Talk:Arun Shridhar Vaidya

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arun Shridhar Vaidya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110175835/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Personnel/Chiefs/150-AS-Vaidya.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Personnel/Chiefs/150-AS-Vaidya.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:CASTE have you read this?

Hi Acharya63 Please discuss your edits here. You are in violation of WP:CASTE. Where is it stated that is "okay" to mention if the person is dead. Again please refrain from editing until we resolve this. I am not stating that the content is not sourced, on the contrary I did check the source. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, WP:CASTE yes, I read it. In fact it is an irrelevant page in this case - it talks about sanctions. It is considered perfectly acceptable to state communities/castes as long as it is sourced. See Bal Gangadhar Tilak or Mahatma Gandhi as examples . Also see this: User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Sitush is the top editor for wikipedia India articles. He has written the consensus there. Basically the rule is that for a dead person, the caste has to be sourced. For a living person, sourced caste is not enough unless he/she says it. I do not want to revert your edit myself - I kindly request to you to study the rules for biographies on Wikipedia and revert it yourself. Thanks Acharya63 (talk)

If you see User_talk:Sitush#WP:CASTE, I have already initiated a communication with him on this. Let's wait for his reply. can you provide me a link to a Wikipedia guideline which states this "is that for a dead person, the caste has to be sourced. For a living person, sourced caste is not enough unless he/she says it." In the future, do not revert edits once they have been reverted without initiating a discussion. Please be patient. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating the conversation. The point is that nowhere is it prohibited in wikipedia -User:Sitush/Common#Castelists gives details on caste lists that has the quote above. You should have clarified this much earlier instead of persistently reverting an added change. Almost all biographies of Indians that are no longer living mention their caste. See Jawaharlal Nehru(Brahmin), Indira Gandhi(Brahmin), Shahu Modak(Christian) and many many others - because their family background is part of their biography. I am surprised you do not know this - anyway hopefully Sitush will reply soon and clarify this. WP:CASTE talks about something else, about sanctions. Not even sure why you are even sending a link to this page. It talks about sanctions to individual Wikipedia editors. Acharya63 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the community discussion which went behind this sanctions, the idea was to prevent editors from classifying articles in different caste/religious categories since this leads to different editors warring over it. This is why we have been very careful, at least in the military biography articles which I oversee. Again in Jawaharlal Nehru just Kashimiri Pandit is mentioned not Brahmin. Same for Indira Gandhi I do not see any Brahmin anywhere. Just because it is mentioned on some random articles does not make it the guideline. Again, please be patient. You might very well be right and we can re-add this. But until we have that clarity let's wait. Please remember, if someone reverts your edits take it to the talk page if you disagree. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you "oversee" the list of military articles, please go through the list of Chief of the Army Staff (India) and remove castes/communities for all. Sitush seems to agree with you although I don't. And it seems many of them have their caste mentions. Selective "injustice" is not appreciated. I will wait for two weeks and take up this issue(your edits) with the admin board on wikipedia. I personally feel this is nonsense as caste is an integral part of family background. I do not want to discuss this anymore here. 00:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Acharya63 We already had this discussion on Sitush's talk page. It seems to me that you are very subjective of this topic (and as per your words a bit emotional) and are not looking at this logically. If you so wish, feel free to remove caste from India related pages on Wikipedia where you think they do not add any value to the page (do remember not to be disruptive though). Just remember that this system is not perfect. Also, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, so you really cannot ask me "to do" anything. What I mean when I say I oversee them is I prevent vandalism on them and in general work to improve them. There is no WP:OWN on Wikipedia. And I have kept tone very cordial with you. I would highly recommend that you do the same. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, if you really want to help out with this article (beyond persistently adding a single caste across multiple pages), then I would recommend you to take a single article which you feel passionately about and help in improving it to a Good Article status (this one sounds good since it has much room for improvement). Again, just my recommendation. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I was asking you to be fair to all articles you oversee, that's all. I obviously understand that wikipedia is volunteer work. In fact, your tone has been condescending as you have used phrases like "please be patient" etc. implying that I am impatient. Attacks (if any) should be made on the content of the discussion not on the personality of the person. That is not being cordial. Anyway, happy editing to you too. I like your suggestions, I will be working on creating more new articles. Thank you. Best, Acharya63 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, I respect your personal opinion. But you violated wiki rules by reverting a change and edit that is allowed. I cannot do that for other pages. And my apologies for not replying to you earlier - in detail. However, the main point is that WP:CASTE or any other wikipedia rule does not prohibit the mention of caste and religion -especially for dead persons. Sitush explained this. However, I will still explain why I think caste is important to mention on every notable's page(as long as it is sourced). First I repeat- the WP:CASTE that you were citing as the reason for reverting my change was incorrect. I mean there is no Wikipedia rule that prohibits this mention- Sitush himself said that there is no rule to prohibit it. And we do quote castes across all pages - including politicians. Now the reason. For a Hindu born in India, caste can make or break a person. If you want to be a politician, being born Maratha is better than being a brahmin as 40% people are maratha in Maharashtra. If you want to be a radiologist, it is better not to be born in a community like Parsis that will never get reservation due to their high literacy. This is especially true to people born prior to Independence and also true now(due to reservation system). Secondly, based on caste you can tell a lot of the person's family background - how easy education was for him etc. American Historians in the US universities do look for the caste and family background when writing about Notables. For example(personal experience), some professor (non-Indian) wanted to know if Tilak was a Brahmin