User talk:Khairaarsh

Khairaarsh, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Krishb (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Khairaarsh, I thought I should share my point of view on why West Bengal and Gujarat are not part of North India or Northern India.

But before that, let me restate what Cyphoidbomb has written to you here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khairaarsh

He wrote, “Times of India's credit order may be arbitrarily selected by the reporter. Who knows?”

In reply you wrote, “Thank you very much sir for that in-depth information which cleared out a lot of things. I agree some editors are sexist as well.”

Now, Coming back to Gujarat and West Bengal

Ref 5: "The Hindu (NOIDA Edition)". Dropbox. Retrieved 8 April 2017: I didn’t find any reference in this note or why you have shared under what pretext. Will you please explain, its unreadable anyway.

Ref 6: TNN (18 January 2016). "Marriages last the longest in north India, Maharashtra; least in northeast". The Times of India.: This link does not talk anything about Gujarat or West Bengal FP Editors (30 April 2012). "Can North India overtake 'arrogant' South in growth?". Firstpost.: yes, it talks about BIMARU states and Bihar, Madhyapradesh being part of it

Ref 7: North Indians in Coimbatore". The Hindu. 27 July 2016. Again it’s an opinionated piece and does not refer to any government order or document

Ref 8: The Hindu (22 May 2016). "Hot spell continues in North". The Hindu. I don’t see any Gujarat or West Bengal in the article

Ref 9: Daily Bhaskar (12 May 2015). "Earthquake jolts North India". [1]. External link in |website= (help) Now, at last, this article clearly calling West Bengal part of North India. Just like Cyphoidbomb, I would say, it was “arbitrarily” written by a reporter, a reporter is not any institution or constitution or official body appointed by government or court. What they write is not legal document.

Ref 8: The Hindu (26 January 2016). "-Intense cold in North eight die in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal". The Hindu.My response is same as above. As you can see at the end of the article, the source of the article is PTI (Press Trust of India). It’s an agency that supplies news to newspapers, so it could be assumed that the report was “arbitrarily” filed by a novice reporter. Anyway, we all agree that reporting standards in PTI, UNI and other newspapers have gone down considerably over the years.

And surprisingly, in none of the above newspaper rapports (which were your source of references) I found mentioned Gujarat by none of the reporters, I would request you to consider West Bengal or Gujarat in North India, if you can find a government document supporting it.

Latitude based definition does not work because it’s a global scientific measurement devoid of any socio cultural economical parameter. However, concept of North India is not global, it’s national. And also, since North India is not a state or central province or country, it’s actually a concept of socio cultural economical milieu.

The world or part of countries are not called North or South due to Tropic of Cancer position. Krishb (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 1)Different Indian Govt. Institutions have different definitions of a region which probably you have seen in the lead. According to some Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and UP are not North India either. But there are other Govt sources which mention these states as part of North India. That's why the definition is loosely based.


 * 2)On the other hand there are states which are not part of North India according to Indian Govt. definitions like Bihar, Mdhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Gujarat, but are Clearly Mentioned as such in Press articles and that's why they are included as the Other states but not as integral part of north India.


 * 3)Coming to the 'refs', every source doesn't have to mention each and every state. So one source might mention a particular state as north India but not the others. It depends on the news. Ref 5. is about Bihar, Ref 8. clearly mentions Gujarat in Bold alongwith other states. Press articles are used a lot in wiki articles and are valid sources. Unless you are cherry picking, Cyphoid also said, "There's no hard-and-fast rule. I'd probably go with what a published source like Times of India". Problem is with yet to release movies, not with other things like sports, politics, etc.


 * 4)I have noticed that you like to remove only Gujarat and West Bengal but keep Bihar and Madhya Pradesh despite the fact that these are the only refs that support Bihar and Madhya Pradesh in this article. This totally seem like a case of POV Pushing.Khairaarsh (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Cast lists
Hi Khairaarsh, I thought it best to continue this discussion here, rather than on the other user's talk page. You asked:
 * "1) If a film is yet to be released and there is only an IMDB page, then would it be wrong to refer IMDB for Cast ordering? 2) Secondly, for this movie "A Flying Jatt" will it be better to arrange cast as per "Times of India" 1 which is a prominent Indian news group than IMDB?"

There's nothing official or authoritative about an IMDb listing or a Times of India listing. Times of India's credit order may be arbitrarily selected by the reporter. Who knows? IMDb is user-generated, although the Jatt cast list says "in credits order", IMDb doesn't show any indication of verifying that data. Note by contrast the cast lists here: Most of the Wikipedia film community would not have a problem with using IMDb for the Superman II credits, as they have been verified.
 * Captain America: Civil War - "Cast (in credits order) complete, awaiting verification"
 * Superman II - "Cast (in credits order) verified as complete".

That's the overall note. For a film that hasn't been released, it's trickier. Normally the community would tell you to use the billing block on the film's poster, but Indian films don't typically use standard billing blocks. ([No, apparently the Head of Revenue and Media Consultant credits are more important that listing all the actors in your film...) So what to do? There's no hard-and-fast rule. I'd probably go with what a published source like Times of India says, with the understanding that the order is going to change 1) if a poster is released with the credits printed, and 2) if the onscreen film credits contradict the order. Arbitrary reordering of the cast, like what user Mchoudhury has been doing, is disruptive. My only other caveat would be to be aware of subtle sexism. Women in Indian cinema, even if they have title roles, are sometimes listed second or third by ignorant Wikipedia editors. Hope that helps. Sorry for the long reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much sir for that in-depth information which cleared out a lot of things. I agree some editors are sexist as well. This MChoudhury dude for example, moved Deepika Padukone's name, who is in title role, to third position. Anyway nice talking to you sir Khairaarsh (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources in biography articles
Hello, I'm Ponyo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Arij Fatyma, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken sir, I don't even know anything about this person called Arij Fatyma and never edited that page. Please check the revision history. Khairaarsh (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories
Hi there again, re: this edit where you add Falguni Rajani to Category:Sindhi people, per WP:CATV:
 * [When adding categories] "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."

