Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru

AI Colored Photos

I don't think AI colored Photos should be on Wikipedia 2604:CA00:13C:39C0:0:0:E67:54B5 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing dispute

An editor has carried complete reverts to my edits stating that a particular source (Tharoor, Nehru: the invention of India) is not reliable. I have various objections.

First, I have added material that does not rely on this particular source alone. However, these edits are also being blanked as part of complete reverts. I do not think the user has gone through the entire material I have edited.

Second, I can easily replace the "problematic" source. Tharoor relies on other scholarly works and autobiographical writings of Nehru. I am already in the process of adding the relevant primary sources, and removing Tharoor, if neccessary.

Thirds, I have edited the lead section to be more concise and better reflect the main contents of the article. I do not understand what possible objections are being raised to blank these edits too. I think it could be more concise, but I am not sure why anybody could be in the favour of blanking it altogether?

I am taking the criticism in good faith, but I am not sure proper justifications have been offered to contest my edits. . Exdg77 (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Tharoor has been completely replaced wherever I cited him with scholarly alternatives. I hope this will please everyone. Exdg77 (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Shashi Tharoor's works to be reliable sources [for this article]. Anything sourced to his works, I'd consider as his opinion and include only where it's W:DUE. Still applies even if there are other citations supporting the content. Please use secondary scholarly sources. A blind search on JSTOR yields 25,000+ results. Also, please restrict usage of primary sources, except only where it's due. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have already edited out Tharoor and replaced him with secondary scholarly sources by authors such as Bal Ram Nanda and Sarvepalli Gopal, among others. I have only cited primary sources for quoting Nehru on certain points, and restricted their usage to places where I thought these would be helpful for additional context. I prefer to find these quotations in secondary literature, if possible. It was not difficult to replace Tharoor because I was not following a unique narrative account from his book. The facts of Nehru's life are well-established, and it seems more that Tharoor was paraphrasing secondary scholarly works (and Nehru), albeit with his own spin here and there. Anything that was uniquely Tharoor is gone, not that there was much of that to begin with (if at all?). I contend that whatever is there now is well-supported by relevant secondary scholarly works by Nanda, Gopal et al. Please do let me know if there are any other issues. Exdg77 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have thorougly reviewed the newer scholarly sources that I have cited; I did not just find them in Tharoor, who doesn't include references anyway (I am beginning to realize why citing Tharoor was a bad idea). Besides that, I have one question. There is a "secret report" Nehru made about the League Against Imperialism to the Congress which I can only find in Tharoor and M J Akbar. Since one editor was finding Tharoor objectionable, I replaced that citation with Akbar. However, I wonder if Akbar might be considered problematic in light of objections to Tharoor? I would like to find the report, but both Tharoor and Akbar have the bad habit of not including footnotes or endnotes. Akbar does have an extensive bibliography. Exdg77 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

MJ Akbar is opposition politician and Tharoor's work has lots of factual errors. You cannot use either. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You are not being constructive. Thraroor has been completely removed and the material has been sourced to reliable secondary scholarly works. MJ Akbar (a Bharatiya Janata Party politician, not "opposition" btw) is only used for one sentence! You are justifying blanking everything else on that? I Exdg77 (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the newer material never even cited Tharoor to begin with, and it's all being blanked too. I don't understand what you are doing. Exdg77 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I just noticed that you have agreed about the edits to the main body of the article, and only reverted changes to the lead. Might I enquire what are your objections to the lead? You did not offer a reason for reverting the changes. It is a summary of the main body of the article, and I included citations. I think my edits were a substantial improvement. Exdg77 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The user User:Fowler&fowler has also reverted the lead. I had sounded him out on the topic on his talk page, and I am going to defer to his rationale for doing so, and take into account his advice for future changes. Unless anybody has another issue, I guess this dispute is closed now. Exdg77 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sections, Sub-Sections, and Sub-subsections

I am currently expanding the section Nationalist movement (1912–1938). In the interim, I have given non-descriptive names to sub-sections, such as 'Nationalist movement: 1931-1932, in imitation of some naming conventions that were present prior to my edits. I plan to give more descriptive names to these sub-sections later. Thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.

