Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intothefire (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 15 October 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
Shortcuts
WikiProject iconIndia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Freedom of Panorama in India

I'd like to ask for a clarification on the freedom of panorama in India. Commons:Commons:FOP#India states section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, as:

52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright—(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:
...
(s) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;
(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2 ["any other work of artistic craftsmanship"], if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

Then, the page states:

Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i).

As far as I can see, this clarification is a misinterpretation of the law. It was added in this edit by a Commons admin. Searching for "India" in the talkpage archives gave no results, so there's probably been no discussion on this there either. I'm starting the discussion here instead of commons since there's probably a lot more chance of getting an Indian perspective on this here than on commons.

I think the question basically comes down to which one of the following the law intends to say:

  • {(the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work) (falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2)}, if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access
  • {(the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture), or (other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2)} if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access

If its the latter, paintings should be covered under FOP; if its the former, they probably won't be.

I believe that the latter interpretation is correct. I would appreciate discussion on this matter, and if possible, finding any SC rulings or other legal documents which provide a clearer view of this. Thanks--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that neither of your interpretations is correct. Rather the following is the intended interpretation:
  • {the (making or publishing) of (a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph)} of {(a sculpture), or (other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2)} [is not an act of infringement]
In other words, paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs are the works which one is permitted to create and distribute. Sculptures and works falling under 2(c)(iii) are the works which one is permitted to create reproductions of. Indian FOP law is modelled on the same UK FOP law as the rest of the Commonwealth, and in those nations both Commons and every legal opinion I've seen has supported the above interpretation. Dcoetzee 21:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, discussions of Commons matters should take place on Commons. A discussion on WP:EN tends to disenfranchise the bulk of Commons users. Any conclusion reached here which has the effect of changing anything on Commons will have to be discussed again on Commons.
I agree with Dcoetzee. That reading is simply applying the rules of construction to the plain words of the statute -- for my clarity of thinking I have illustrated the same reading differently:
  • the making or publishing of
  • a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of
  • a sculpture, or
  • other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2
  • if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access.
The clarification which I added, "Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i)." is correct.
Note that this reading is consistent with the law in all of Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Jamaica, New Zealand, Singapore, UK -- all current or former Commonwealth countries with similar legal histories.

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a ip Consultant for EU and India, I would take this matter as subject of interpretation , Eventhough the initial law was of UK , there are considerable ammendments to make it into Indian perview.

as a rule of thumb you have to note that 1) India allows the use of any IP works for "educational" purpose, so if you interpret wiki as "encyclopedia" then there is no rule that really applies. 2) The Bylaws stated in your wiki links have been carefully seleted to get a OK , as their deeper significance is different.(not to go more ahead in law terms )

My take would be take it as OK as per statment 1 . so need to bother about how they got the ok.Shrikanthv (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is correct with respect to the law, but not with respect to use on either WP:EN or Commons. Both require that material be free for use for any purpose, including commercial use, so an exception which allows only educational use is not helpful in either place. The policy on Commons is correct as it stands. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of author Babasaheb Purandare at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

There is a discussion at the RS Noticeboard as to whether Purandare qualifies as a WP:RS for the article Shivaji. Discussion posted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raja_Shivachhatrapati_by_Babasaheb_Purandare_in_the_article_Shivaji_.28Indian_history_bio.29. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is going on far longer than I anticipated; I'd invite folks who'd not yet come yet to contribute. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No article for goddess Shivai/Shivadevi?

