Talk:Bharat Ratna

Title change

the name of this page seems to spelled wrong. The name of India is Bharata. Only in Hindi and other north Indian languages is it Bharat. The official title should be Bharata. Can someone please change this?

N Not done and not likely to be done - Vivvt (Talk) 21:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the Jury on this page

The Mahatma Gandhi Peace Prize page clearly mentions the Jury. This Award too should mention who the Jury comprises. Any clues?

Vajpayee is not dead

AB Vajpayee is not dead...... why is his name not in the living persons list.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourdeadin (talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate reason

"The original statutes of January 1954 did not make allowance for posthumous awards (and this perhaps explains why the decoration was never awarded to Mahatma Gandhi)"

this text about Gandhigi seems wrong. He is father of the nation. there is no need to explain why he has not got Bharat Ratna.

Ashishfa 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Meaning

Can we say what "Bharat Ratna" means, in English? I googled but couldn't find the answer. -- Singkong2005 05:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bharat = local name for India (in most native languages), ratna = Jewel. So, it can be loosely translated as "The Jewel of India". --Ragib 05:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

...which is what the sentence at the end of the first paragraph says already. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dr

Many people in the list have the prefix "Dr." added to them. I looked up a few of their articles but that didn't show clearly whether they have PhDs or not. Such honorifics are not common usage in Wikipedia articles. Also note that honorary doctorate holders cannot use the prefix "Dr." before their name. So, I hope someone will clear up the issue. Thanks. --Ragib 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

 Done - Vivvt (Talk) 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

B C Roy

B C Roy was not a scientist.He was a famous physician.Then as the Chief Minister of newly formed West Bengal,played a great role in reconstructing this state from the post-partition shambles.

 Done - Vivvt (Talk) 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Knights

"Unlike knights, holders of the Bharat Ratna carry no special title "

Does India have the equivalent of knighthoods? If so, then this link would more sensibly go to an article about Indian "knights". Yendor1958 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

It is better to create a new section 'Controversies' by extracting information on Subhas Chandra Bose and Abul Kalam Azad, from the History section. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Vivvt (Talk) 21:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ribbon

"The award is attached to a two-inch long ribbon, and was designed to be worn around the recipient's neck." Surely the ribbon must be two inches WIDE rather than long?Neitz (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Vivvt (Talk) 21:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

State

Is it important to have the column on 'Indian state of origin'? The Indian awardees belong to the entire nation and not a particular state. This will lead to unnecessary edit-wars over which state the person came from. Salilb (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The state is in the database of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, so there is no reason for a dispute. Hekerui (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a confusion about the states. As of my knowledge, Bismillah Khan was born in Bihar but moved to Varanasi (U.P) at a very young age & then stayed there forever. Then why should his state be Bihar and not U.P ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldmps (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the sourcing to the Bharat Ratna website for now, as some of the states did not even exist at the time of the award or during the lifetime of the individual. That's clearly a poor quality source (although it's the authority on the award!!!). Quite honestly, I don't see what value this column adds, so IMO, it's better to scrap it altogether. —SpacemanSpiff 06:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored that for now, since the previous version was only original research by Anons and Users and had several mistakes. One could leave notes on the states to state that the website assigns the modern states corresponding to where the award went at the time, but falsifying the information is no good. The restored version also has improved style.

And I agree, why use the states? These people had national influence and many of them lived in several states anyway. Hekerui (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the column, half the entries are plain incorrect even if the source says so. It just shows how much GoI can be trusted for factual accuracy. Until a better quality source is found, the column can stay out of the article. —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I pondered doing that myself today :) Hekerui (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, what about adding the native name in their mothertongue as a compromise like in chinese articles?--Wangond (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

native script names create a whole new slew of problems :-). Trust me you dont want to go there (there too mother tongue vs adopted tongue clashes will happen). Its best we leave it out. Besides native language scripts are used only in the subject articles as a transcription/transliteration aid and nowhere else--Sodabottle (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there is in fact dispute over the states so I agree with the above that it's best to leave them out. Hekerui (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

The birth place of Rajiv Gandhi is Maharashtra not Uttar Pradesh

Dhirajgurjar (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

"Please change Uttar Pradesh with Maharashtra because Rajiv Gandhi was born in Maharashtra (Bombay)

Dhirajgurjar (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This is a duplicate request. Celestra (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Born State/Country