I also think Nationalist movement (1912–1938) could be divided into Nationalist movement (1912–1927) and Nationalist movement (1927-1939), or something similar. It is getting too long. Again, thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. Exdg77 (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and split Nationalist movement (1912–1939) into two parts after seeing someone add a tag that the article is too long to navigate comfortably. Exdg77 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted most, if not all, of your edits of the last several months, and restored the last consensus version of this GA. Your edits have consisted of prose dumps of size 500 words at times; they have inadequate or opaque edit summaries. Because of your additions, the article had ballooned to size 16,500 words, whereas its size should be no more than 10,000 words. I have brought it down to 12,000 words. It needs further reduction, not expansion. I'm sorry to do this, but Nehru is a vital article about a major figure of late-colonial and early postcolonial South Asian history. Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, please explain here what it is you want to do and why and let a consensus evolve for the edits. When you make dozens of edits at single sittings, it becomes very difficult for those who normally maintain the article to single out the occasional helpful addition. I note, for example, in your latest edit, you had changed the Home Rule Movement to Home Rule League. But HRL is more commonly applied to the Irish precursor on which Besant's Indian was modeled. The WP article is Indian Home Rule Movement. Pinging administrators: @Abecedare, RegentsPark, Nikkimaria, Vanamonde93, MelanieN, and SpacemanSpiff: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The editors who have added excessive prose, I believe, are: @Exdg77, Capitals00, and Aman.kumar.goel: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi had also ballooned in size to over 16K words and after Nikkimaria's recent helpful intervention, it has been reduced to approx 12,500 words, but still awaiting further reduction to no more than 10K words. The FAs India and Darjeeling, with which I have some familiarity are 10.5K words and 9K words respectively. Also pinging @Sitush: who is an expert in removing unneeded prose on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Fowler&fowler:, I am a bit surprised, but understand the article became too long. My rationale for expanding was that Nehru's nationalist activities between 1912-1939 were not adequately covered. I was going to try and condense the material added, but it's just as well that I should start again and with a consensus on how to go about improving the article. As for the latest edit, I was contemplating how to split the section and concluded that the whole period until 1929 can be thought of one as for home rule, so it was inaccurate on my part to label one specific subsection as "Home Rule Movement: 1916-1917". I welcome any suggestions on correct terminology. That said, my first point on improving the article is that I think the section Internationalising the struggle for Indian independence: 1927 editorialises the source in stating that "some of his statements on this matter, however, were interpreted as complicity with the rise of Hitler and his espoused intentions." I would like this statement to be looked at immediately. Exdg77 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that all your edits were unhelpful, but when we attempt to rewrite an already overfull article, especially a GA that has undergone some community review, we cannot add too much new material without further summarizing, even removing, some existing material. The bottom line is that a 16,500 word-size is unacceptable. There is not much more to it. I apologize for the tardiness of my responses, as I've explained, edit summaries such as "better" or "adding some more" or somesuch are not adequate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize to @Rjensen: and other who had added helpful sources, and still others who had made other helpful edits. Your edits will be restored soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

A apologize too for saying it is a GA. It failed, but still went through a review. Pinging @TheWikiholic, APPU, and Jonathansammy: who seemed to have edited the article at that time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from and also apologise for inadequate edit summaries. I was actually planning on submitting a major expansion to the Early life and career (1889–1912) section, but refrained when I saw the notice that the article was getting too long to be navigated comfortably. I realised I was not adding material in a summary style, or at least, adding too much detail. I am still new to some conventions of Wikipedia. I welcome any effort to salvage what I had added previously in a more condensed form. I am quite open to trying to improve the article again while still keeping it under the desired word-size. Exdg77 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually did consider submitting it, and working straightway to split it into a separate article on Nehru's early life and career, while keeping a summary form for the main page. However, I realise now I should gain a consensus first and that there are more important things to sort out.Exdg77 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Exdg77: It would help also if you make a list here of the sources you have used. They don't have to be in WP format. "B.R. Nanda, The Nehrus, 19**," etc. is good enough. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I will get started on this straightaway.Exdg77 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Your contributions have not vanished into thin air. They are all in the history. If you hold off for some time, I, and hopefully others, will be able to go through your edits and others' as well, and achieve a happy medium.

