Talk:Operation Ganga

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

General tidbits for editors

Location of this content here

Should this Wikipedia article be deleted, merged, shifted etc according to good guidelines and practices I can't say at the moment.

Map

A map helps Wikipedia readers??

Words to watch

Indian, citizens, nationals, students
Operation, civilian, military

For editors

Watch for unacceptable close paraphrasing and copy violations
As complete as possible reference detailing

DTM (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Headers and subheaders

Headers have a lot of visibility for those glancing through the page. MOS:HEADINGS provides some guidance. Don't jam pack headers... then again...

"About" needs changing...

Embassies

A section/sub-section on embassies not responding/overwhelmed, the timeline etc. Enough references building up. However I think it would go better within a larger parent header. A sub-section on this would maybe push the need to create other sub-sections....hmm.

Situation

What should be the header/sub header for the current bold text "Impact of social media and propaganda, misinformation, disinformation". I think "situation" is a good start. Sometimes figuring out headers later on is easier.

Criticism

Lots of subheaders possible.

DTM (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External sites

The section for 'External sites' is very important. What goes in it is guided by Wikipedia:External links and other articles on Wikipedia (B, GA, FA quality). This shouldn't go. However as per other Wikipedia articles in general I am shifting it down. Other external links will keep popping up. (I always have trouble deciding what goes here.) DTM (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Pinging editors who have shown interest with this article- @Souryadeep630:@Rockcodder: and anyone, everyone else who may happen to pass by.

Quotes are used in Wikipedia, to great effect, guided by Wikipedia:Quotations. Some of the best FA and GA article have them. Choosing the quote/s to be used is sometimes very easy, sometimes not so. Identifying the quote is not easy.

I would like to place a quote in this article, the criticism section. Is there anything out there? DTM (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A case of WP:RS

With regard to this sequence of edits:

I (DTM) edited this and phrased it very differently:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Operation_Ganga&diff=1074944259&oldid=1074940363

I did this on the basis of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources- WP:RSPSOURCES with regard ANI. Even if it is a TOI story, ANI is the agency/source. Multiple Indian news sources have covered this and have clearly used ANI .

News18 says "reports ANI" and a ANI tweet (1)
The New Indian Express says "With inputs from ANI" and a ANI tweet (2)
NDTV places ANI at the top in the byline "Asian News International" (3)
and others...

Now at this time I am not able to ascertain how this works out. That is how multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies (such as WP:RS, WP:OR etc) when looked at together apply to this. BUT, going by WP:GOODFAITH I am letting the content remain with some minor edits. DTM (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add, the source/agency is ANI for the media houses, but for ANI, the source is the student. Therefore the additional WP:GOODFAITH. DTM (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This case I guess ends with this edit which has a reasonably logical edit summary justifying the removal. DTM (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other

An edit summary jotted the issue of another WP:RS. The source in question is also on the list WP:RSP. I overlooked this when looking at the entire list for the above case and this was not in my mind when introducing related sources. The entire list will be kept in mind when introducing sources. Thank you. DTM (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section titled "Criticism"

This section has seen the most back and forth. The edit history is a clear indication. As I am typing this edit the criticism section has been removed. I don't know how this will work out, but a way forward is to look towards Wikipedia:Criticism. While it is an essay, it is helpful. More importantly, this fall under the dreaded Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. If I don't address it immediately, please do point out that the WP:BALANCE etc is tilting away from good practices on Wikipedia. See, this already sounds so complicated. DTM (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of this simplistic view, my understanding says that this section should be there. If Wikipedia editors can't figure out what to put there, but think the article has unbalanced etc, a header can be placed with an expand section template. Further, criticism can be labelled differently. "Shortcomings" etc etc etc. DTM (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another way of looking at this. Rather than create a separate section for criticism, the content can be merged into other sections as per the topic. As I look through the article signs of this are emerging "It had mixed impact" and "As it was becoming increasingly difficult to provide assistance to the growing numbers". This isn't a good example but just to convey the point. DTM (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larger picture

I don't know if there should be more context in this article. I think there should be something. History. Sides. Etc. I have not read up enough, seen the sources out there, etc which talk of all this. This is based on my experience on Wikipedia and editing topics related to the history of conflicts and related matters.

As for now, I am excusing myself from this article. Thank you. DTM (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

OperationGanga.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

OperationGanga.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GK current affairs

India has launched a special operation name 'operation Ganga' to evacuate it's nationals from Ukraine a majority being student 103.157.126.155 (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated content

"During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, India refused to condemn Russia's invasion and stayed neutral, opting not to back either country". How is this sentence even remotely related to the very scope of this article? This is about a rescue operation, not about whom India is supporting in this war. Shouldn't this be removed ? S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Tolka

There have been a couple of attempts to insert links to this book into this article, but they were inserted in the wrong places (in the infobox, in the intro with no corresponding addition to the body of the article). While there is a draft at Draft:The Life of Tolka, it is not all that promising. You should wait for that draft to become an accepted article and only then consider whether it should be mentioned in the body of this article - but certainly not in the infobox nor in the lead. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]