|
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration]]
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]]
== Clarification request: Indian military history ==
{{hat|There is consensus that Tamzin's explanation is spot on. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)}}
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Toadspike|Toadspike]] '''at''' 11:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Indian military history}}
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]-->
*{{userlinks|Toadspike}} (initiator)
=== Statement by Toadspike ===
1. Does the Indian military history extended-confirmed restriction apply only to military history on the current (post-[[Partition of India|Partition]]) territory of the country of [[India]], or does it include military history that took place entirely in another South Asian country?
2. If a conflict took place between a party in India and a party outside of India, does the extended-confirmed restriction apply? Does this depend on whether battles in the conflict took place within the current territory of India or not?
3. How do we treat [[WP:AfC|AfC]] submissions that were written before the enactment of this remedy, but are only now being reviewed? If they are suitable for acceptance, can they still be accepted? If not, should they be deleted (from draftspace)?
These questions were prompted by the contributions of a specific editor. As this request for clarification is about the general principles, not that specific case, I have chosen not to name them here. If Arbs would like me to add them as a party, I will do so.
: @[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] Thank you for your reply. <s>Does "India" mean the current ''territory'' of India or the current ''state'' of India?</s> What I'm really getting at is whether predecessors of India like [[British India]] also count as "India", since those entities included significant territory outside of the modern state of India.
: The problem with wording like "if India was involved" is that nearly all of the conflict about "Indian military history" does not involve the modern state of India.
=== Statement by voorts ===
Since we're already here, does "Indian military history" encompass contemporary conflicts? If not, what's the cut off date or era? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 14:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
===Statement by Koshuri Sultan===
I was planning to initiate this request per my comments on the case discussion thread.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1301627410#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian_military_history_closed] Just as voorts asked above, you can see the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1301627410#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian_military_history_closed linked discussion there], which also has no answer regarding the scope.
Does the scope of "Indian military history and the history of castes in India" cover times before the establishment of [[British Raj]] or the times before the foundation of India? [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Sdrqaz}} Reading the evidence and proposed decision of the case itself, it appears that only the diffs involving the events before 1857 events were found to be actionable for being within the case' scope.
:You have made a mention of the [[United States]], however, the DS regime covering this country also concerns its politics specifically after 1992.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1001485112#Motion:_American_politics_2_(1992_cutoff)]
:That said, I think a period should be thoroughly clarified. It would be reasonable to agree on events before 1947 as history because the period since 1947 is regarded as "contemporary India", not that of historical India also in scholarly sources.[https://books.google.com/books/about/Contemporary_India.html?id=yQLvoAEACAAJ&redir_esc=y][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2019.1571414][https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contemporary_India/rYfotwEACAAJ?hl=en] [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 06:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
*Inviting {{u|Tamzin}} and {{u|Rosguill}} to share their views here. [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 15:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:*Thanks for responding {{u|Tamzin}} and {{u|Rosguill}}. I would also like to know your views regarding "Indian military history", whether it covers the times before the establishment of [[British Raj]] or the times before the foundation of present India, or something else? [[User:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold;">Koshuri</span>]] [[User Talk:Koshuri Sultan|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;"><sup>(あ!)</sup></span>]] 17:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Donner60 ===
*Please note that the military history project has an Indian military history task force shown at the page [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force]]. The page includes: "This task force covers the military history of India. This includes ancient India, medieval India, early modern India (including the period of British rule), and modern post-independence India." Many, perhaps even all, articles that gave rise to this proceeding are assessed B class or below. The task force page shows all of the articles within the scope of the project that are featured articles, former featured articles, featured lists, A-Class articles, good articles and did you know articles. This may provide some guidance as to the scope of Wikipedia articles considered as involving Indian military history. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 04:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Tamzin (IMH) ===