I thank you for choosing to engage me here to have edit warred. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all, I respect your contributions to the history of India on Wikipedia, and very happy to see you taking a more hands on approach to Nehru's article despite being busy with other things. Exdg77 (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: As requested, here are the sources I added. I copy pasted the ones I used just once or twice from my last revision. The main ones are under the heading of multiple citations. I will double check to see if I have missed anything that I added. I did cite a number of references that were already present, but I was not sure If I should add them separately here. Exdg77 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a correction, some of the sources, such as Nanda and Moraes, were already present. Some more sources might have been already present, but it has been months since I first edited the article, and I can't quite recall if I was the one to introduce them. I do remember most of the sources I added precisely, as well as the material I introduced and edited in June. If there is any confusion, just ask me for a clarification. Exdg77 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If only the recent additions (after 31 May 2023) to "Nationalist movement (1912–1930)" and "Nationalist movement (1930–1939)"[1] was reverted, then you would see that rest of the article was smaller than what was recently restored here. The version which I have restored and modified while writing this message is 5,000 bytes smaller than that.[2] I believe some edits of Exdg77 were good and I will look forward to find a way that how they can be retained.

I think Jawaharlal Nehru#Key cabinet members and associates, which alone has nearly 1000 words, should be removed because it mostly provides short biographies of very few cabinet ministers who served under Nehru's ministry. Rest of the article is good so far. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is much much more than just the recent. The article simply cannot accommodate more than 10,000 words. We are discussing things here for now @Aman.kumar.goel:. You have just reinstated clumsy, inaccurate words and phrases in the lead. Links cannot take the place of good prose. You have done so despite the likelihood of admins now being more focused on this page than before. Please self-revert and make your points here. Which of the references enumerated by Exdg77 do you have knowledge of Aman.kumar.goel and have employed in your edits? What are the other references knowledge from which you have brought to bear in your edits? Please enumerate. I've organized the references below. You may add them in Editor ---'s sources. Many thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, this is why I proposed section removal just above. I removed the clumsy and inaccurate phrases. Right now the whole article is at 11,474 words. If we removed Jawaharlal Nehru#Key cabinet members and associates (over 900 words as I proposed above) and trimmed quotes of Jawaharlal_Nehru#Writings then we will get the ideal result. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, @Aman.kumar.goel: I rolled back the article to an old edit so we can all discuss what is due and what undue on the page. You, on the other hand, have been removing material on the fly in breezy edit summaries, even material whose presence in the article in some instances predates your first contributions to the page nearly a year ago. Please desist and make our task harder. Please self-revert and discuss the issue here first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, Aman.kumar.goel, you will not in speedy edits resolve a complex issue involving dozens, if not eventually hundreds of sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The article went through many improvements throughout 2022 and this year. Why all progress should be reverted without any proper reason?

Your explanation that I shouldn't be removing something that was added before I edited this article for the first time, is simply incorrect. If you are finding any problem with any of my recent edits then you can describe it here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, let us rollback the article to the last edit (of 6 June 2022), before your first edit of 15 June 2022 @Aman.kumar.goel:, and long before Exdg77's first edit, when the prose size was 12,122 words and discuss how it can be brought down to 10,000 words and with what sources. How's that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. If you have any problem with any of the modified content then let me know. Losing all progress will only waste time. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:

Please also read: Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline Even 9,000 words is sometimes looked askance at. Look at my recent successful FAR Darjeeling. It has 8,973 words and it is not a minor topic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Many apologies, I meant @Dwaipayanc:'s and my recent FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

What else do we have to remove from the article? I don't think anyone is planning to nominate this article for FA though. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You have violated WP guidelines. I am going to stop here, but please think carefully about what you have done. That an article is not an FA is not a warrant to bloat it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I was only commenting on the general approach to FA, and I am myself opposed to over-sizing of the article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Like there is Joseph Stalin during the Russian Revolution, Civil War, and the Polish–Soviet War, an article called Jawarharlal Nehru during the Indian independence movement can be created and all edits of Exdg77 can be retained there. Capitals00 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  The article was already bloated @Capitals00: before Exdg77 made their first edit on 28 May 2023. The prose size of article at the time of the previous edit, incidentally by Aman.kumar.goel, see here, was 12,188 words which was greater than the size before Aman.kumar.goel's first edit described above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is 11,474 words now. Just remove the section on "Key cabinet members and associates" as I described above, and we are done with the wording issue. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Article_size#Content_removal You are violating WP guidelines. I have merely rolled back to a version much closer the last GA review so we can collectively decide what is the right approach. Exdg77 has been using some good sources. The issue may not be one of deletion and you have done but summarizing drastically in cogent prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