I've seen some mentions of a goddess "Shivai" or "Shivadevi" - I take it "devi" means something like "goddess"? I haven't been able to find much information on this figure - is she somehow a female incarnation of Shiva, or what's the story? Any help in producing at least a stub would be greatly appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start is Diana Eck's India: A Sacred Geography available in limited view on Google books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shivai is one way to spell a reflective form of Shiva. Deva is the Sanskrit word for God, devi is the feminine form. As an adjective it means "heavenly" or "divine". Moonraker (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be better off searching for info on the Shivneri temple (Shivai is the presiding deity). I believe she was the family deity of Shivaji and is an incarnation of Sakthi/Parvati (though I could be wrong on this). —SpacemanSpiff 05:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Devi is a suffix meaning goddess. Shivā (शिवा) denotes the god Shiva's wife and is generally applied to Parvati, but sometimes also to others like Durga. Another Shivā is the shakti of Shiva; in this context applied to Maheshvari. Shivai is a regional Maharashtrian goddess, whom temples is on Shivneri and after whom, Shivaji is named. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to confuse things further, but I'm seeing references to Shivaji's home fort also having a temple to the goddess "Tulja". Is this a different name for Shivai? There's some spastic editing at Bhavani stating that Tulja is somehow related... and Bhavani is an aspect of Parvati (also known as Shakti?)... who is Shiva's wife. This is all very confusing with someone unfamiliar with Hinduism, though I have some basic familiarity with Indian social issues at large. Am I totally misreading here, or by some convoluted chain is "goddess Shivai/Shivabai" a particular avatar/incarnation/aspect of Shiva's wife? "Bai" appears to be some Marathi feminine name ending, so "Shiva Bai" being the wife of Shiva sounds logical. Is this even slightly correct, or is there no connection between Shivai and Shiva other than a resemblance of name? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Shivaji's home fort"? Which fort do you mean by that? His birth-home Shivneri has the temple of Shivai. If you have references that talk about some other fort, we would have to see when that particular fort came under the ruler of Marathas.
The goddess Bhavani of Tuljapur, also called as Tulja Bhavani, is considered as an aspect of Shakti. The things is, pick any random goddess and there is very high probability that she would be the aspect of Shakti. Leaving Saraswati and Lakshmi aside, all major goddessess are aspects of Shakti. The legend has is that Shiva's first wife Sati (goddess) jumped in the yajna fire as her father Daksha had insulted her husband Shiva. (Thats also how the Sati (practice) gets its name.) Shiva, furious with his wife's death took her corpse and started the Tandava dance. The dance form is a vigourous form that started the destruction of the universe. To stop this, Vishnu used his Sudarshana chakra to destroy the corpse. The body parts fell in 4/18/51 different places and these are known as Shakti Peethas. All these have temples of some goddessess, aspects of Shakti, have their own legends and names. Tulja Bhavani is considered one of them.
For the main question of Shivai, i don't think you would find any info other than her temple at Shivneri and that Shivaji gets his name from her. The other legends that relate Tulja Bhavani with Shivaji say that she gifted him with his sword, called as Bhavani Talwar (Talwar means sword in Hindi/Marathi). Tulja Bhavai is also in general a deity of Marathas. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, there is no direct relationship between Shivai and Bhavani. They are distinct goddesses, who should have different articles.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, Every marathi Hindu family /clan or for that matter, Hindu communities from other regions of India too, have their family deities ( A God and Goddess). In Maharashtra, the Goddess Bhavani in the town of Tuljapur is one of the top five family dieties. The others being Renuka of Mahur, Mahalaxmi or Amba-bai of Kolhapur, Saptashrungi of Vani Nasik and Yogeshwari of Ambejogai. Some of them including Bhavani are regarded as Manifestations of Shakti or Parvati. the wife of Shiva / Shankar /Mahadeo. Bhavani was the family deity or the Kuldevta of the Bhosale clan. Bhavani of Tuljapur is also called Tuljai or Tulja Bhavani. Legend goes that the goddess gave Shivaji a sword. Marathi people claim that this sword is currently in a museum in London. I have been to most of History Museums in London but did not see the sword. I hope this helps. Jonathansammy (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi matthew, I guess it all false down to the language , as every language in India has it own accent and intonation if tranformed into english ,sounds wierd. so the word shiva is also siva ( in tamil nadu), or shivappa (in karnataka) and totally deferenet names in their own regions and di-elects. so there cannot be a standard name unless if you say i only accept hindi (delhi) as the right one. ( which cannot be right too) . its just "saying" jesus in russian, italian, german or in french are quite different. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Bismil Azimabadi

I've just created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bismil_Azimabadi but said there that I would mention it here because of a possible systemic bias issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"chopping block" or "butcher block"

Which is the more common term in India? I'm referring to the hunk of wood known at enwp as a butcher block. Is "cutting board" the right term? Are they all the same? I'm trying to figure if it should be called "chopping block", and Google isn't providing conclusive information.

