Contents

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

	India Project‑class
This 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page was last assessed in April 2023.

Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 November 2011.

Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 26 December 2007.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please add your votes with your comments and arguments. If you agree to remove the numbering, then vote Remove. If you don't agree to remove the counting or you have other opinions, then vote Keep 14 for PM Modi as 14th PM, or Keep 15 for PM Modi as 15th PM, or provide a custom vote. This discussion will be treated as a consensus for future reference. GrabUp - Talk 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on PM Count[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}}or{{subst:csp|username}}.

• Remove: As I can see from the above discussion, there is a huge mess in numbering. To avoid any misunderstandings where someone might think Wikipedia is wrong, it’s important to address this issue. Since students in India and around the world trust Wikipedia’s information, they might think Wikipedia is incorrect if their teachers or books differ from what is shown here. This could lead to repeated comments on the Talk page, such as the user who started the discussion on PM Modi’s Talk page, insisting he is the 15th PM instead of the 14th. Since clear numbering is not possible, we should consider removing it. GrabUp - Talk 19:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grabup/@Valereee Could you kindly provide information regarding the remaining number of votes necessary to reach a conclusive resolution in the ongoing voting process? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, @Naageshwarg, there is no prescription. We discuss until someone decides there's consensus or that no consensus is going to emerge. This can take days or weeks. Valereee (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove: I agree to remove the numbering, As keeping the numbering as 14th or changing it to 15th could lead to the same discussion again in the talk page, So totally removing it would be a better option. Naageshwarg (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove, as it seems to be something we created, possibly in a US-centric thought process. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep15 I vote keep for two reasons 1.Consistency: By removing the numbering it fails to establish a consistency with not only foreign pm counting lists but many other articles regarding Indian leaders. 2.Nuance:Whether referring to primary or secondary sources such as (https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/list-of-all-prime-ministers-of-india-1473165149-1) the largest Educational site in India and reliable,removing the numbering entirely would fail to explain the nuance behind this situation. Solution: while I believe discussion is needed a solution I would propose is to Change the existing numbering to what is found on the official sources,but add a FAQ and/or Footnote elaborating the criterion. Byzaboo234 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Byzaboo234, how did you end up here? Valereee (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The OP who requested the edit is my friend and after my due diligence of research figured keeping the number count was the best Byzaboo234 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  tho I did not want this to be a actual part of my argument since it's quite silly,the "anti-wikipedia" rhetoric (if u could call it that is extremely high in the Indian Educational system. Failing to include such basic info as the PM Count and only making this exception for the Indian list would only support the argument that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of Info. While maybe disagreeing or agreeing with secondary sources from teachers or text books can be remedied by explaining the nuance behind this situation. Byzaboo234 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, @Byzaboo234, Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information. There's an explanation at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is basically a collection of curated sources (the references), along with text (the article itself) summarizing what those sources say. No one should be using Wikipedia as a source. For students writing research papers or essays, Wikipedia is a convenient starting point for finding references. The references are what students should be using to write papers. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In all honesty I wasn't aware of this,but my argument was(should have worded it better) making Wikipedia a trustable source,as @Grabup pointed out,omitting this information(that too only the Indian article) would only feed ito the distrust. Adding a FAQ or Footnote and citing the source would better explain the nuance and reach some kind of compromise rather than omitting this completely which would kind of a shame. Byzaboo234 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Byzaboo234: We are not clear on which source we should trust. Some mention Modi as the 15th PM and some as the 14th. Moreover, the sources are also confused. GrabUp - Talk 18:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes,and that's why providing explanation of the criteria like @Pincrete outlined in the discussion page would be the better option for both Accuracy and consistency. Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Replying to @Byzaboo234

  As mentioned by @Vanamonde93 'In a parliamentary system, where a Prime Minister may be sworn in one day and hold office only to fail to prove their majority soon afterward, does the numbering even matter? List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, for instance, does not have any numbering.'

