Jump to content

Talk:The Sengol

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jagmanst (talk | contribs) at 10:17, 4 September 2023 (→‎Recent storm of edits: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Article improvement proposals

I am trying to improve this article so that it may one day be submitted for peer-review/Good article status.

I have checked the references (and put links to archival versions) for the History section. I plan to do the other sections also.

I think the article will benefit from a section about the political context, significance and response. Jagmanst (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usually latest comment go at bottom of the talk page, said that.
Issue of title being too generic and scope of the article itself are still to be settled. Bookku (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a 'Electoral Context' section to the article. Comments/edits welcome. Jagmanst (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am thinking following sections would improve the article:
  • Symbolism: a section explaining the symbolic meaning 1) intended by the original Adheenam priests. 2) As interpreted by ruling government 3) by other commentators.
  • Response section. The newly re-named 'Debate' section I think should be called Response, and list 1) The responses by various people regarding the 1947 event ( for e.g. Ambedkar I beleive criticised it). 2) The response to the 2023 event, for e.g. boycott by opposition, etc. @Themodifie7: it would be useful if you could help with this section?
  • Something about the actual Chola history with Sengol. I note there is some discussion here about the historicity of the Sengol tradition as reported by the media.

Jagmanst (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jagmanst I agree with "response" and also need to mention the response from both side. who favoured it and who didn't. Opposition boycott is no kind of criticism and response that's not natural. And I also think Sengol's history needs to be mention. nothing has been written. Themodifie7 (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a whole section on history! Currently issue is reliable sources regarding the so called Chola tradition. See below for discussion: while media articles have asserted it was a tradition, it is difficult to find proper history (such as academic papers or books) to back it up- despite people on this page trying to find it. Jagmanst (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response isn't just about who favoured and didn't, but how did people respond to it, - what was the outcome. Jagmanst (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand the logic of removing NYT commentary of the Sengol as being a religious statement. It is a significant point of view. Please explain your edits. @Themodifie7 Jagmanst (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jagmanst not at all. NYT is best known for their so called pov. it's just a news website as simple. Themodifie7 (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NYT is generally considered a reliable source WP:RS. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered".
I dont think the view expressed is particularly biased, but either way it is a significant view point, and hence should be included as per above. Jagmanst (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Apparently the following edits are contentions.

1. "Just before Independence of India."

is better than

"As the Independence of India drew near"

The second reads like fantasy novel.

2. "On such an occasion"

vs. "On one such occasion"

First sounds better to me.

3. "The event had negligible impact on public discourse at the time"

vs.

"The event had negligible impact on contemporary discourse,[4] and it's coverage in the media was scarce"

It did receive coverage in the media- it was reported even in the Time magazine. So I don't think its accurate.

4. "It would remain largely forgotten until the inauguration of the New Parliament House in 2023"

is better than

"It would remain largely forgotten until its usage by Narendra Modi, the incumbent prime minister of India, in the inauguration of the New Parliament in 2023."

First version is more succinct and avoids repeating Modi's involvement, addressed in following line.

5. "At the inauguration of the new Parliament House, Narendra Modi installed the Sengol near the chair of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha,[6] accompanied by Hindu priests and prayers.[7][8]"

is better than

"At the inauguration of the new Parliament House, Modi installed the Sengol near the chair of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in the new Parliament building.[6] The installation was accompanied with Hindu prayers.[7]"

First version is shorter and sourced correctly. NYT does not mention Hindu prayers during the installation of the Sengol near the Speaker.