or not - this was several years back - before wikipedia or google books existed. The other reason is to prevent disruptive edits such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chitpavan&diff=852239188&oldid=852238854, which shows that people do look for caste of a person and make mistakes when the wikipage does not list it. It also creates a headache for people working on caste articles. BTW, Caste is not the same as Catholic/Protestant in the US. Here, I have to explain to my white christian friends(who think caste system is banned) as is quite a part of how people get treated and important in marriage too. They think it is similar to catholic/protestant/orthodox christian. Caste discrimination is banned but not caste. Caste in India is like what race is here in the US. Race discrimination is banned in the US too but try being a non-white living in the southern US rural town. A white Hindu convert will be better off than an Indian Christian there. Caste is probably more important as reservations are legally enforced. It is very hard to explain this to a white American (because they fortunately do not have the concept of caste). Thus, there is no valid reason for removing the caste. My own relative - a soldier - not very high ranking( he was a chitpawan - not a notable on wikipedia) -died in a war. So I do admire and appreciate your work. You might know that when an Indian woman won in the olympics, there was news that the google search showed that people searched for her caste - implying people do care about these things. I am not judging them. But given that the Govt of India recognizes caste(although caste discrimination is prohibited but still exists - please see [1] as a recent example), there is no reason to leave out caste. I request you to make appropriate edits to this page as well as the edits for the Parsi notables where you had reverted their Parsi heritageso I do not have to do them and we do not have to involve admins. Caste is not the same as a sun sign or even day of the week a person was born - that can be considered as trivia. Caste is in India what race is in the US - only it is more divisive. I was tempted to make the changes myself but want to approach this by explaining it to you first - so you could make them yourself. Your edits were due to a misunderstanding of WP:CASTE on your part hence these things need to be added. Moreover, it is creating headache for people working on caste articles as people keep adding the same name across multiple communities and we volunteers have to spend time reverting changes and explaining rather than more constructive edits. The consensus on wikipedia is that caste names can be added. Moreover, in this case, his assassination was religion related.(talk) 19:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acharya63: We have already gone over this on Sitush's page. This is does not add any new information about this person. Caste qualities are not applicable here as you think and just because someone is/was from a certain caste/religion does not make them have a uniform background. If you wish to add this, please open another discussion on @Sitush:'s page about this. This will also open a can of worms and will lead to issues on other Indian military relation biographical pages. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80:, I am talking about the Parsi community pages as well not just this page. Sitush already said it is OK and said that there is no rule against adding it as you were claiming. Your basic reason for reverting was wrong. Yet you kept asking me to read WP:CASTE. The consensus has already been reached for all biographical articles even before we spoke to Sitush. We cannot have different rules as it results in chaos and edit wars. You do not own these articles nor do I so we need to follow wikipedia rules. BTW, it does add new information about this person because it shows that he had opportunities to education that he would not have had he been - a Maratha (for example). If he had been a kunbi or mali born during british raj there is almost zero chance he would have reached this position. His religion was part of his assassination. It would have opened a can of worms if this were the first person on wikipedia that had his religion mentioned. But many others and other chiefs of staff as I pointed out have their communities mentioned so I find this very discriminatory. I find your reasoning very strange and I think it is time to involve admins. Unless uniform rules are followed, wikipedia will become a mess. As mentioned, this is causing problems for caste articles (I edit marathi caste articles) as the last name is very common across some castes and many people will keep adding it in their lists(I gave you an example). Most of us are volunteers here and we cannot spend time fixing people's mistakes instead of more productive work just because you refuse to add one word(without giving a valid reason). What information does his wife's name add? Wikipedia is not censored. I have given you plenty of reasons in my previous email and do not wish to discuss with you any further. I will update it (as well as the Parsi community names that you reverted) after 15th august and will report you to the admins or bureaucrats group if you revert - as you are disrupting wikipedia and volunteer time without valid reasons. WP:CASTE that you cited as a reason for this is incorrect. Bottom line is this: All Biographical articles can have their community mentioned - this IS allowed by wikipedia if they are dead. If they are living, they need self identification. Those are the only two rules for adding communities for people. You have seen the links. This is the consensus on wikipedia. There are no other rules. These are not my rules but they do make life easier as it prevents editors from adding same name to multiple caste pages. Let us deal with this after 15th august and involve admins if necessary. One of us is likely to get banned and I do not care anymore if it is me. I have been spending time at US libraries trying to help wikipedia (as the the poor people in India do not have access to the 100 dollar books I have access to but they have smart phones). I really do not want to spend unproductive time in edits like this one [2] when the addition on Vaidya on that page could have been easily prevented if we had mentioned his community here earlier. I do not wish to bother Sitush as he is sick right now and recovering and he has already explained there there is no rule against adding caste names on wikipedia. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Acharya63: You yourself mentioned on the talk page discussion with Sitush User_talk:Sitush/Archive_29#WP:CASTE where he clearly states that this should only be included if it is directly relevant to the subject. I fail to see how this person's caste is directly relevant here. What you have provided with education background and avenues of success is very subjective and of no use here expect adding trivia on the article. Also, previous email? You have not sent me any email so please be judicious with your words. Secondly, as I have said before, you are a little too passionate about this topic, especially, about adding a specific caste and this is also evident where with your getting blocked rhetoric. Editors on Wikipedia do not get blocked (you nor me based on this discussion). If Sitush is sick then we should wait for him to come back and engage in the discussion.