  It won't be considered a 'Shame'. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Byzaboo234 While consistency with foreign prime minister counting lists and other articles is important, it's equally crucial to ensure accuracy in our representations. The discrepancy surrounding Narendra Modi's numbering highlights an inconsistency that cannot be overlooked. Maintaining an inaccurate numbering system simply for the sake of consistency risks perpetuating misinformation. By removing the numbering, we prioritize truthfulness and integrity in our presentation of historical facts. This approach fosters a more responsible and reliable information environment, even if it means deviating from established conventions. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree,Accuracy is more important than consistency,however wouldn't providing elaboration on the nuance and confusion on the topic would be more accurate than flat out removing the numbering. Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove - In my reading there seems to be a disagreement between the "official" sources (i.e. www.pmindia.gov.in), which say 15, and the majority of RS, which say 14. It's also a little unclear how pmindia.gov is getting to 15. This is just going to be a hard factoid/statistic to relay to readers in a clear and simple way, and ultimately, it doesn't really add a great deal of context or understanding to the subject. The easiest thing to do may simply be to not mention it. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment on RfC - Kudos to User:Grabup for setting up this RfC, but I think he should have offered 3 choices. It should be Remove, Keep - 15, or Keep 14. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @NickCT: Thanks, I updated the options for more clear consensus, there is only one Keep vote so it will not effect, I am urging @Byzaboo234 to update your vote as per your opinion, If you agree PM Modi as 14th Pm then change your vote from KeeptoKeep 14 and if you agree PM Modi as 15th PM then change it to Keep 15. GrabUp - Talk 18:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't realise that,thank you. Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So "https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/former-prime-ministers/" and other official sources are prety consitent to arrive at the 15th number for Modi,official sources consider Gulzari as a PM,while secondary sources consider him as a "interim" PM Byzaboo234 (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even I'm agreeing with you, I want to change the numbering as 15, But as many of them are not ok with the decision and other websites consider him as the 14th prime minister, So I was convinced that removing the numbering straight away would be a better option! Naageshwarg (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Byzaboo234 and Naageshwarg: - I mentioned this below, but the issue isn't that pmindia.gov considers Gulzari a PM. The issue is that pmindia.gov is double counting Atal. It's saying Atal is both the 10th and 13th PM. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't? 1.Nehru,2.Nanda,3.Shastri,4.Indhira,5.Moraji,6.Charan,7.Rajiv,8.Vishwanath,9.Chandra,10.Narashima,11.Atal,12.Gowda,13.Inder,14.Manmohan and current 15.Modi? Or am I making a mistake? Byzaboo234 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Byzaboo234: - "www.pmindia.gov.in/en/former-prime-ministers/" says Inder "was sworn in as the 12th Prime Minister". NickCT (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But if we consider this website, It clearly states that Modi is the 15th Prime Minister