But the article failed GA review, that's why so much progress has been made in more than a year. Whatever those issues are, you can highlight them here but rollbacking is no solution. It will only discourage editors from editing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but it garnered a lot of attention, and saw a lot of focus from many editors such as @TheWikiholic, Jonathansammy, and APPU: and to some extent myself who had long edited the article. It was the last such focus. Please add the sources you have consistently used in the section below, so we can assess your edits. The passing or failing is not of the essence here, it is the focus and input. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:@Fowler&fowler: Aman.kumar.goel, one of the changes you made to the article was to the section on Hindu Code and Marriage Bills by adding the line "The Nehru administration saw such codification as necessary to unify the Hindu community, which ideally would be a first step towards unifying the nation." You stated in your edit summary that you are adding material present in the article Hindu code bills, in the subsection Intentions. The scholar cited for that on the Hindu code bills is Rina Verma Williams. I would say this is Rina Verma William's interpretation of what the bills did, and that others such as Seba Rom would disagree about the intentions of the act on the part of Nehru and Ambedkar. I cannot access that specific cited work by Rina Verma Williams, but I have been reading what I can of Rina Verma Williams and I am worried about how much of that paragraph might be editorialising. This line " Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population, first needed to be united before any actions were taken to unify the rest of India", comes very close to parroting contemporary political talking points of certain outfits. I think the article on Hindu Code Bills itself deserves further scrutiny before you cite it to add that sentence on Nehru's article. Exdg77 (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The content was copied from Hindu code bills and Rina Williams, Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws, Oxford University Press, is certainly a great source for this subject. Whether it comes close to "parroting contemporary political talking points of certain outfits" would need clarification from a similarly reliable source that these points are promoted by "certain outfits" with a political agenda. Do you have any? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Having read other works by Rina Williams, I am wondering about how much of that paragraph is editorialising. Is the sentence ("Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population, first needed to be united before any actions were taken to unify the rest of India") present in Rina Verma Williams? Did you check it yourself? If not, what does it say about the rest of the paragraph? How much weight do you give to one scholar? Other scholars, such as Seba Rom, give weight to the social aspects of the reforms rather than one of "religious unification" leading to national unity. Yes, for "religious unification" as a contemporary political talking point, see F. Ahmed, "Religious autonomy and the personal law system". DPhil Thesis. Oxford, or R. Thapar, Imagined Religious Communities? Ancient History and the Modern Search for a Hindu Identity.Exdg77 (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, Rina Verma Williams, Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws, Oxford University Press, p. 184: "...the BJP had hoped and tried most ardently to manufacture and perpetuate. The idea of a unified, undivided Hindu community, and the elision of regional, class, and caste divisions, have defined and underpinned their ideological approach to Indian society and politics". Exdg77 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population....." is supported by the source.

The source said: "Like many indigenous elites in the early postcolonial years, Nehru believed that uniform laws could build unified communities, and eventually a unified nation. The first step in the process would be to unify the Hindu community internally. Government officials argued that the Hindu community, comprising 80 per cent of India's population, first needed to codify its own diverse laws and practices before undertaking any project to unify the nation under one law.[...] Supporters agreed that unifying the Hindu community was the first step to unifying the nation."

I saw the chapter "Overview of the Personal Law System" by Farrah Ahmed but can you describe where this source is disputing the information with regards to religious unification? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can access this part of the book? I have been searching through google snippets, but can't get a hit on the words or sentence. I would like to see the footnotes and references cited by the author and follow them up. Nehru aspiring towards a uniform civil code is not really in doubt, but I would like to see the context in which government officials argued that codification of Hindu law was required.

Having read more of Rina Williams, I came across this in a review she did https://www.academia.edu/13051416/Rina_Verma_Williamss_Review_of_Human_Rights_under_State_Enforced_Religious_Family_Laws_in_Israel_Egypt_and_India :

In The Hindu Family and the Emergence of Modern India, Eleanor Newbigin begins by arguing that previous analyses of the Hindu Code Bills (HCB) were overly or even mistakenly focused on gender rights/equality as the underlying motivation for extensive reforms and codification of Hindu personal laws completed in the first decadeafter Indian independence. Instead, Newbigin wants to shift our understanding of this legislation by arguing that political economy underlies the reforms and was the prime motivating factor for them: “the most powerful set of interests driving the HCB was concerned not with gender equality but with a desire to rationalise the Hindu family as an economic unit.” By shifting the lens from gender to political economy, Newbigin offers “a different chronology for our understanding of the modern Indian state, one that begins during the First World War and runs up until the mid 1950s.