6. "The government of India in 2023 claimed the Sengol was a symbol of the transfer of power from the British regime into the hands of the Indians.[2] This narrative came from an article by Swaminathan Gurumurthy, a Hindu nationalist, published in Thuglak magazine on 5th May 2021.[3] Gurumurthy attributed the narrative to the recollections of Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi, the 68th head of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, as told to a disciple in 1978.[3]

A summary of this government narrative is as follows. Jawaharlal Nehru was asked by Lord Mountbatten about a symbol to mark transfer of power. Nehru discussed the issue with his fellow Congress leader C. Rajagopalachari.Rajagopalachari informed him of the Chola tradition of the transfer of the Sengol and with Nehru's agreement, approached the seer of Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam Matha to make one.[2][9] The Sengol was presented, by a delegation that flew to Delhi, first to Mountbatten. Mountbatten then sent it to Nehru via the delegation in an official ceremony.[9][10]"

Is better than

"The government of India claimed the Sengol as a symbol of the transfer of power from the British regime into the hands of the Indians.[2] It was sourced from an article by Swaminathan Gurumurthy, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ideologue who, in turn, had attributed it to the recollections of Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi, the 68th head of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, as told to a disciple in 1978.[3] The rough description went as follows — Jawaharlal Nehru upon being enquired by Lord Mountbatten about such a symbol on the eve of independence, discussed the issue with his fellow Congress leader C. Rajagopalachari; Rajagopalachari apprised him of the Chola tradition of the transfer of the Sengol and upon Nehru's agreement, approached the seer of Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam Matha to make one.[2][8] This would be presented by a delegation that flew to Delhi in a special plane, to Mountbatten followed by Nehru in an official ceremony.[8]"

The second version has many problems:

  • One huge paragraph. It is clearer to divide it into two.
  • "It was sourced from an article..." is unclear and does not make sense. The intended meaning is the government relied on this article for its narrative.
  • The first version provides further information about this article (the magazine is linked and information of the date of publication is provided).
  • The very long "It was sourced..." sentence is split into 2.
  • "The rough description went as follows.." is unclear, extremely long winded sentence. It is better to split this long sentences into several short ones.
  • "delegation that flew to Delhi in a special plane". Not sure what "in a special plane" adds.

8. "These claims are inaccurate"

is better than

"These claims were found to be inaccurate"

It is more short and succinct.

In summary, I re-wrote the current content to make it clearer. I made some minor changes to ensure content conformed to the sources.

Jagmanst (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnJackSp
Jagmanst (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot open a t/p section in the middle of pre-existing threads; newer threads go at the bottom. That said, I support everything except #7. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Hello editors, @Rahil1610: @Bsskchaitanya: @Lawofoctaves: @TheAafi: @Parimaltek: @Rasnaboy: @Arasksk:@GhostInTheMachine: @Hedgeunkil: @Onel5969: @খাঁ শুভেন্দু: please reach a consensus and kindly don't indulge in mindlessly reverting and changing the content of the page. the page should be neutral and should address both side's arguments. please follow all WP guidelines. ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChandlerMinh ofcourse. i agree. i edit with sources and i support neutral view Rahil1610 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mention me unnecessarily. I have not edited this page except for removing an "orphan" tag. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChandlerMinh Wikipedia should not be a place of political debates. We are here to add content from various resources. Recently, I have added a photo from an archive of then leading Telugu paper. Every Telugu scholar with basic knowledge about Andhra history knows the authenticity of that era Telugu newspapers such as Andhra Patrika, Krishna Patrika and Golconda Patrika. For your information, during that time Andhra Patrika was taking of Indian National Congress and in a way critical of then opposition parties such as Justice party and Communist Party of India. This newspaper played major role in spreading the Gandhiji's ideals and seeds of Indian nationalism through the Telugu areas of Madras presidency and was established by an Congressman, a great patriot, Sri Kasinadhuni Nageswara Rao garu. So, I suppose there is no need to doubt the authenticity from this source. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that you do not make a logical fallacy when using the talk pages. (argumentum ad verecundiam) SubtleChuckle (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never questioned you or your source. I just tagged everyone to inform them involving in this article to make the page better. Also, the description of the image you added says "Head of Thiruvaduthurai Mutt, His holiness Sri Ambavana Bandara Sannadha handed over golden sceptre to Sri Jawaharlal Nehru on the occasion of the Independence Day". This is not enough for proving that sengol symbolised transfer of power. if you have the complete translation of the article, kindly add it so that there is clarity on that. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChandlerMinh Hi Chandler. Thanks for your clarification and appreciate your good intent. My task is to provide whatever resource is available and NOT to prove any point. There are many unanswered questions on this issue. Was the Aadheenam aware that it was just a gift which will be used as a walking stick afterwards or not. Also, did they gave it as PERSONAL gift to Nehru? Was Nehru deliberate in using it as his personal gift or it was some mistake? I suppose, this sengol issue itself can be a PhD thesis topic. On a personal note, I was surprised why a Telugu newspaper highlighted some personal gift to Nehru by a remote Tamil Saivites Math. Anyways, Wikipedia is NOT a place for original research so I keep these questions for myself. As the Tamil saying quotes 'Vaimaye Vellum' (truth alone triumphs). Bsskchaitanya (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Admin, my only edit to this page was adding the government of India has created a info website - and its link , with an unbiased factual style. Arasksk (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indic Script

