Talk:India in the 2026 Iran war

Cycle?

@King Ayan Das: State your reasoning here that why you are removing reliably sourced content. You have crossed WP:1RR so far. Shankargb (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! After getting to know about WP:CT/A-I in my user talk page, I edited this page only once after 24 hours of my last revert (after more then 1 hour from the end of the 24-hour cycle).

However, I am not sure why my last legitimate edit is reverted by you while the editor who added or wants it to be added, have the responsibility to gain concencus on the talk page, not mine, as I alredy raised objections in my previous editing with reasonable edit summaries as per WP: CYCLE ???

I want to join in this matter in discussion but you should first of all self-revert your illegitimate edit, which is a clear violation of WP:BRD; otherwise, I will have to go to the relevant WP:ANI against your this unprecedented move. King Ayan Das (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you acknowledging that your revert constitutes gaming? Waiting 24 hours to revert again, in 1RR areas violates the remedy in spirit. See WP:GAMING.

Instead of threatening to take to ANI where you're more likely to be faced with a boomerang, you must explain why the wholesale removal of well attributed and cited commentary from Tricontinental in their own voice and other sources is justified. Shankargb (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's discuss about the violation of wiki policies and wp:or in the present content, first. Then I can expose who isn't acting in good faith here, me or you!

First of all, the Tricontinental source(the main problem).

In your words- you must explain why the wholesale removal of well attributed and cited commentary from Tricontinental in their own voice... - Oh really ?

This is the link of this source - https://thetricontinental.org/asia/war-iran-india/.

Now scroll it up to the botton and then you can notice this -

Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

- from Tricontinental in their own voice, right??

Now as per WP:NEWSOPED -

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.

So, the fact is that the above mentioned source is a letter to the editor as you can read this at the bottom, - Warmly, <Writer's name>. And the writer of this letter is Bodapati Srujana, an Indian economist.

Now the current content According to Tricontinental Asia,..., which is used in three different paragraphs btw , is a typical definition of wp:or.

So, as per WP:NEWSOPED if the writer of the op-ed and letter to the editor, is a notable person that it can be added with a attribution with his or her name.

Now, as per WP:BASIC, people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

And, this the goggle search of this person - https://www.google.com/search?q=Bodapati+Srujana&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Not a single published, secondary source give any significant coverage in there own published content(excluding any random website).

Only, in Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research's website a pdf is available - https://thetricontinental.org/institutes/srujana-bodapati/?output=pdf.

And according to them, Srujana has mainly worked in the area agrarian relations in India. She has participated in village studies in different parts of India. From time to time she writes on Indian banking sector issues in NewsClick. She was active in student politics in Delhi and still takes active interest in left politics and struggles.

And just writing for one comparably independent news website(as per Indian standered) and getting significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources are completely different things.

Now, even if we don't consider the parameter of notability for a biographical article as per wiki standard and just look into how much notable she as a scholar (specialists and recognized experts - as per WP:NEWSOPED ) then this the google scholar profile search for her - https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=+Bodapati+Srujana&btnG=

She is not even recognizable and only 11 scholarly documents is available which are written by her (even there, not all are peer-reviewed) - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=+Bodapati+Srujana&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

For a comparison, in my this edit in this article - my edit, I added a published an analysis (not op-ed or letter) by Walter Ladwig, which is published in a wiki-listed reliable source, South China Morning Post (WP:SCMP), which was reverted btw.

Now this is his profile as a scholar - https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=Walter+Ladwig&btnG=

He is not only recognizable but also just look how strong his profile is.

So, the end of the they at lest my this revert this revert is not any attempt of WP:GAMING, instead I have all valid points to revert it. And as per WP:BRD, I have all legitimate rights to revert it and after 24/48/ or whatever hours after of my current revert, I will revert the current objectionable content again, for sure. I am ready for any ANI or Admin intervention against me but these all are my reasons for the above mentioned revert.(while, in a summarized way I already mentioned those points in my edit summary)

However, if you really want to discuss for other contents or possible alternative content while maintaining WP:NPOV, with WP:AGF ; then I am in for that. King Ayan Das (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you even read the guidelines you are so keen to quote? Who has denied that Tricontinental Asia source and author, is Op Ed?

Read the quote you posted first:

"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"

In what world does the source not meet this criteria? And where is the content supported by it being stated as fact? It is attributed clearly and every time the source is referenced, that is more than enough.