At the very least, it should be acknowledged that Rina Williams and others represents a revisionist take on the Hindu Code Bills that departs from Orthodoxy, and do not necessarily represent the consensus or mainstream opinion.

The D.Phil thesis by Farrah Ahmed states in pp. 208-209 "The idea of a unified Hindu community is thought to be relatively recent, constructed partly to ensure that ‘Hindus’ constituted a majority. It is difficult to deny that the construction of ‘Hindu’ as an identity is closely associated with the rise of the Hindu Right." I cited it as a response to your querry about Hindu Unity as a contemporary political talking point, but that is covered by Rina Williams too in p. 184. Exdg77 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The quote I presented above can be confirmed with the Google search such as here. The sources cited by Rina Williams include B. K. P. Sinha, Council of States Debates (20 December 1952), Nehru, Lok Sabha Debates (14 September 1954), K. Santhanam, Constituent Assembly (Legislative) Debates (1949), K. S. Hegde, CSD (1955) and more.

Farrah Ahmed is not talking about Hindu Code Bill (HCB) there. That is our topic here. Ahmed discussed HCB at "Overview of the Personal Law System" (p. 18 - p. 53), but that content is not relevant to this discussion.

Just because Hindutva political parties are using talking points that may align with some of those from Congress, it still doesn't means that the talking point itself becomes that of a 'revisionist view'. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Exdg77: I would strongly urge you to step away from this argument. I will shortly add my own list of scholarly books of consequence to the topic of Nehru. The biographies you may have covered adequately in your list, but there seem to be quite a few newer books that have summarized, reflected on, or otherwise, commented on the Nehru era. Once we have a basic list, we can begin to allot due weight and rewrite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I will step back and let everyone reflect. Exdg77 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Exdg77's sources

Numerous citations

Gopal, S., 1976: Jawaharlal Nehru, a biography, volume 1, 1889-1947 https://archive.org/stream/dli.bengal.10689.13225/10689.13225_djvu.txt

Moraes, F., 2007: Jawahrlal Nehru (personal copy, but there is an old edition that is available online off by a few page numbers https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125650)

Mukherjee, R. 2018. Jawaharlal Nehru (personal copy)

Mukherjee, R. 2015. Nehru and Bose: Parallel Lives (personal copy, but some pages accessible on google books)

Nanda, B.R. 2007: The Nehru's: Motilal and Jawaharlal (personal copy, but there is an old edition that is available online but off by a few page numbers, https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.111341/2015.111341.The-Nehrus-Motilal-And-Jawaharlal_djvu.txt)

Zachariah, B., 2004. Nehru. https://issuhub.com/view/index/23322

Occasional citations

Akbar, M. J., 1988. Nehru: The Making of India, p. 193. Viking: The University of California.

Ashton, S. R. (2023). British Policy Towards the Indian States 1905–1939. Taylor & Francis. p. 182-85. ISBN 9781000855777.

Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004). From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India. Orient Blackswan. p. 409-410. ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdg77 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bose, Sugata (2012). His Majesty's Opponent: Subhas Chandra Bose and India's Struggle Against Empire. Harvard University Press. p. 146. ISBN 9780674065963.

Cell, John W. (2002). Hailey: A Study in British Imperialism, 1872–1969. p. 195. ISBN 9780521521178.

Chakraborty, A. K., 1981. Jawaharlal Nehru's Writings: A Literary Estimate, p. 23. Minerva: The University of Calcultta.

Chandra, Bipin (2008). India Since Independence. Penguin Books Limited. p. 83. ISBN 9788184750539.

Dalton, Dennis (2012). Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action. Columbia University Press. p. 230. ISBN 9780231159593.

Das, M. N. (2022). The Political Philosophy of Jawaharlal Nehru.Taylor & Francis. p. 60-61. ISBN 9781000632682.

Dube, Rajendra Prasad (1988). Jawaharlal Nehru: A Study in Ideology and Social Change. Mittal Publications. p. 106. ISBN 9788170990710.