Why is indic script used in this article? Md. Rayan Alam Rifat (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Md. Rayan Alam Rifat (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article title naming and scope mismatch

  • This is overall feedback and not feedback for any individual editor edits

Descriptions in short description and about seem to scope-mismatch at topic level itself. Scope in given Short description includes pre-1947 historical Sengols whereas practically this article seem to have coverage for Sengol-(1947) as mentioned in about description.

    • {{Short description|Symbolic sceptre in Indian history}}
    • {{About|a gold sceptre installed in the Parliament of India..

IMO, if possible, general Sengol article should be separate and need not be overwhelmed by Sengol-(1947). I suggest present article be renamed to similar effect and a new article be created for Sengols since historical times. Bookku (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There exists no scholarship on "Sengols since historical times", to write anything about. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a revisit first sentence in the article

Sengol (IAST: ceṅkōl) is an gold-plated silver sceptre, installed in India's new Parliament House. ..

. Is this the best and factual definition we would introduce to an uninitiated reader with? (*appropriate article a, an, the is minor issue c/e can address).
  • Alternatively how this will look

    1947-Sengol / Sengol (1947) (IAST: ceṅkōl) is the gold-plated silver sceptre, installed in India's new Parliament House. ..

    ?
For separate article for "Sengols since historical times" we would need relevant WP:RS, my google books study suggest that likely be possible by including Kannada and Tamil sources and can be tried in draft namespace. Mean while simple 'Sengol' title can be redirected to Sceptre#India. What other editors think? Bookku (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively how this will look - Stupid.
Anyway, can you suggest a couple of sources from your "google books study" that attests to the evidence of a Sengol tradition in Chola spans, as has been claimed by the incumbent government in India? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For record:
This situation had been protested on the user talk page, discussion archiving bot link the link to archived discussion, only receiving (insulting) feed back suggesting to take strawpoll whether suggestions given by me above is 'just bizarre' or 'stupid' This was very rich from some one expects constructive feedback for their own contributions!
Constructive pinpointing of inaccuracies with linguistic or policy analysis along with more constructive alternate suggestions would have been helpful. Comments with words stupid/ Bizarre does not make any constructive suggestion but may lead to confusion in minds of other users, inadvertently resulting in delaying/ stonewalling of possible discussion with other users too.
1) Inaccuracy in present definition of Sengol in this article is pointed out and remains under discussion seeking inputs for alternate definition.
2) Mismatch between 'Short description' and 'About' statements leading to confusion about scope of the article has been pointed out remains under discussion seeking inputs for alternate definition.
Bookku (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep updated.
  • I am working on draft article Indian sceptre which will be complete in few more months and there would have more than enough WP:RS to prove 'Sengol' is used as a common noun in Tamil language for 'sceptre'. I am not going to hurry to reproduce litany of sources nor I am in hurry to change the title of this article. But facts and WP policies indicate if Wikipedians are interested in following the WP policy spirit then then it's always better to contemplate alternative names.
  • English WP article Sceptre appears to have been written under title செங்கோல் (Sengol) as common noun in Tamil Wikipedia in 2011 itself. That proves Sengol is common noun. Though we can wait till consensus is achieved on alternate name, usage of common noun as proper noun would remain strange for readers who know that is a common noun.
  • Common nouns are usually translatable in English language, WP:Title expects translatable titles be translated in to English.
  • Guidelines of MOS:ART/TITLE too would be applicable here. Spirit of MOS:ART/TITLE seem to expect usage of artists name for title disambiguation. Idk if artist name is clear enough for this artifact. I would be seeking inputs from WT:VAMOS by giving link to this discussion in due course. Bookku (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who funded 1947 Sengol?