Doubt! Why do we have to mention in which state or country was the recepient born? How does that matter? Its mentioned on their respective pages. Should we delete that column? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Ministry of Home Affairs list of awardees gives a state or foreign country that was the residence or origin of the person awarded, I changed the page to reflect that list. Sadly, there have been edit wars in the past over the belonging of people to certain states and this list was changed to state where people where born, which is not relevant to this list at all, but we should be good if we instead stick to the official list. Hekerui (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay! The Official list doesnt clearly say what it exactly is. But the enteries say that its their Residence States/Countries. The current title of column "State" also doesnt make sense when you write Pakistan, SA, US and UK in it. Also the article says that only Khan and Mandela were non-Indians to win it. We are just confusing it for readers when we write US & UK in front of Shankar and Sen. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The "state" designation is the search criterion used by the ministry on their website so it was an obvious choice. You may underestimate the readers - they can understand that two Indians were awarded but several awardees have non-Indian places listed by looking at individual articles, which make clear where the person originated and lived. I think we either go with the official list or none - a custom-made list, done because we don't trust people to click on a link, would be ripe for endless argument. Hekerui (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The readers would read more and work out the logic and understand it. The problems are fans who want to edit it and make their own state noted there. (One such example is just above us). So either we clearly define what we write or not write at all. I propose to remove that column completely. It anyways has no connection whatsoever with the article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see the potential for bickering you mention and the column does not impart significant information about the award or information that can't be found in the accompanying articles anyway so it's redundant. I removed it. The list doesn't read worse for it. Hekerui (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to update 'Last awardee(s) '

Please change the 'Last awardee(s)' from 'Bhimsen Joshi' to 'Sachin Tendulkar' Anindya Bakshi (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to update 'Last awardee(s)' list

My last request was incomplete.

Please update the 'Last awardee(s)' list as C. N. R. Rao and Sachin Tendulkar Anindya Bakshi (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Rao & Tendulkar are not "awarded" yet. They are "declared to be awarded" but haven't received it yet. Hold till they actually receive it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How about Dashrath Manjhi? Next to him it can say, "Moved mountain with hands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.147.213 (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Request to update 'Last awardee(s) '

Add Nobel laureate to descriptions of Amartya Sen, CV Raman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.5 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The protection on this page expired earlier today. --Stfg (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversies and criticism sections - possible redundancy?

Do the "Controversies" and "Criticism" sections need to be distinct sections? It appears "Criticism" could be merged with "Controversies" Aumnamahashiva (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bharat Ratna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Yes, the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	It complies with the manual of style guidelines for layout, and words to watch.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	It contains a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline, there are no dead links either.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are no opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements.	Pass
(c) (original research)	It contains no original research.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	It covers the history, awardees, controversy and criticism.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Yes, it is focused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The tone is neutral.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable. No ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yes, the images are tagged with their copyright status.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Yes, images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Its a good article!

Discussion

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vivvt: Sorry to keep you waiting. Can you cleanup "|archiveurl= requires |url= " for reference 3,4, and 19? --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please check. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vivvt: I am having second thoughts about "Broad in its coverage" criteria. Like the explanatory note e should be in the body of the article? Will provide more comments over this week, thank you! --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think 'nominatees' should be 'nominees'?

Done.

• I see that some more images can be easily added to the article in the table showing the list of recepients, like [[File:Dr_Dhondo_Keshav_Karve.jpg]]. Are you planning to add them? --AmritasyaPutra^T 14:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Thank you very much for the review. I appreciate your time. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Order of precedence

See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Padma_Vibhushan. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Images in article

User:‎Arjayay, You are saying these images are not from commons, but those are from En Wikipedia and are also used in other articles. What is the problem in using in this article? There are thousands of such images which are of similar types. Who is doing the clean up of that? Yogee23 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yogee23
Images at Commons have a free-use license, so can be used as many times, and in as many articles, on as many language Wikipedias, as editors want/agree on.
Images at en.Wikipedia are copyright, but are being used under a claim of fair-use, and only on the English Wikipedia. This means they can only be used in accordance with a fair-use rationale, which almost always means they can only be used in the article on that specific subject.
So, to pick an example, File:Dr Zakir Hussain.jpg is, and can only be, used in the Zakir Husain (politician) article - see the free-use rationale on that images page, which includes the statement "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement". We can add links to that article - as we have here - so people can easily get to the article and find the picture, but we cannot use any free-use images in a gallery - or even on this talk-page.
People have tried to add additional fair-use rationales for additional uses, but free use rationales for use in a gallery are always struck out, so please don't try that.
As for cleaning up the other duplicate uses, I do not think there are many. The articles that each image is used on, automatically appear near the bottom of the image page. As far as I know, we have a Bot that checks these lists and highlights free-use images used in more than one article, so these can be investigated.
Of course, the fact that someone may have broken copyright law by using an image without a fair-use rationale, is no reason whatsoever for another editor to break the law. - Arjayay (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Nehru and Prasad

