. I am not sure how reliable Facts on File is, but it calls the 1947 war a civil war which Gandhi helped to stop! This itself should render the source unacceptable. Calling these "neutral sources" is also unnecessary (as we don't give any info regarding the claims of any side). ...
Also conspicuous was the leaving out of territorial losses (included in the ib here for a long time) all the while claiming neutrality.

If any sources for these are to acceptable, these should be reliable secondary sources.

Agreeing with @Cinderella157:, I will be removing these from the article for now both from the body and ib, subject to much nationalistic sabre rattling, unless better sources are brought to light and aptly incorporated into the body.

The only consensus here on this article for a long time has been that for the lead.}}

I removed these poor sources and content both from the ib and body, asking for better ones. The same sources (with misrepresentation, for which see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1965#c-Gotitbro-20250511091400-CaptShayan-20250414054700]) were added to the 1947 war article. Both of these articles have been restored by the same group of editors without addressing any of the content/sourcing issues raised.

I am sure better sources exist than the ones that have been recently added (or are present in the body) and these articles can be salvaged and stabilized. We established a consensus for Kashmir-related articles back in 2020 when the last crisis erupted. A similar approach is needed again now for these legacy articles.

{{re|Kautilya3|Abecedare|Capitals00|Ngrewal1|Vanamonde93|RegentsPark|Orientls}}. Please provide your inputs. Gotitbro (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Taeyab @M Waleed @MrGreen1163 provide your inputs as well. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Eltabar243, @Golgooo, @User:Al-Waqīmī @VirtualVagabond Taeyab (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, all India-Pakistan conflict articles went through an avalance of POV editing. It wasn't even possible for me to check what has been done, let alone look into the issues. I would recomment {{U|RegentsPark}}'s Enforced BRD edit-restrictions on all pages that are facing POV attacks. The new editors need to justifiy their content on the talk pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::How curious then that a bunch of other new users is canvassed here by the same new users who have been co-ordinating edits over their articles. At this rate we might need Israeli-Arab style sanctions.

::AGF if stressed when such a deluge due to recent conflicts happens. Gotitbro (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Heavy point pushing is going on by all sides of the conflict, now that the situation has began clearing somewhat, most of these new articles (except the articles about standoff and the strikes starting from 7 May) should be merged/deleted as they serve no purpose other than a POV push, moreover WP:RS reports should be taken above all other sources, yet there's been a lot of instances where the sources have been neglected and given less weight than they should've been, it's pretty clear cut that 2025 India–Pakistan conflict protests, Operation Bunyanun Marsoos, Indo-Pakistani war of 2025, 2025 India–Pakistan air engagements serve no purpose but be WP:REDUNDANTFORK pushing a certain POV𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 13:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Totally agree, @Extorc managed to merge the skirmishes article and a few others into the standoff article. Sure enough, another 3-4 articles have been made AGAIN on this very same dispute. The 2025 India-Pakistan conflict needs an immediate merging with 2025 India-Pakistan standoff. It is by far the most unnecessary article of the bunch. It also states the conflict ended which is simply untrue as of now. 2025 India-Pakistan conflict protests should also be merged into it under the 'reactions' section of the standoff article. Taeyab (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would disagree with the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict one as there's been previous precedent with the 2019 skirmishes and strikes being separate articles, moreover it also has sufficient content, that being said I'd like to see viewpoints from other editors concerning the conflict article specifically 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 15:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish|CaptainEek|Cabayi}} Kindly take a note of this discussion. It is the India-Pakistan conflict that is seeing the ongoing disputes, not Indian military history. >>> Extorc.talk 15:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is correct, not an entirely suitable wikiproject for this discussion.
• :@Gotitbro Again, you ignored my and @Lt.gen.zephyrs advice. Taeyab (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is an entirely apt forum for this (I have already explained this to you elsewhere), please don't assume and assess things when you are not familiar with basic overviews of the Indo-Pak procedures on enwiki.
• ::And what {{re|Extorc}} meant was that there is a fog of facts over recent dispute which shouldn't affect hist articles. Though I will let them clarify. Gotitbro (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Can sometone please fix this page? It seems to have been redirected. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's been fixed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Watson's Hotel 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The P. C. Solanki article has a number of references but in light of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, I'm not sure how to evaluate them.

I invite knowledgeable editors to look at that article and then weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. C. Solanki.

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Third Anglo-Maratha War 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Some editors would like to get rid of more than a thousand articles about cricketers (called WP:LUGSTUBS2). A different editor has kindly split out the list of professional cricket players from India that could be affected by this. There are 278 cricketers in this list.

What's needed, as soon as possible, is for editors to find and add at least one reliable source that isn't "ESPNcricinfo". This can be anything, as long as it's a reliable source. The source does not need to be in English, and it does not need to be available online.

Can editors here please spread the word, and try to WP:PRESERVE this information on Wikipedia either through improving the articles or WP:MERGING them to a suitable list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

See Aurangzeb Ahmed where I removed an image of medals and decorations.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurangzeb_Ahmed&curid=79957675&diff=1290216704&oldid=1290216564]

User:Lt.gen.zephyr told me "1. Why cant we use statement of the Pakistan Air Force which was posted by them in Facebook and X? It's not any random account, it is officially run by them

2. Most of the pakistanis are talking about them on X, Facebook and Instagram, hence it should be added.

3. Check other general's article of india & pakistan. We always use a seperate "awards and decorations" section. Only thing is the name isnt add here, which Ill be adding soon (the medals have a separate article, except the non-operational & service ones. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

" Doug Weller talk 13:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)