Any info on, Who funded 1947 Sengol? Bookku (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the matha? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Introduction NPOV

As per WP:NPOV, at least the Introcuction needs to be kept neutral. As per WP:TALK, let any major edits to Introduction, especially realted to narrative, be first discussed on Talk page RogerYg (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User talk:TrangaBellam, I think we should have more neutral language in Introduction instead of talking about certain claims and narratives: "In 2023, incumbent prime minister Narendra Modi propagated an ahistorical narrative, claiming the Sengol as a symbol of the transfer of power from the British regime unto Indians, and installed it in the new Parliament."

Hi User talk:Rasnaboy, please give your input on how to make Introduction more neutral. RogerYg (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not mean bending over backwards to maintain a "neutral language". See WP:FALSEBALANCE. A preponderance of reliable sources report that Modi/GOI floated an ahistorical narrative, and we say so outright. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What say you, DaxServer? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed your ping. eye I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd have time, but alas -_- — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should avoid cherry picking few Newspaper sources to claim preponderance of sources for one claim RogerYg (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I proceed to cite similar articles from The Indian Express, The Telegraph, etc.? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many reliable sources such as The Indian Express have both points of view, but edits with neutral view are being deleted without credible reason RogerYg (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DaxServer, I request that all editors follow WP editing guidelines such as WP:NPOV and WP:TALK on this page
For example, the cropped Sengol image added by DaxServer, was deleted by User talk:TrangaBellam just mentioning "Horrible image".(07:10, 9 June 2023‎ TrangaBellam talk contribs‎ 11,814 bytes −209‎ Horrible picture undo thank Tag: Visual edit). Is that a credible reason or personal opinion?
I request senior editors like User talk:TrangaBellam will allow neutral edits from other Wiki editors, that are from reliable sources. RogerYg (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Scroll a reliable source?

Does Scroll pass WP:RS? I don't see it in the list either. Can anybody check and clarify? The Scroll article's content seems more like the author's personal opinion, rather than news article. Rasnaboy (User talk:Rasnaboy) 05:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that. Content with Scroll reference should be removed as per WP:RS. 67.83.187.221 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not exhaustive — if you doubt the reliability of Scroll.in, you can launch a RfC at WP:RSN. That said, there is no need to scrape the barrel since the same critiques can be sourced from NYT, WaPo, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For opinion pieces what matters is the author's credibility and quality of analysis, less the venue. Venue is more important for verification of facts Jagmanst (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact....
When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."-WP:RS. Jagmanst (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, Opinion pieces are used for opinions, not statement of fact. With Scroll, they need to be checked for being opinion or staff since they dont mark them clearly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chola traditions - or rather, the lack of it

  1. Why call it [Sengol] Chola, and not Nayaka or Thanjavur Maratha? During the reign of these early modern rulers in the 17th and 18th centuries, we have much more extensive mentions of Sengols.
    — Kanisetti, Anirudh (2023-06-01). "Go beyond Sengol: Why there's such hype about Chola dynasty in India today?". ThePrint.