There is no sourced content in the article describing her as Sindhi, which makes the category addition problematic. As you can imagine, category additions would be a sneaky way for someone to assert an incorrect ethnic background for a person, or to make an assertion about a person's ethnicity without having to bother with sourcing. Since we require all content about living people to be impeccably sourced, I think you can understand why we need there to be properly sourced content about an ethnicity (and other important facts) before we add categories. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was going to add this link https://filmymantra . com/falguni-rajani after putting the categories when I lost my internet connection. Now I see that it can't be added why?. Also I remember, I saw a video of hers where she told she's Sindhi. I have to find it. Khairaarsh (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Filmymantra.com is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, because people kept trying to force it into articles. It's simply insufficient for use as a reference anyway. Per this, we do not use blogs or other user-generated sources as content. Anyone can start a website or blog and print whatever they want. That could be anything from bad medical advice to fake box office figures to ethnic propaganda. If you don't know anything about a website, like who runs it, or what its reputation is, you shouldn't use it as a reference. We only care what mainstream sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything. That means major news sources, usually. See WP:ICTF for a very general list of sources that are typically considered good and bad for Indian cinema-related things. In contrast, Filmymantra is a blog run by unknown parties, with no obvious well-known editor, no well-known reporters, and no obvious editorial standard. Many sites that look like this just "scrape" (harvest) content from other websites just to make a few rupees on clicks. Those aren't quality sources.


 * If you use a video as a reference (consider cite av media) please be sure we're not pointing to a potential copyright violation. Typically we should only be pointing to videos from verified channels associated with the video. So if the verified Zee News YouTube site posts an interview with Rajani, that's okay to use. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for the info sir. Yes there are plenty of sites with names like Celeb this, Star that, which list the DOB, ethnic group, as well as all nonsense like eye color, biceps, chest, smokes or drinks, etc. I'll check for right citations and I hope I find that video. Regards Khairaarsh (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Best of luck to you, and thank you for being receptive to this (often confusing) information. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Khairaarsh, I have also reverted the inclusion of a category regarding ethnicity that you restored to Munmun Dutta. In order for such information and categories to be included in biography articles it must be supported by reliable sources, demonstrate self-identification, and be a defining characteristic of the individual (see WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS for additional information). In this case the information was supported by a celebrity database hosted by Wordpress, which is not close to meeting the reliable sourcing criteria necessary for inclusion, so I have removed it per our policies regarding such information.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jan 2018
, cc

Just to inform you, Wikipedia needs proper citations for its articles and do not take personal views into considerations.
 * 1)I have already mentioned in my talk page that Govt. of India Institutions do not have a clear-cut definition of North India. According to Zonal Council under Ministry of Home affairs, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand are under Central India and not North India. Geological survey does not considers Rajasthan as North India but considers UP and uttarakhand as part of it. When the govt itself has these many definitions, how can we be so specific?


 * 2) Bihar, Gujarat, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh are NOT part of North India according to any definition from Indian Govt. institutions like Zonal Council, Geological Survey of India, Ministry of Minority Affairs, Cultural Zones, or respective State Govt. That is why they are not considered Integral Part of North India in the article.


 * 2)This line "Other states sometimes included are Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal" is there to include states that are not integral to North India under govt. definitions but are considered as such from time to time in the Press and these have valid references to them. Editing against such can be considered disruptive.

Reply from me, : Stray blanket reports from The Hindu (with head office in Chennai) can not determine, even loosely determine which states can be called North India. It could be possible that the journalist itself is unaware of socio-political fabric of the country. I will take this up with The Hindu editorial for clarification. Geographically, India is a diverse country, at one stroke, all the regions (minus southern states) can not be termed as North India.


 * 3)You have also blanked Latitude Based Definitions header completely based on you Point-of-View which again looks like Vandalism. There is a book link which defines it.

Reply from me, : Please share a reference on " Latitude Based Definitions'' and how it does it so. I will come back with more replies.


 * 4)I have noticed that you like to remove only Gujarat and West Bengal but keep Bihar and Madhya Pradesh despite the fact that these are the only refs that support Bihar and Madhya Pradesh in this article. This totally seem like a case of POV Pushing(WP:PUSH) and WP:CHERRYPICK. If you are really against Press Articles and Unbiased, you should have deleted Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. You mentioned food, culture, language, as an example, Punjab, Himachal and Kashmir speak hugely different language, have diff customs but all are defined North India by govt.


 * 5)Coming to the 'refs', Gujarat specific references [] clearly has this line

Gujarati Samaj, say, “our main problem is that we do not have a direct train to the north, specifically Gujarat.
 * [] says

Hot spell continues in North India... Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, Vidharbha, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi bear the brunt.
 * West Bengal specific refs:[] says

TWO earthquakes jolt Delhi, West Bengal and the rest of Northern India, epicentre in Nepal... NEW DELHI: An earthquake of 7.1 magnitude hit Delhi today, May 12th. Tremors were felt all across North India  including West Bengal, Bihar....
 * []

Intense cold in North; eight die in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal
 * These refs clearly and explicitly show why these states are added.


 * 6)Press articles have been added to define zones around the world. Vist this page: Central Europe. See how that region is loosely defined and see that many citatins are Press Articles, even University Press Books, etc. [], [], [], []

Hope you understand. Khairaarsh (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)