I am pinging an admin for further guidance. @NeilN: Sorry I am pinging you, not sure how to deal with this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant previous post. Not email. Sorry for the confusion. I am not specific about any particular caste or religion. Kindly do not make false accusations. I have been very patient. I clearly mentioned Parsi also in my previous post. Here is another example of the unnecessary headache I was mentioning : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Deshastha_Brahmins&diff=853351815&oldid=853330175. Here if the main page had properly specified her caste, it would have not been necessary. I think we should take this to admin board rather than bother a particular admin. Sitush clearly explained that WP:CASTE does not prohibit adding caste. I request you to read some literature about social history of maharashtra and how the British and caste organizations manipulated jobs (and Indians still do). And caste/community for an Indian is not trivia as I explained. If it were, there would be not be so many caste issues and caste based politics in India. The rules are very clear. I am simply following them. From my personal life, I left India because of the discrimination Brahmins and other upper castes face in jobs and education. I faced it, my sister faced it, I do not want my future generations to face it and hence I decided to move to the US. This person nor were Parsis eligible for reservation prior to Independence or even now. But when I edit wikipedia my priority is fairness and following rules and not personal preferences. If a Christian, Muslim or Parsi, Dalit, Bania etc. person has a citation for his community, there should be no reason to stop mentioning his community as wikipedia is not censored. Caste is in India what race is in the US/UK. It The consensus is clear at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. It clearly says it is allowed for a dead person. For a live person, it needs self verification. There is no prohibition to mention the caste. @NeilN:, please can you advise Mr. Gerber? I did not wish to bother a particular person(admin), hence I thought it would be better to take it to the admin board. But if you have time, please can you shed some light on this? The problem is similar to Rani_of_Jhansi. At one point she existed on the caste lists of two different caste pages. This problem could have been simply avoided if her caste had been mentioned as it has been now. I do not understand Adamgerber80's logic to block caste on this particular page as well as Parsi pages when similar pages like Rajendrasinhji_Jadeja clearly mention it. I am at a loss for words now. I am passionate about it because I edit marathi caste articles and due to similar last names across multiple castes, people(in good faith) keep adding the same person across multiple caste pages creating headaches for editors like me. I would rather spend time doing something more productive than reverting wrong edits. I spend hours at libraries in the US gathering books and when I come home I have to deal with issue like wrong edits. This person(Vaidya) also existed on two caste pages at the same time and I had to unnecessarily fix it. As one extreme example, please see Sunny_Leone. So we allow community mentions for pornstars also. I do not know how to deal with this anymore. Mr.Gerber, you reverted my edits several times based on WP:CASTE - which was wrong - but you are still being persistent about it. Our loyalty should be to wikipedia and helping each other's work - not making it more difficult. Joshi is another example. It exists across both Deshastha and Koknastha. If I find a citation I will immediately specify the Brahmin subcaste or people will add it across multiple pages leading to an inconsistent wikipedia. Same is the case with Acharya. Anyway, I will refrain from further discussion on this topic until the end of this month(there are some books I need to return and need to edit pages soon). Thank you for reading my long post.- Acharya63 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that his caste DID have an impact in his life - how? There were only 4 communities -Brahmins, Parsis, Prabhus and Shenvis(saraswats) that the British kept out of reservation in the Bombay Presidency. This means he got on with his own merit. After independence more were added to this list but the bottom line is had he been of a caste like Sonars - an OBC (which also has Vaidya as a last name), he would have found things much easier. There is another very negative quote about Chitpawans, Saraswats and Prabhus(CKPS) about how they manipulated important positions in another source- but that is not necessary. In other words , every person born in India before Independence (specifically) has his life altered in different ways because of his caste. When would a caste be irrelevant? - someone like Omi Vaidya] - born and brought up in the US. Hope that clarifies my point as to why a caste mention is important in general for dead people born before Independence- other than the fact that it prevents novices from adding it to multiple pages and creating more unnecessary work for people like me. BTW, I have semi retired from wikipedia anyway as I announced today. I am getting very tired of disruptive editors. People who do not understand the impact that caste has on a person's life directly or indirectly even today are obviously not scholars on the caste system in India or they are not familiar with the Hindu caste culture. I am going to bring up this issue in a discussion on the admin board later. I request that we stop the discussion here as it is a general discussion and not relevant to this person. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)