@Vivvt and Idlest.idealist: While I've not looked into the edits per se, I object to being rollbacked as though it was vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND. I'm posting this to encourage a discussion. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The content with the exact same source is already present in the article in the "Critisism" section that Nehru and Gandhi nominated themselves and Prasad and Giri granting the award. The lead mentions Nehru-Gandhi and not Prasad-Giri because as per the rules, PM needs to nominate a person for the President to approve. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why must the the introduction of the page mention something as a criticism when it is anything but that? To criticize Nehru for nominating himself is not a criticism but lack of knowledge. PM Nehru did not nominate himself but was nominated by the President (who took an unconstitutional initiative in nominating him). Besides the source that is mentioned in the "Criticism" section being a secondary source, I'm mentioning primary sources. To that, I've mentioned another source buried deep within Nehru's Selected Works, where he mentions that he didn't nominate himself and shouldn't have been awarded the BR because he is the one who harbours the job to nominate the awardees So I propose that this certain 'criticism' be removed from the introductory paragraphs, and added and then clarified in the "Criticism" section. Idlest.idealist (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Idlest.idealist

Could you please provide online links for these sources? We would not want to assume good faith in such controversial claim. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Rajendra Prasad's speech on the occasion of conferring the Bharat Ratna to Mr Nehru

• Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Correspondence and Select Documents: Volume Seventeen. Presidency Period January 1954 to December 1955, Allied Publishers, 1984, pp. 455–456, ISBN 978-81-7023-002-1

Quote: "We have assembled this evening to express our joy at the safe return of our Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, from a strenuous tour in different countries of Europe. I am grateful to your Excellencies for responding to my invitation at short notice. We have followed with avidity and eagerness the news of the splendid welcome which has been extended to our Prime Minister by the Governments and peoples of the various countries he visited. It shows as our Prime Minister has said, the high esteem in which our country is held by the great countries of the world. We are an ancient country but a very young republic and it is a matter of gratification to us to know how its activities and policy for the establishment and maintenance of peace are being appreciated and how they have raised our honour and prestige. We hold and believe that peace is necessary for the welfare and prosperity of all the peoples of the world and more so in this age of great scientific achievements and invention of weapons which have left before humanity the choice between renunciation of war and total destruction of mankind. In upholding and supporting the cause of peace, we have been voicing in our own humble way the yearnings of hundreds of millions of men and women all the world over, and no wonder our Prime Minister who has been the chief architect of that policy of ours in this age, has been the recipient of such ovations. I have been wondering how the people of this country can express their gratitude to him in a concrete form so that all might see how the entire nation is behind him in this great endeavour. His lifelong services to our nation are written in letters of gold on every page of our recent history, and this the latest phase in his great career as a heroic endeavour in the cause of peace for mankind has served to embellish gold or, as our proverb says, added more beauty and charm to it by giving it a sweet scent. I have felt that I can do no better than conferring on him the award of Bharat Ratna which is the highest award of honour that we have. In doing so, for once, I may be said to be acting unconstitutionally, as I am taking this step on my own initiative and without any recommendation or advice from my Prime Minister; but I know that my action will be endorsed most enthusiastically not only by my Cabinet and other Ministers but by the country as a whole. I would request you all to join me in wishing him many happy years of health and vigour so that he may serve still more his country and the world at large." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

New York Times report on Nehru's Bharat Ratna (Jewel of India)

From The New York Times, Saturday, July 16, 1955, page 7.

INDIA HONORS NEHRU

Gives Top Civil Decoration to Mark Leader's Return

Special to The New York Times. New Delhi, India, July 15—The Jewel of India, the country's highest civil decoration, was presented last night to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

The presentation was made at a state dinner held to welcome the Prime Minister back from his tour of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Italy, Britain, and other countries.

Usually the award is presented by the President on recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. At the banquet, President Rajendra Prasad said he was "acting unconstitutionally" in making the award on his own decision, but added he was quite sure the whole country would endorse his decision.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Times of India July 16, 1955, front page story, "BHARAT RATNA AWARDED TO MR NEHRU"

From Times of India, July 16, 1955, page 1 and Times of India, July 16, 1955, page 7

The Times of India Saturday, July 16, 1955.

BHARAT RATNA AWARDED TO MR NEHRU

"Nation's Gratitude To Architect of Peace"

PRESIDENT'S TRIBUTE AT BANQUET

"The Times of India" News Service.

New Delhi, July 15.

