Talk:Cow belt

Facts

I proposed to delete this article in past for i was unaware of the term. But this term is overwhelmingly correct. Hope to find some stuff related to it. :) --Onef9day (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More Data

Please collect more data for this interesting Article --Swaminworld (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Absurd information

I'm removing the following para as it seems completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Milk Production

Milk Procurement by Cooperatives In India During 2007-08

Northern States Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh — produce almost half of India's milk. But their share in total cooperative milk procurement is slightly over 17 per cent. In contrast to this trend, eastern region of West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, do not contribute to cooperatives even 5 per cent of the milk produced. In Gujarat, most milk production reaches to cooperative dairy affiliated to Amul accounting to 35 per cent. Similar trend is seen in Karnataka, where Nandini brand process over 26 per cent of the State's milk. Similarly Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra handles 14-15 per cent of their States' milk.[10] But surprisingly Kerala has milk production far short of demand and it depends on milk from outside the State that has been found to be adulterated. States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka do not supply milk to Kerala.[11][12] Despite one of the greenest state of India, Kerala failed to produce sufficient milk. Government of India has fully funded a Kerala Milk project to make situation better.[13]

Regarding recent revert

Adamgerber80, please try to read the edit summaries before reverting others. As I clearly mentioned in my edit summary, last sourced version was this one. After that revision, only unsourced changes & unexplained blanking of content happened, as you can see from the changes in the revision history from that version to your version – see here. As you see from the revision history, no one added even a single source after that revision, but they did blank/add/alter the content without explanation. The last sourced version is itself quite poor. And that's why I mentioned in the edit summary that it needs a lot of improvement. So it will be better to revert yourself, and then you can start the clean up if you like. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: What makes you say that the version you mentioned is indeed the "correct" version. The version you are reverting this back to is almost a year old and if noone has reverted this in that long means most people have had no issues with it. On the edit you point out, that edit was unsourced data (based on a cn needed tag and a WP:SPS) and thus was fine to be removed. If you think some other content has been changed or misrepresented in the current version, feel free to edit it and provide relevant explanation or sources for it. A blanket revert claiming a random version in the past as good is not a workable solution. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, as I've suggested you earlier, please carefully read summaries/comments of others before reverting/commenting. When did I say that the version mentioned by me "is indeed the "correct" version"? In fact, I said that "the last sourced version is itself quite poor".

Secondly, no one has reverted the unsourced additions & unexplained blanking simply because most of the South Asian articles are poorly watched, and they are free-for-all.

Thirdly, the edit that I pointed out had blanked a complete section, out of which only one line was unsourced.

Fourthly, the version I selected wasn't a "random" version. As I showed you above, the only changes in that version & the current version are addition of an unsourced name – [1] – and an unexplained blanking of a section by a user, who was indeffed for vandalism on the very day they blanked the section. I am not against or in favour of these blanking & unsourced additions – I just want that those changes should be clearly explained/sourced.

Anyway, I will leave it to others to check what can be reinstated from the revision history, as I don't want to waste more time in explaining the same simple edit to you for the fourth time. I will instead focus on the article's present version. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the current vandalised content

The article earlier mentioned the correct names of cow belt states – namely Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh – and they were backed by sources. But an anon user vandalised it by removing the names of Rajasthan & MP. The name of MP was later restored, but Naren marik added the name of Haryana instead of Rajasthan, obviously without providing any source & that vandalised content has stayed here since 9 June 2016. So beware of any WP:MIRROR which might have appeared after 9 June 2016, as Indian newspapers are notorious for copying content from WP. Anyway, I will restore the sourced name. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Two irrelevant sources

I will remove the ref 2 & ref 3 from the current version, as they aren't supporting the content of the line to which they are cited. Feel free to read them & add back to the article in case you find some relevant content. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the article's second paragraph & last line

The second paragraph of the article was added on 18 February 2010, and is supported by two sources. One of them – indianmelody.com – is WP:UGC, so it cannot be used on this project – in any case it doesn't support the paragraph's content. The other source is fine, but then this one also doesn't support the paragraph's content at all. I even checked its archived version dated 19 February 2010, but it has nothing to support the paragraph. So I am removing this paragraph, as it seems mostly based on original research, and is propagating misinformation since 2010. If anyone is against the removal, then please provide the relevant reliable source(s) here. Similarly, the last line of the current version is unsourced since 2010. So I am deleting that as well. Feel free to partially/fully reinstate the content after citing reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)