See: Talk:Butcher block#Page move: Butcher block --> Chopping block

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on folks! Please tell us. If you are in India, tell us what the most common term there is and say at Talk:Butcher block#Page move: Butcher block --> Chopping block? Please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help at Yadav

User:BaazBahadur made a number of comments about possible changes to the Yadav article in June (at Talk:Yadav#This page is badly edited. Content is missing important information), but got no replies. Subsequently, they boldly made the changes they suggested - nothing wrong with that in itself, as the suggestions were uncontested. But looking at them I think they really do need discussion first (not least because some sourced content was removed). I've reverted the changes - can anyone help by commenting on the talk page discussion? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that someone had replied. I'll go there and refer them to the archives because the points they mention have been discussed repeatedly on that talk page, at DRN and, IIRC, at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian beat me to it. I think that the original query was ignored due to TLDR and some rather obvious dodgy claims but, yes, I for one should have picked up on it. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help Gurjant_Singh_Budhsinghwala

Really pecular article and under achievments it writes about killing police personnels, can any one help it making in a neutral tone ? or meeting NPOV ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cut out the vast majority of the article. Some of it was unsourced, some was allegedly sourced but not actually there when I checked the refs, and some was just plain POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G. V. Desani

I intend cleaning up the G. V. Desani page to meet Wikipedia's requirements. My intent is to format it into sections, remove or relocate extraneous information and possibly add some more info. G. V. Desani's works are classics in Indian fiction and no amount of information on him is too little. I intend removing the "cleanup" flag after I am done. Somebody please guide me if I need to contact/inform anyone before embarking on this task. -- mowglee 13:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of three witches in Baden, Switzerland (1585), by Johann Jakob Wick.
A 1947 propaganda comic book published by the Catechetical Guild Educational Society raising the specter of a Communist takeover
No, you don't need to contact anyone. You can start cleaning up the article. The article needs lots of cleanup! Best, Tito Dutta ✉ 09:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find talk page link in your signature! --Tito Dutta ✉ 09:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. i have started formatting and editing and the page will be up to standards in a few days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mowglee/desani-sandbox do i need permission to remove "cleanup" flag? -- mowglee 10:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Ultra Nationalists and Persistent Cynical Anti Nationalists