  https://indianembassynetherlands.gov.in/news_detail/?newsid=52, @Grabup Stated that 'I think they made a mistake', @NickCT What do you think about it? Naageshwarg (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clear to me that gov.in considers Modi the 15th. It's not clear to me how they get to that number. NickCT (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see that,however if we go by common sense it doesn't say 15,there is a confusion so as u said,The Footnote and elaborating the confusion is probably the best to reach a conclusive resolution. Byzaboo234 (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't see on this page where it says "Shri Inder Kumar Gujral was sworn in as the 12th Prime Minister of India"? NickCT (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yea I do now,sorry lol Byzaboo234 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Byzaboo234: - So that must make pmindia.gov.in's sequence : 1.Nehru,2.Shastri,3.Indhira,4.Moraji,5.Charan,6.Rajiv,7.Vishwanath,8.Chandra,9.Narashima,10.Atal,11.Gowda,12.Inder, 13. Atal, 14.Manmohan and current 15.Modi, right? As I mentioned previously, I don't understand why Atal gets counted twice, and Indhira only once, but I don't know what other sequence they could be using. NickCT (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  so you missed gulziral and I believe it's a mistake on pmindia.gov part but other official sources make the statement clear that Modi is 15th PM. Byzaboo234 (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What "other official sources"? I saw the embassy website above. But obviously the embassy is probably taking their cue from pmindia, right? If the pmindia is mistaken, the embassy is making the same mistake. And I don't think pmindia consders Nanda in their count. I think we both agree pmindia is mistaken, but disagree on what that mistake is. I think the mistake they're making is that they double count Atal, but not Indhira. They should double count both (making Modi the 16th), or neither (making Modi the 14th). NickCT (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -(Summoned by bot), comparisons with US or UK aren't necessarily helpful, Brits never refer to their PMs by any 'regnal number', so the presence of such a number would be both WP:OR and fairly valueless, ditto German chancellors and many other political leaders. Americans more commonly refer to Presidents thus, perhaps partly because the US role is more distinct, and (fairly) directly elected and ordinarily fixed-term. The first question therefore is whether Indian PMs are commonly given such a number, the answer to which appears to be yes, so the info is useful. It also appears as though Nanda's two brief 'caretaker PM-ships' are often not credited with a number, nor are 'repeats' or 'returns' (correctly probably since a new term of office is not necessarily a new office-holder). I suggest keeping the numbering, based on the most common system, which appears to call Modi 14th, but adding a footnote giving the source and elaborating the criteria briefly, as outlined by Kautilya3 or perhaps that of Valereee. Abandoning numbering would seem to be a shame, if the info is commonly employed.Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it would be considered a shame. 42.111.147.236 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that "Indian PMs are commonly given such a number". The probably is the number differs in the sources! So which number?? I agree with what several other folks here have said, that it would be extremely awkward for us to call Modi the 14th, if the official position of the Indian government is that he's the 15th. That said, the "footnote" solution may be OK. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from article leads, but prefer 15 over 14. Ultimately, the statistic is somewhat meaningless; the number of people who have held the office is distinct from the number of terms of Prime Ministership which is very distinct from how long people have held the office which is distinct from how many times someone was elected prime minister. In Modi's case, the fact that he was the 15th person to hold office is a triviality relative to other statistics, such as the 10 years he has held the post, his re-election being the first time a non-Congress PM was re-elected to a full term, his election with a majority for a single party, etc. If someone is writing a prose summary of Modi's premiership, this statistic does not belong. That said, I have no objections to including it with an explanatory footnote in infoboxes or article bodies, and given that the prime minister's office appears to count Nanda's tenure, we should do the same. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grabup Everyone is not suggesting the same in terms of 'Remove, Keep 14 or Keep 15' But I think everyone agrees with the footnote idea, Does anybody have any objection on including a explanatory footnote? Naageshwarg (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree,atleast an explanation to the confusion is needed. Byzaboo234 (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grabup Waiting for your reply. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Naageshwarg: It would be good if an experienced editor or admin closed this discussion RfC and make necessary changes. GrabUp - Talk 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grabup You're an experienced editor and a person who managed to get this issue to this notice board, Create a rfc and published this issue to many editors, Who else you think it should be? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Naageshwarg: Anyone can request closure by an uninvolved editor at Request for Closure. I think this topic needs closure by an uninvolved editor. I am not ready to close this RfC. GrabUp - Talk 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grabup On what basis are you saying 'I'm not ready to close this RfC'? I think the consensus is clear, or it atleast has a stable discussion. So I request you, Or any other more experienced editors such as @NickCT, @Valereee, @Vanamonde93 to view this RfC and do the needful. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An editor usually shouldn't close an RfC they open: see WP:INVOLVED for the general principle. Also, what's the hurry? The RfC has only been open four days; a month is usual. This is a book-keeping detail, moreover; there isn't any urgency on the content side either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree! GrabUp - Talk 18:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright thanks for the information! I was saying it as the election results 2024 were near, If the consensus are not yet clear, I have no issues with it, We can continue as per your comment. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I think we have consensus to remove now. I don't think we consensus on whether Modi should be the 14th or 15th (I'm personally beginning to think he might be the 16th!). Naageshwarg - Technically, you don't have to wait for us to agree to close the RfC. If you think there is consensus now, you can plead your case at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Requests_for_comment. Some uninvolved editor can decide whether this RfC may qualify for Wikipedia:SNOW close. That said, if a lot of folks prefer to wait (and it seems like some do), I personally would wait. This doesn't seem like so much of a hot button issue that we have to rush. If WP is getting this factoid wrong, it seems like a lot of other folks get it wrong too; hence we don't look too dumb compared to the crowd! NickCT (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @NickCT I'm agreeing with you, So let's take time and make the right decision! Naageshwarg (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @NickCT Seems like no one have posted any comments for 3 days! Naageshwarg (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Naageshwarg: - I think a request to close posted at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Requests_for_comment would be justified. NickCT (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Summoned by bot) per my previous comments, but add a footnote detailing the nature of the disagreement. It seems to be acknowledged that referring to someone as the nth PM is common in India-related circles, so it seems a cop-out for us to not say, even if what we are effectively saying is "sources disagree but …". The footnote is more important than the actual number chosen, but that should be the one used by the majority of sources. Not clear which that is. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for PM Count[edit]

Narendra Modi is the 15th Prime minister of India and not 14th, This is a major error in this article, Please do correct it. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naageshwarg, Please cite reliable source to back your edit. GrabUp - Talk 17:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Proof/Reference:

This information is from (pmindia.gov.in) AND

https://indianembassynetherlands.gov.in/news_detail/?newsid=52 Naageshwarg (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naageshwarg: It is the official website of the Embassy of the Netherlands. I think they made a mistake. You can see the all PM list here to check that he is the 14th PM. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is based on Secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to inform you that you guys made a mistake, Here's the official website of Indian Prime minister and see what they have mentioned, So I request you to kindly change it. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/shri-narendra-modi-assumes-office-as-15th-prime-minister-of-india/

Also, In the link you sent, PM.Gulzarilal Nanda wasn' counted as a prime minister.