  2. The Thiruvavaduthurai adheenam claims it was the practice adopted in the Chola period during the coronation of a king. The irony is that the Thiruvavaduthurai mutt was created in the later Chola period by which time all the known Chola kings had ceased to exist. To date, there is no documentary proof for such practices being adopted by the Chola dynasty.
    — Chandru, K. (2023-05-30). "In the eye of the sceptre". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that more specific mentions of [Sengol] are for Pandya and Nayak Tamil kings, so it may be called Tamil tradition instead of Chola tradition, but there are also mentions of [Sengol] by Chola historians as below:

  1. King is variously described as Sengol-valavan, the king who established just rule, Ponni-nadan, the ruler of Kaveri basin.. who established the Chola tiger crest (Page 291)
    — Balasubrahmanyam, S (1977), Middle Chola Temples Rajaraja I to Kulottunga I (A.D. 985-1070), Oriental Press, ISBN 9789060236079

  2. Tamil monarchs prided themselves on the justness of their government. The concept of Sengol has been dwelt upon by Valluvar in more than one chapter of his work. The king was warned that royal justice would ensure a happy future for him here and hereafter and that injustice would lead to divine punishment. (CHAPTER XIX THE JUDICIARY)
    — Subrahmanian, N (1971), History of Tamilnad (to A.D. 1336), Koodal Publishers

    RogerYg (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is no content being allowed from a neutral viewpoint (from Hindu) such as below

  1. The Sengol — A historic sceptre with a deep Tamil Nadu connection: A well-known historian and researcher of Sangam Literature told 'The Hindu' that the handing over of a sceptre to denote the transfer of power has been in practice for nearly 2,000 years since the Sangam Age and finds mention in texts such as the Purananooru, Kurunthogai, Perumpaanatrupadai, and Kalithogai. A puranic story also mentions the deity Madurai Meenakshi Amman giving the sceptre to the Nayaka kings..
    — Charan, Sai (2023-05-24). "The Sengol — A historic sceptre with a deep Tamil Nadu connection". thehindu.com.

    RogerYg (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying in a while. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Balasubrahmanyam (p. 261) notes that an inscription on the south wall of the mandapa in front of the central shrine of the Kailasanathar temple complex has Rajendra Chola I mentioned as the "Sengol-valavan" (lit. just king) among other epithets. Now, however gratuitiously I might read the source, it is impossible to determine the existence of any transfer-of-sengol tradition from the epithet.
    Subrahmanian is merely stating that the concept of just kingship has been already elucidated in Kural (v. 542-546) invoking the sengol. We come across a similar issue of being unable to extrapolate from a concept — universal to Hindu Kingship; c.f. Rajadaṇḍa — to the existence of a material tradition.
    I do not trust the opinions of a "historian and researcher of Sangam Literature" however "well known" when they cannot dare to put names to their opinions. It is extraordinary that some material tradition had existed for "2000 years" unperturbed, and as our policy says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Stick or Golden Walking stick

The article in the History section says that the Sengol was housed in Allahabad Museum, labelled as a 'Golden Stick gifted to Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru'. This is sourced back to an article in The Wire, which includes an image from ANI report that shows this text 'Golden Stick gifted to Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru' on a paper but without the Sengol behind it. On the other hand, there are articles in India Today and The Hindu, which say that the Sengol was labelled as 'Golden Walking stick gifted to Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru'. These reports include the image of text, along with the image of Sengol behind it. Now what's the truth behind these labelling fallacies, was the Sengol mentioned as 'Golden Stick' or 'Golden Walking stick' throughout its stay in that museum. Rim sim (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rim sim that this 'The Hindu' article is clearly more Reliable Source than 'The Wire' article.

  1. Sources in the museum described the episode as an eye-opener, blaming their lack of trained and motivated staff for their delay in understanding the true identity and history of the sceptre.. Displayed in the Nehru Gallery of the museum as part of the personal collection of the first Prime Minister, the Sengol was wrongly labelled as a “Golden Walking stick gifted to Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru"
    — Kumar, Anuj (2023-05-24). "Allahabad Museum failed to identify Sengol because no one could translate Tamil engraving". thehindu.com.