INDIA's Prime Minister, Mr Nehru, was awarded the Bharat Ratna, the highest honour in the land, by the President this evening at a State banquet given by Dr. Rajendra Prasad at Rashtrapati Bhavan.

In a moving tribute to Mr Nehru, the President, said the award was a recognition of his "great heroic endeavour in the cause of peace for mankind." He stated that he was conferring the honour on Mr Nehru as a token of the entire nation's gratitude to this "great architect of peace in our time."

Mr Nehru, who was overwhelmed with emotion, said in reply: "We are trying and will go on trying to our last breath to do whatever lies in our power to bring about peace in the world."

The banquet was attended by the Vice-President, members of the Union Cabinet, leaders of the diplomatic missions, the three Service Chiefs and senior officials of the Government of India.

The award was kept a closely-guarded secret until the banquet. In fact, the President himself confessed that he had acted unconstitutionally as he had decided to confer the honour "without any recommendation or advice from my Prime Minister" or the Cabinet....

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The archived FAC

@Vivvt: I'm sorry about the unsuccessful FAC nomination. I did not mean to sound combative, but was mainly attempting to point out that contemporary opinion pieces in newspapers written by people who do not have a history of publishing in that field of scholarship do not make reliable sources. Indeed the problem with any civil awards page, be it the Bharat Ratna or the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, is that scholarly sources typically do not pay much attention to the awards. Consequently, there is not much one can write in the article. I personally believe that until such time as an academic historian writes a peer-reviewed book on the Bharat Ratna, we will not have enough reliably sourced material to write a comprehensive FA-class article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: It was my first FAC so wasnt aware of much of the expectations. It had good reviews/comments at PR and GA so had some hope. But thats alright. I am not much worried about that. The points raised during FAC were little surprising to me. Incidentally, I was also not very active to reply to the comments. I realised that you had concerns with the criticism section. Though I agree to the point that there is no primary source for Nehru and Gandhi's self nomination claim, however, I found a few sources where Gandhi's conferral was criticised. I will post those links soon. We can then decide if those can be included in the article. I wasnt aware that only publication does not matter, the author should also be equally qualified for FA. On that grounds, we can disregard rest of the criticism for unclear and controversial claim for Nehru and Gandhi. Barring that, I didnt get chance to know if you have/had apprehensions about any other points in the article as FAC got closed soon. Also, it would be highly impossible at this point of time to expect a scholarly book on the topic. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vivvt: I've had similar problems with some of my own FACs. For example, in Mandell Creighton, which I nominated for FAC a few years ago, there was only one biography. Although the editor at FAC who was giving me my primary feedback, was sympathetic, he said that others will ask why I am relying on one source. In other words, he suggested that I should be scouring the literature for other sources as well, in journal articles, etc. I realized that it would take much longer than I had anticipated, and I was to travel in a few weeks, so I withdrew the nomination after a week.

With hindsight, it is probably best to choose a topic that has a handful, i.e. two or three comprehensive sources, but not much more. If there are too many, then you have the opposite problem: you will probably not have real command of so many sources, and that lack of command will come through in the text. The problem with Bharat Ratna, even without the criticism section, is that there are essentially no scholarly sources. Maybe, it might squeak through as a Featured List, but I don't see how it would make an FA. One thing to remember is that opinion pieces in newspapers don't count. If an internationally known academic, such as Amartya Sen (of the leftist persuasion) or Niall Ferguson (of the rightist), writes an op-ed piece, it can be quoted, perhaps, as a significant viewpoint, but the opinion writers in the Bharat Ratna article, especially in the Nehru controversy, were your run-of-the-mill, all purpose, opinion writers (or columnists). I could readily tell because the op-ed pieces were using vaguely identical language, and none seemed aware of the primary sources that I was able to find in 24 hours that were clearly contradicting their claims. I will offer general criticism in another section below, as and when I find time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC) updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bharat Ratna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304120106/http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=4089-%20 to http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=4089-%20
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://insaindia.org/detail.php?id=N74-0635

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bharat Ratna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070604111903/http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/dream/feb2000/article1.htm to http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/dream/feb2000/article1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101041543/http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/11/18/indira-gandhi-iron-lady-india to http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/11/18/indira-gandhi-iron-lady-india
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/Those-who-said-no-to-top-awards/articleshow/2714615.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hubli/Torch-bearers-of-kirana-gharana-and-their-followers/articleshow/7356191.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jnehru.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan 1967 stamp of India.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

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:

• Bhimsen Joshi 2014 stamp of India.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Who decides?

It might be there... but I can't see it.

Who decides the award; why isn't it every year; what happened in 2020?

MBG02 (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)