Kindly change it or should I ask it directly to the PM?

Many students are affected by your mistake. Naageshwarg (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naageshwarg: The Indian PM can't really do anything here, nor is he free to do so. Wikipedia is independent from the government. Thanks for letting us know about this; I am informing an admin.

@RegentsPark: What do you say? If this is true, then we are really making a big mistake! Although Gulzarilal Nanda was PM, it was only for 13 days, serving as acting PM after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru. GrabUp - Talk 18:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzarilal is in the list but is not counted as PM. GrabUp - Talk 18:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see, the Indian government officially states that Manmohan Singh was the 14th Prime Minister, not Modi.

• link

GrabUp - Talk 18:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabupThank you for your support and understanding, Hope you edit the article as soon as possible!!

For further clarification, Here's the proofs that Gulzarilal Nanda was the 2nd prime minister:

https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/gulzari-lal-nanda-second-short-serving-prime-minister-7924421/

https://www.india.com/photos/news/prime-ministers-of-india-since-independence-294419/jawaharlal-nehru-1947-1964-294426/ Naageshwarg (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: Can you please comment on this? GrabUp - Talk 11:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says Nanda was 'interim' PM. I suggest asking for input at WP:WikiProject India, and it might be worth creating an FAQ once there's some consensus on how to count PMs of India. Surely some academic somewhere is discussing it. Valereee (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main concerning thing to me is that the user said, “Many students are affected by your mistake.” How can we be so wrong? I also think there should be a discussion and consensus regarding this. Without consensus, this significant change can’t be added to Wikipedia. Or maybe I am wrong. GrabUp - Talk 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting everyone to please share here your opinions. GrabUp - Talk 16:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a personal opinion here other than that we should be consistent across all our articles. This has been a persistent problem, created by Nanda's time as acting prime Minister. Someone should probably dig through what "official" sources say, and I don't have the time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are the official sources mentioned above by the user:

  • Shri Narendra Modi assumes office as 15th Prime Minister of India
  • India’s fourteenth Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh
  • List of PMs by order