{{pinged}} To me, the logical scope of "Indian military history" would be {{ordered list|list_style_type=upper-alpha|The military history of any entity, or vassal/proxy of an entity, based in {{ordered list|list_style_type=lower-alpha|the present-day Republic of India and/or|territory that was at the time considered India}}and/or|Any military activities by any other entity that took place in that region.}}<span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 15:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Koshuri Sultan|Koshuri Sultan]]: I think this answers the time question as well. But to be clear, no, I don't impute any time-based limit to this. Maybe hypothetically it wouldn't cover conflicts prior to the [[Indus Valley Civilisation]], but honestly even there I'm not sure.{{pb}}I also stopped to think about whether this covers actions by Indian-originating forces far removed from the region. I knew a woman who was the lone survivor of a [[Free French]] unit slaughtered by what she described as renegade British imperial [[gurkhas]], but according to a historian I talked to were more likely soldiers of the Nazi [[Indian Legion]]. Should those fall under Indian military history? But then I thought, yes, they should, and [[Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose]] can speak for itself as to why. Ultimately, any aspect of Indian military history, whether it's from 10 years ago or a thousand years ago, whether it happened in Mumbai or Marseille, has the same tendency to be politicized by contemporary Indian political movements. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Rosguill ===
also {{pinged}}, I'd mostly agree with Tamzin's description, although I would add that when considering that it is "broadly construed", this would also include any topic that is centrally relevant to the wars historically fought in the Indian subcontinent, in particular definition of borders and ethnic/national/religious/caste claims to land in the Indian subcontinent. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 16:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:I fully agree with Tamzin's further comments on scope, including ancient history and operations by Indian military groups outside of India. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Sohom Datta ===
While I nominally agree with Tamzin's statement and definition of "Indian military conflict", as person who has infrequently worked on the topic area of the Indian freedom struggle (and other areas), I feel like this net is waay to wide for a ''extended-confirmed'' sanctions by default. If [[Subas Chandra Bose]] is included, would almost any article documenting any of the various parts of the Indian freedom struggle/conflict be considered part of this restriction? -- [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 13:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Swatjester ===
I want to emphasize that it's vital for the scope to cover modern day (including current-events) Indian military history and the portions of related articles thereof. Since the [[2025 India-Pakistan conflict]] there's been widespread nationalist edit-warring and propaganda pushing on articles relating to the military equipment involved in the conflict -- particularly the aircraft, missile, and air-defense systems involved (as these by convention usually have a section for "Operational History" documenting their usage). Additionally I want to reiterate that the scope needs to encompass military actions conducted in India even by non-South Asian actors. For instance, during the hunt for Bin Laden in the early 2000's, both the [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us-uk-special-forces-seek-laden-in-jk-report/articleshow/1835047.cms U.S. Delta Force and British Special Air Service conducted operations in Kashmir against a Pakistani militant group] in which intelligence sharing was conducted with the Indian government while said Indian government issued public denials; references to this event should presumably be covered (both because of the intelligence sharing arrangement with the Indian military, and due to the geographic ___location being within the scope of coverage). As far as I can tell Tamzin's interpretation covers both these concerns but I wanted to raise my concerns if other interpretations prevail here.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
=== Indian military history: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*
=== Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*# Only India or related to India.
*# Yes, if India was involved it doesn't matter where the conflict took place.
*# They can be accepted.
* This is obviously just my view, but it seems fairly clear-cut. #1 does get at one of my concerns about the grand unified CTOP, though. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I think Tamzin's description is pretty apt. Trying to narrow it down or draw explicit lines around it won't work with how broad the topic is. If someone is unsure if a particular subtopic, article, or piece of content is covered they can ask about it. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
*I have mixed feelings on what "Indian history" means for arbitration enforcement because we need to balance the need for the definition to be easily understandable against the historical reality of the term.{{pb}}In my opinion, we indicated in "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Breadth of topic bans|Breadth of topic bans]]" that Indian history also includes history prior to the Partition. Just as how Chinese history spans the various dynasties prior to the PRC/ROC (even if it wasn't called China at that point) and how American history doesn't just begin in [[United States Declaration of Independence|1776]], I think that Indian history covers the current republic as well as clear predecessor states like the British Raj and [[Mughal Empire]], even if they go beyond the current republic's borders. The term "India" was used before the Partition as well: the [[British Raj|Raj was commonly called "India"]] and the [[Names for India|term was used for many years prior to the current republic's creation]]. Hopefully that also answers Koshuri Sultan's question as well and I otherwise agree with SFR regarding Toadspike's Q2 & Q3.{{pb}}Voorts: I don't think that there is a good place to cut off when history begins{{snd}}{{small|aren't we all creating history now?}}{{snd}}so would rather that we kept contemporary conflicts as well. If enforcing administrators wish to sanction people from (eg.) pre-Modi Indian military history instead of the entirety of Indian military history, they [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history#Breadth of topic bans|would have support in doing so]]. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 01:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
*I'd say Tamzin's definition could be used in a textbook. That's exactly what I would have said, in many more words. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:var(--color-base);">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*What {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} and {{u|Worm That Turned}}/{{u|Tamzin}} said. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 13:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
== Amendment request: Venezuelan politics ==
| 