    RogerYg (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No real conflict exists here between the two sources. The Hindu article is from 24 May when the common understanding was that it was displayed as a "golden walking stick", at a time when that specific claim hadn't been scrutinised yet; the articles derives it from "sources in the museum". The Wire article is a product of later scrutiny, published on 29 May. If The Hindu article was published afterwards then there'd some grounds. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Visual evidence of the Sengol along with the displayed text in the museum, as provided in the articles of The Hindu and India Today clearly suggest that the Sengol was labelled as "Golden Walking stick". Whereas article in The Wire only provides an image of displayed text - without the Sengol, as proof for their claim. This makes the article of The Wire look more of a politically motivated 'hitjob' (those versed in Indian politics and its numerous biased media houses may vouch for it). Considering the dubious nature of these labelling claims, it would be better to write about both the claims in the article's text or just mention that the Sengol was housed in the Allahabad museum without all this labelling (mis/dis)information. Rim sim (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The image in The Hindu article has no visible display text, it's far too blurry to be read and is acquired from a third party, i.e they hadn't gone there to click the photo themselves.
    The image where the display text is visible is only present in the India Today article; part of the link address retains the term "whatsapp_image_2023-05-24", i.e it is quite possibly derived from a forward on whatsapp and could easily have been manipulated prior. This wouldn't be the first time India Today has published social media misinformation without basic fact-checking or engaged in poor image sourcing, they also lack attribution and seem to appropriate photos as their own when they aren't. In fact, the India Today article itself contains the exact same ahistorical narrative of the Sengol being a symbol of British transfer power to Indians that The Hindu has fact checked. This is not a generally reliable source.
    Whether it was labelled as a "golden stick" or "golden walking stick" is a minor detail and it can be chalked upto The Hindu just overlooking it while scrutinising the main narrative of the "transfer of power", seeing as they haven't paid much attention to it and relied on third parties. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Rim sim (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom at Midnight source

Freedom at Midnight is widely used on Wikipedia. Even, if it's a pop history, it is considered a well-researched book:

In Freedom at Midnight, it was noted that on the eve of independence day, two Adheenam sannyasin came to hand over the golden sceptre, 'Sengol' to the Prime Minister Nehru, following an ancient tradition in which Hindu holy men conferred India's kings with their symbols of power...
— Collins, Larry; Lapierre, Dominique (1997), Freedom at Midnight, p. 230, As once Hindu holy men had conferred upon ancient India's kings their symbols of power, so sannyasin had come to York Road to bestow their antique emblems of authority on the man about to assume the leadership of a modern Indian nation. They sprinkled Jawaharlal Nehru with holy water, smeared his forehead with sacred ash, laid their sceptre on his arms.

RogerYg (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps search for accounts from actual scholars like historians or Indologists? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is widely used on Wikipedia - That is a tragedy; we should not be using pop histories for anything concerning S. Asia, much less any controversial subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of craftman artist's name

MOS:ART/TITLE seem to suggest inclusion of artist name even in the article title for disambiguation purposes. Practically I do not find any mention of the artist - Vummidi Bangaru Chetty in the article. While WP:RS seem to have covered their role and credited them for the art.

Let us not get distracted by now contested Mountbatten story in those news articles and just use those to mention Vummidi Bangaru Chetty'

Sources.

IMO names of delegate representative of Mutt

Sri La Sri Kumaraswamy Thambiran, Manickam Odhuvaar (priest who recites prayer in the mutt) and the mutt’s nadhaswaram vidhwan, TN Rajarathinam Pillai, to New Delhi.

too deserve mention. Though still en WP does not have article on Rajarathinam Pillai he seem to have independent notability to have an article and Tamil Wikipedia seem to have one article about Pillai already.