  ——

  All official government sources say that Modi is the 15th PM and the 14th PM was Manmohan Singh. We should reach a clear consensus (if there isn't one already) as June 4 is very near, and India may see a new PM. GrabUp - Talk 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are any academic sources not calling Nanda a PM? I'd say if all official government sources are counting Nanda as a PM and academics are not disagreeing, we should too. It may be worth settling on wording...'Modi is according to official government sources the 15th PM; some non-official sources consider him the 14th because interim PM Nanda was in office for less than two weeks' or whatever. Then edit other articles as appropriate and place a FAQ or pinned post where needed. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Every source calls him PM, or mainly Interim PM. The main issue is whether we should count him as a PM or not. This is what is causing the whole problem. GrabUp - Talk 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly what we need, If you just mention he is the 14th prime minister, Students would blindly conclude that he is the 14th prime minister but if you mention as 'Modi is according to official government sources the 15th PM; some non-official sources consider him the 14th because interim PM Nanda was in office for less than two weeks' they would research more and conclude according, Also In my opinion the official sources are primary and the non-official sources are secondary, If you just let the readers know about this, It's obviously fine. Also after June 4, There will be the same confusion, So I request you to discuss and edit as soon as possible. Naageshwarg (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the PMIndia website, he is the 15th. The Gulzarilal Nanda page is pretty clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Two cents - There appear to be "reliable" and "official" sources on both sides of this debate. It's sorta nuts that "www.pmindia.gov.in", which you'd think would be the most "official" source, refers to him as both the 14th and the 15th depending on where you look. If they're confused, it's no surprise we here on WP are confused. Doing a simple search engine test, it appears sources calling him the "14th" outnumber the "15th" by about 10 to 1. I think there are four possible solutions to this debate. 1) Just call him the 14th. 2) Don't mention the number. 3) Call him the 14th, but add an in-line explainer that Nanda is excluded from the count. 4) Call him the 14th, but add a footnote explaining that Nanda is excluded. Given that sources seem to lie overwhelmingly on the side of the 14th, I'd probably say option 1 is the way to go. Option 4 (i.e. a footnote) could be OK. NickCT (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just an fyi, Britannica makes the second choice by not mentioning the number in their articles for Indian PMs. — hako9 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, after further reading, I realize the problem here is Atal, not Nanda. "www.pmindia.gov.in" seems to suggest Atal is both the 10th and the 13th PM of India, while many sources (including us) seem to think he is just the tenth.... NickCT (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After further reading, I think we should not mention the number. There's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here which is Grover Cleveland. He's called the 22nd and 24th president of the US, so it seems reasonable that Atal is 10th and 13th PM of India. It seems like the majority of reliable sources seem to treat Atal as just the 10th PM, but, as others have mentioned, the "official" sources seem to call him the 10th and 13th. Weighting the majority of RS against the "official" sources seems like too hard a debate to resolve, so I'd suggest we just avoid the whole thing and not mention anything. NickCT (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indira Gandhi also had non-consecutive terms. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh man..... you're right. So why do you think "www.pmindia.gov.in" treats Atal like he's the 10th and 13th, but Indira like she's only the 3rd? NickCT (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a random sidenote; does anyone else think it's weird that American's frequently refer to their president by his number in the sequence of presidents, but Brits don't do the same w/ their PM? NickCT (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Figuring out the number for the British PM would be even trickier than the debate above about Indian PMs. Presidential systems are probably easier than Parliamentary systems in this regard in general, although the number can still be arbitrary, see List of presidents of the Philippines. CMD (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like it is a very good mess. I agree to remove the numbers. At least someone can’t say that Wikipedia is wrong without understanding that there is actually a mess like this. Also, we should add an FAQ as Valeree suggested. GrabUp - Talk 02:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Most reliable sources don't make a distinction between acting PM and a PM. Some do make a distinction. These ones call Shastri 2nd PM.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} (verify with proquest/newspapers.com/wp:lib). But we should go with primary and official sources with this one and count Nanda as 2nd and make changes to all other articles and list. — hako9 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreeing with you here. When Nanda was appointed as prime minister, he had the dignity as a full Prime Minister. Hence the numbering must change. Naageshwarg (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM modi is 14 th president of india and currently serving more than 10 years from May 106.222.222.30 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There have been mutliple consecutive PMs (Nehru, Indira) in consecutive Lok Sabhas, if they were counted separately each time (to reach 14th in 2014) then PM Modi should be counted in the same manner per precedence. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Having looked more into this, I'm inclined to think we should omit the numbering altogether. The numbering makes some sense when office bearers have fixed terms that are essentially only interrupted by their demise, such as for the US presidency. In a parliamentary system, where a Prime Minister may be sworn in one day and hold office only to fail to prove their majority soon afterward, does the numbering even matter? List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, for instance, does not have any numbering. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93 Agreeing with you, Instead of directly saying he is the 14th PM, We should atleast let the people know that there is a confusion, Or just omit the numbering so that there won't be a confusion like this in the first place. We should make a decision as soon as possible, Is everyone ok with this suggestion? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, I agree to remove the numbering. Additionally, we can add an FAQ to the talk page for future comments from users. GrabUp - Talk 17:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grabup So, have we made a decision, or do you want further confirmation? Naageshwarg (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Naageshwarg: I have converted this discussion to an RFC. At the beginning, I have provided options for voting. This will help establish a clear consensus for the future. I urge everyone to vote and share your opinions. GrabUp - Talk 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ghibran#Requested move 2 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure but usage of word 'Repealed' seems doubtful. Can some one from this project look into this soon to be implemented law article and provide inputs at Talk:Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita#'Repealed' wording okay for IPC? or do the needful. Bookku (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ponwar cattle#Requested move 6 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. The source used [1] is apparently an opinion piece coming from a Dalit rights activist, hence POV is an issue. The writer claims census 2011 figures for 'Shudras'. As far as I know, census do categorise SCs and STs but haven't seen anything called 'Shudra' in any of their sources, a group that includes various caste/communities from diverse backgrounds. I'd say the figures claimed here here is a case of original research of census data. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author, Kancha Ilaiah, carries some weight in his field, but he is a controversial figure whose claims we cannot reproduce in Wikipedia's voice. I'm less concerned about the conclusions Ilaiah is coming to - as a scholar, it is his role to interpret raw statistics - but that source isn't enough for us to carry the claim uncritically. Furthermore, Ilaiah is making fairly complex arguments that are poorly suited to being summarized in the lead of a Wikipedia article. It doesn't help that the lead of that article is appalling; it is written to imply the non-existence of oppressed caste groups, rather than the reality of "Shudra" being something of a messy and mis-used catch-all term for groups whose identities are contested but whose existence as an underclass is not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request for comment about the reliabilityofThe Times of India (TOI) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: The Times of India. — Newslinger talk 10:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sadh Vaishnavism#Requested move 14 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BRICS#Requested move 23 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]