"the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable"

Where does this quotation support your assertion of the policy that only notable authors can be cited? It only states that experts and notable writers will have higher reliability, it does not mean that only they are reliable sources and therefore others should not be cited.

The reference to "Now, as per WP:BASIC" is utterly irrelevant here, notability is not the sole determinant or the criteria for an author to have in order for their source to be used! Thousands of individuals are cited on Wikipedia with attribution and they do not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia, does that mean we remove them? This has no basis in policy.

Your remarks on the author are uncalled for, the policy does not say that Op Eds are required to be written by experts, and in fact that is precisely one of the reasons why they are op eds in the first place. Shankargb (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Who has denied that Tricontinental Asia source and author, is Op Ed? - No, in your earlier response you called that - ...from Tricontinental in their own voice. Isn't ? But it's ok that at least you have accepted it.

So, even with you logic as per policy (... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author - WP:NEWSOPED) the wording should be -

According to Bodapati Srujana, ...(for this case it's not any editorial either)

instead of current wording -

According to Tricontinental Asia,...

Now, as far as your POV is concerned - Where does this quotation support your assertion of the policy that only notable authors can be cited? It only states that experts and notable writers will have higher reliability, it does not mean that only they are reliable sources and therefore others should not be cited.

- You basically emphasize the word "may be" in the second paragraph but this the further clarification of of the word notable figures, which is mentioned in very first paragraph -

whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures)...

But you only mentioned the last portion of the first paragraph for only the context of attribution, but you completely ignore that there are only two conditions, mentioned for adding these kind of op-eds. In that that case we are talking about outside author not any editorials and it's clearly defined the term outside authors in this policy by using this parentheses - (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures).

And it's not any optional thing it's mandatory. While the second paragraph is further clarification of the way of considering of notability which is different from WP:BASIC. But I already proved that this author is not reliable by any means.

And you this POV - ... in fact that is precisely one of the reasons why they are op eds in the first place. has no value in any TP discussion in Wikipedia so please only relied on wiki-policies, not what you personally think about this matter.

So, my final word is if you want, I can propose an alternative analysis section where almost same wording or view point that what currently those three paragraphs incorrectly attributed with Tricontinental Asia will be also existed. But I can't give any consensus for this disrupted content to be stayed as it's violating multiple aspects of the policy. And if you want to use extended consensus gaining method like (WP:RFC), you can do this but you can't simply bypass the BRD Cycle process (WP:BRD) by alleging the editor who is raising objections for these contents (me) with WP:GAMING. For that, you have to first go to WP:ANI against me with such kind of allegations. I am ready for that as well!

But If you really want to solve this depute while remaining the same kind of analysis of those three objectionable paragraphs with different but legitimate sources along with the analysis of other kind of point of views, I can proposed a new version of this section. Can I propose it here ? King Ayan Das (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"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."

The examples given between first and the last sentence are descriptive, because "whether" and parentheses here does not mean that they are the exclusive forms of sources allowed, the guideline is only listing common examples of outside-author content. Secondly, notability is only a factor to assess the reliability of the opinion piece, and experts and recognized figures are more reliable and therefore significant, not that they are not only sources that are permitted. And finally they should be attributed to the author as all opinion pieces should be.

Your proposal that "According to Bodapati Srujana" be used instead of "According to Tricontinental Asia" is the correct application of guideline and should be implemented. Zalaraz (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

IRIS Lavan

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/nearly-100-iranian-naval-crew-leave-kochi-as-iris-lavan-remains-docked/articleshow/129571482.cms?from=mdr

I feel like this should be mentioned in the article as it directly pertains to the conflict at hand Monti2889 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this should definitely be added. The article is not neutral, as it focuses only on the negative aspects. I have also requested that this point be included cuz its important. CBum 6 (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Change: (No mention of this incident) To: Add the following paragraph

"According to Reuters, India allowed an Iranian naval vessel, IRIS Lavan, to dock at the port of Kochi in early March 2026, citing humanitarian considerations after the ship reported technical issues. The decision coincided with the sinking of another Iranian warship, IRIS Dena, by a United States submarine off the coast of Sri Lanka amid the ongoing conflict. Indian officials stated that the docking request had been received at the start of the conflict, and the crew of around 183 personnel were provided shelter at Indian naval facilities."

Source- Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/india-let-iran-warship-dock-day-us-sank-another-off-sri-lanka-officials-say-2026-03-07/ CBum 6 (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)