Gandhi, Rajmohan (2012). Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire. University of California Press. p. 364. ISBN 9780520255708.

Ghose, Shankar (1988). Mahatma Gandhi. Allied Publishers Limited. p. 226–27. ISBN 9788170232056.

Guha, Ramchandra (2018). Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World. Penguin Allen Lane. p. 258-59. ISBN 978-0670083886.

Gupta, R. L. (1976). Conflict and harmony: Indo-British relations; a new perspective. Trimurti Publications. p. 18.

Hasan, M.; Kapoor, P. (2006). The Nehrus: Personal Histories. Lustre Press. p. 61. ISBN 9788174363909.

Ilahi, Shereen (2016). Imperial Violence and the Path to Independence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-19-569343-0.

Kuracina, William F. (2017). Politics and Left Unity in India: The United Front in Late Colonial India. Taylor & Francis. p. 184.

Leoene, Fabio (2019). Prophet and Statesmen in Crafting Democracy in India: Political Leadership, Ideas, and Compromises. Lexington Books. p. 105. ISBN 9781498569378.

Louro, Michele L. "India and the League Against Imperialism: A Special 'Blend' of Nationalism and Internationalism". (2015).

Mallik, Sangita., 2016. "Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharal Nehru", in E. Pföstl (ed.), Between Ethics and Politics: New Essays on Gandhi, pp. 130–133. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134911004.

Mathur, Sobhag (1994). Spectrum of Nehru's thought. Mittal Publ. p. 44. ISBN 9788170994572.

McGarr, P. M., 2013. The Cold War in South Asia, Britain, the United States and the Indian Subcontinent, 1945–1965, p. 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nehru, Jawaharlal, 1982. An Autobiography. p. 210. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Nehru, Jawaharlal; Rau, M. C.; Prasad, H. Y. S.; Nanda, B. R.; Gopal, Sarvepalli (1972). Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 2. Orient Longman. p. 23.

Nehru, Jawaharlal (1948). The Unity Of India Collected Writing 1937-1940. Lindsay Drummond. p. 27-46.

Nehru, Jawarhalal (1941). Towards Freedom: The Autobiography of Jawarhalal Nehru. The John Day Company. p. 6.

Nish, Ian (2022). The Russo-Japanese War, 1904-5 Volume 1. Brill. p. 25. ISBN 9789004531789.

Norman, D. (1965). Nehru, the First Sixty Years: Presenting in His Own Words. John Day Company. p. 108.

Oliver, R. T. (1989). Leadership in Asia: Persuasive Communication in the Making of Nations, 1850-1950. University of Delaware Press. p. 111. ISBN 9780874133530.

Pandey, BN, ed. (2015). The Indian Nationalist Movement 1885–1947: Select Documents. Springer Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-349-86215-3.

Pandey, B. N. (1976), p. 27, 54, 105-06. Nehru. Palgrave Macmillan UK. (https://archive.org/details/nehru0000pand_g8c4/page/442/mode/2up?view=theater)

Pandey, Gyanendra (2002). The Ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh: Class, Community and Nation in Northern India, 1920–1940. Routledge. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9781843310570.

Prakash, Gyan (2020). Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India. Princeton University Press. p. 198. ISBN 9780691214214.

Ramusack, Barbara (1969). "Incident at Nabha: Interaction between Indian States and British Indian Politics". The Journal of Asian Studies. 28 (3): 563–77. doi:10.2307/2943179.

Sarangi, A.; Paj, S. (2020). Interrogating Reorganisation of States: Culture, Identity and Politics in India. Taylor & Francis. p. 36-37. ISBN 9781000084078.

Schöttli, J., 2012. Vision and Strategy in Indian Politics: Jawaharlal Nehru's Policy Choices and the Designing of Political Institutions, p. 54. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis (also p. 52)

Sethi, R. R. (1958). The last phase of British sovereignty in India (1919–1947): being the concluding chapters of the Cambridge history of India, vol. VI. and the Cambridge shorter history of India. S. Chand. p. 34.