Going through the talk pages of various India related articles , one often see the term "Nationalist" ,"Nationalist POV warriors" and such like attributed to by one set of editors vis avis others . There is really no rule I know of restraining someone being offhandedly labeled "Nationalist" . These accusations may or may not be true or valid , but can set off a chain reaction . Equally important is to recognize "Cynical anti nationalist" editing by editors on the same articles . It surely does no justice to India related Wikipedia articles neutrality , to give free reign to one set -the Ultra Nationalists or the Cynical Anti Nationalists .With Arbitrary sanctions in place it becomes easier to trait Heros and Zeros . Either way , given a free hand ,content labeled nationalist by a broad brush , can easily be deleted and entirely replaced by persistent anti nationalist or vice versa . I would be interested to read about other editors views on this observation .Intothefire (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know that the intent is that we are neutral. If you want to give some diffs etc then perhaps there would be some point to your comment but otherwise this is just a stirring of the pot. And not a very subtle one, either. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As one example, the tussle between nationalist attributions and Pakistani anglo Indian POV can be seen at talk:Caste.'OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see it. For a start, where is the Pakistani POV and the Anglo-Indian POV? Or are you saying that because some people do not accept the weighting towards a Hindutva position (dilution of a concept perceived as detrimental) that this means they must be Pakistani/Anglo-Indian? Give some specific examples, please, and perhaps refer to the recent ANI thread relating to that particular article before doing so - you were mentioned in it and the outcome is here. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the RFC and beyond. BTW, I was not saying Pakistani and Anglo Indian. Pakistani Anglo Indian. There, some were being seen as Natniolists POV and some as Pakistani Anglo Indian POV.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the RfC? (I have been involved in it). And I still do not understand "Pakistani Anglo Indian" as being descriptive of a point of view. And even if you were correct, one article does not constitute "often, as Intothefire described the situation. Bearing in mind their broad-brush statement here, it might be instructive to look at the contribution history etc of Itf. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is near the start of the RFC. Pakistani Anglo Indians would be Anglo Indians with a partly Muslim POV. And the broad brush has been applied on so-called "Nationalists" in the RFC too. That would not be a cause for concern?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "board brush" refers to Inthefire's sweeping, generalised statement that lacked examples; it was not a reference to a lack of definitions of POV. Of course, not being a holder of the Hindutva POV doesn't mean a person must hold this other, somewhat vague POV. Aren't the vast majority of experienced contributors in areas such as this actually doing what should be done, ie: trying to portray a neutral POV? If not, then you should consider collating the evidence and submitting it for community review. Which is exactly what happened regarding the Hindutva position on the article that you refer to. - 03:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia articles on Moral panic Witch-hunt and McCarthyism are related to my concerns here. Diffs can be provided but Id like to avoid them , lest a protective admin pops in to ban/block me under discretionary sanctions . My aim is to highlight an issue not battle individuals .I believe the instances of banning several India related editors on contentious articles will harm neutrality .For social issues Wikipedia articles are work in progress .Intothefire (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing towards the ANI thread. Looking into the RFC, the ANI thread and this thread too, it becomes apparent that the Hindu POV is being defamed heavily and then admin powers have been used to demolish any meaningful Hindu POV input into writing that article. Concerns about defaming by using "nationalist" etc. labels have been expressed in the ANI thread too. Writing India/Hinduism related articles by suppressing the Hindu POV/input is certainly non neutral, and deliberately so. They are not doing what should be done.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the label Nationalist may not be the cause of a block or ban it has preceded being hurled on India related editors ...now gone on more than the one article , before blocks/bans .If the prerogative is available to a few editors to call other editor nationalist warrior and is considered - not inviting censure, would it be fair assume calling editors notorious cynical anti nationalist and not invite censure ? Intothefire (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the "nationalist" label has preceded blocks and bans on more than one article. This strengthens my thinking that the label is the trigger for blocks and bans on those accused. This label is being hurled on opponents to "disappear" the opposition.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Hindutva POV" characterization too appears to have been for the same purpose.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is compromised when there are glaring contradictions between what goes and does not ,if Cynical anti-nationalist POV is the opposite of the nationalist POV pumping up ,then there are glaring instances of trashing down with base comments , quotes . Period Books cant be used to quote , but can be used for archaic pictures ,better still authors may be objected by an editor and then used themselves elsewhere , should an admin maintain extraordinary scrutiny and extraordinary collusion ,then wikipedia is the looser .Diffs are available for all instances . Intothefire (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Exceptional Claims in Bengali film box office

Some users are continuously adding exceptional box office collection in some Bengali movies infobox. A regional film is earning more than a national film is an exceptional claim. They might be lovers of those films and want to show their dedication in Wikipedia by adding some "out of the world" information in those articles. The worse thing is they change the amount every day (sometimes after every few hours– always without sources)

Articles affected
Additions

In short all new commercial new releases of Bengali language films are getting affected. Recently in 1–2 articles where the box office was too much to believe, and unsourced too, I have removed gross and budget parameters. I am attracting your notice towards this --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Addition signed Tito Dutta ✉ 08:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Things that aren't obviously vandalism and still incorrect are not the easiest to deal with. Consecutive warnings for disruptive editing and/or adding unsourced information and/or puffing up an article can lead to a block, but if you're dealing with a bunch of IP addresses that won't do you much good. My suggestion is asking for semi-protection, but make the case (at RFPP) that this is a long-term problem of edits that aren't blatantly vandalistic. Note: I looked at Paglu, and that's borderline (some admins might protect, I find it below the threshold), but Paglu 2 is now semi-protected (note the reason; that's the kind of language you can use). I can't go through the entire list right now, so try submitting a couple of them, or all of them. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thingale

Could someone please have a look at this? It's not quite at the level of {{db-nonsense}} but it's difficult to work out whether it's about a place, a family, or a temple. PamD 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a NN temple with some tangential sections below; temple articles are pretty hard to source unless they're reasonably famous, given how many tens of thousands of temples there must be in India. I wouldn't sweat it unless someone removes the prod tag; this one will probably just die once the prod deadline hits. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Postal Service

Some simple copyediting and style improvement of Indian Postal Service is sorely needed. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=517974303"