Bookku (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll

This article looks like an opinion piece, though scroll has not marked it as such. Scroll has a habit of not marking opinion pieces as opinion pieces, and I think this is a case of one; The writer is a student at uni, not staff. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source used for wikivoice [1] is a piece from a political commentator. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lead balanced

Since the lead mentions Nehru, it should also mention Modi. Also, as Adheenam priests are mentioned in 1947; they also need to be mentioned for the 2023 ceremony.RogerYg (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how mentioning Modi somehow help makes it NPOV because Nehru was mentioned? I just find this reasoning a bit curious. What exactly in NPOV requires this?
Nehru was mentioned because the Sengol was gifted to him by an Adheenam. Jagmanst (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent storm of edits

What's the aim? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To shunt out the blatant ahistoricality of the incumbent government's revisonist narrative from the lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then just edit the lead. Jagmanst (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work thatway; under WP:ONUS of changing longstanding content, you ought to explain all the edits individually. Particularly:
  • Tampering with the article structure by merging the two subsections under history, which reflected the two distinct phases in the history of the artifact.
  • Ext-linking from text to a (dubious) GOI website.
  • Deletion of Annadurai's contemporary commentary.
  • Reinsertion of the "Walking Stick" bit despite Taji Arajakate's clarification, a few sections above.
  • DKC as a source.
  • Shift in register from "there is no evidence" to "no evidence was found".
  • Removal of the line about GOI's new corpus of evidence and its irrelevance.
  • Synthesis as engaged in the second line in the Electoral Politics section.
TrangaBellam (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lot of edits were explained and discussed in this talk page (see copy editing).
  • The two headings under history was removed way before my edits. You are the only one bring it back. There is no Wikipedia policy requiring it. It reads to me as a bit clumsy.
  • GOI website is a reliable source for GOI version.
  • Taji Arajakate's discussion is consistent with the uncertainity of the two labels." Whether it was labelled as a "golden stick" or "golden walking stick" is a minor detail and it can be chalked upto The Hindu just overlooking it while scrutinising the main narrative of the "transfer of power".
  • I don't understand your synthesis point. Everything in that section is based on published sources.
  • The other points seem very minor and not well explained by you. We could consider incorporating it.
WP: ONUS is on you for reverting to a very old version of the article despite considerable efforts at correcting mistakes and creating a stable version.
I suggest you try to work with other editors than demolishing their careful work engaging in aggressive edit war. Also read WP:OWN.
Jagmanst (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through the article edit history:
  • Nehru vs Modi history structure: deleted before my edits
  • "Deletion of Annadurai's contemporary commentary." ditto
  • "Removal of the line about GOI's new corpus of evidence and its irrelevance." ditto
  • "Shift in register from "there is no evidence" to "no evidence was found"." No idea what the problem is here. Article says both.
  • The removal of the lead saying the govt narrative was anhistorical- done before my edits.
  • DKC source? I don't know what it is.
It seems to me given these things were removed/edited and no one felt to reinsert them for a month means there is a presumed consensus.
I object to the Nehru vs Modi structure, because it feels strange. Eitherway, a whole lot of copyediting and other edits (such as adding archival link the sources) were done after these removals, that blanket revert to an old article version is unjustified and not collegiate. Jagmanst (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since August 2nd 2023, there have been over 70 edits, by multiple editors. Many of the edits were mine. My edits in particular were housekeeping- checking sources, adding archive links to sources. Copyediting work (see copyediting section above). In addition I added one new section on Electoral context.

The article was mostly stable till yesterday 2nd of September, when one editor who wants to revert it to 2nd of August version, undoing lot of effort put by myself and many other editors. This I found very disruptive and not very collaborative. I don't understand their reasons. If they are legitimate and there is a consensus, the stable one could just be modified to incorporate them- instead of demolishing a lot of careful work. Jagmanst (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I, Tayi, and other longstanding editors who have edited the page were on a break. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your copy-edits except for one paragraph (see my reply, above) have been restored. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were lots of other edits, by me and others you have undone. For e.g. I put archive links on lot of the references. There were many reference issues also corrected- since I went through each line by line and checked them. All undone by you. Jagmanst (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sengol&oldid=1173779261"