Wolpert, Stanley (1996). Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny. Oxford University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0195100730

Fowler&fowler's sources of the last five years

(Subject to checking that it really is 5)

• Frankel, Francine, When Nehru Looked East: Origins of India-US Suspicion and India-China Rivalry, Oxford University Press, 2020
• Louro, Michele L., Comrades against Imperialism: Nehru, India, and Interwar Internationalism, Cambridge University Press, 2018
• Mukherjee, Rudrangshu, Jawaharlal Nehru, (Oxford India Short Introductions), Oxford University Press, 2018
• Nath, Sushmita, The Secular Imaginary: Gandhi, Nehru and the Idea(s) of India, Cambridge University Press, 2022
• Roberts, Elizabeth Mauchine, Gandhi, Nehru and Modern India, Routledge, 2019
• Shanker, Mani, The Reputational Imperative: Nehru’s India in Territorial Conflict, Stanford University Press, 2018
• Sherman, Taylor C. Nehru's India: A History in Seven Myths, Princeton University Press, 2022

Wikipedia's ISO transliteration guideline

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, every Indian name must have an ISO 15919 transliteration. The Latin alphabets corresponding to the Indic script alphabets are mentioned in the page.

The transliteration is recommended to avoid using multiple Indic scripts and consequently eliminate language bias. As mentioned in this, व will be written as v and since the name ends with ल and not ल्, it shall end with la and not l. The a in ISO transliteration is used for अ, whereas ā is used for आ. The similarly corresponding alphabets in other Indian languages are as mentioned on the article.

All transliteration should be from the written form in the original script of the original language of the name or term. The original text in the original script may also be included for reference and checking. — From the second paragraph of the article. So even if the अ in the end of the name is not pronounced, it will still be added nevertheless.

I hope that clarifies everything, and we here can edit the Wikipedia article as Wikipedia wants us to do it.

Pur 0 0 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler it's been 5 days. Have you seen this? Can I make the edit now?

Also, when have you seen the uh-hurr thing used for an Indian name on Wikipedia? Are there examples of Indian articles using that kind of respell? Pur 0 0 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't, but I don't agree with your reasoning. The pronunciation you propose is Sanskrit pronunciation, not Hindi, and especially not English. "Lal" does not have even the slight (ə) sound as Chandra does at its end in Subhas Chandra Bose. Inviting some area editors: @Kautilya3, RegentsPark, Abecedare, TrangaBellam, Joshua Jonathan, DaxServer, and Fylindfotberserk: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Fowler&fowler is right. I never imagined that ISO-transliteration needs to add all the vowels that are omitted in pronunciation! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a transliteration though, not a pronunciation guide. It should ideally be completely faithful to the script.

But I don't know how relevant the Devanagari version of Nehru's name is. He lived in a colonized country, as Fowler points out. I'm not sure he ever had privilege of caring about the native spelling of his name, Devanagari, Sharda or anything else. Taking it out altogether won't have much of an impact. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The pronounciation of the word abound be given in the International Phonetic Alphabet, not a pseudo-transliteration mimicking the ISO 15919 or IAST. Lāl for लाल is simply incorrect transliteration, even if that's how it's pronounced in modern Hindu due to schwa deletion. This kind of "common sense/common knowledge" stuff is often allowed stay unsourced on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not about the language (Sanskrit), but rather the script (Devanagari, since the Hindi IPA is given). Also, as mentioned in the guideline, it has to be done on the articles about Indian topics rather than Sanskrit-origin topics. For example, Nepalese names will be in Devanagari, Bangladeshi names will be in Bengali script etc. Like how it has been done on India's article. The article gives the guideline for all Indian languages, so even if we don't consider Devanagari, it will be replicated the same way in any other Indic script. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it Hindi? It says IPA Hindi-Urdu which is = Hindustani. See the pronuciation of: kʰ खाल کھال khāl cab. It is not khāla or even khālə. I'm happy to remove Hindi altogether, as the official language of the Raj was Urdu and Nehru lived 58 of his 75 years during it. His wedding invitation was printed in Persian. I'm also happy to change it to IPA:English, as Bose's page has. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the first line says it.

Jawaharlal Nehru (/ˈneɪru/ or /ˈnɛru/; "Hindi": [ˈdʒəʋɑːɦəɾˈlɑːl ˈneːɦɾuː] Pur 0 0 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to take out "Hindi," Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• (Responding to ping) I'm transliteration illiterate so won't comment on this but Fowler and Kautilya3 are usually right on these things. RegentsPark (comment) 14:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)