Talk:Premchand Roychand

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

India: Mumbai Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mumbai (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Protected edit request on 24 September 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the mention of "sect" from the lead.

Change: "Premchand Roychand (1832–1906) was an Indian (Śvetāmbara) Jain businessman"

To: "Premchand Roychand (1832–1906) was an Indian Jain businessman and stockbroker, known as the 'Cotton King' during the 19th century..."

Reason: Adding the sect directly in the lead gives undue weight and violates MOS:LEAD, which requires the lead to summarize key points without unnecessary or non-neutral details. Information about sect affiliation is already covered appropriately in the body. The current version was introduced by disruptive VPN/IP edits and should be corrected. Starry Pine (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why do you advocate for some undue emphasis on neutrality when it is clear that he was a Svetambara? What kind of neutrality are you looking for?

2. There is no undue weight on that. He was a Svetambara Jain and it is just a piece of information. Apart from you, there is no one here who is looking for removing information about his sect.

There are countless other articles that will be affected by the policy you are advocating. I hope you are aware that this will also remove sectarian information from those as well.

There is contention and no consensus on your suggestion. 2409:4081:1E1E:B8F5:6A71:5A98:5246:BD1B (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not going to switch from one party's preferred version in an edit war to the other party's without a much, much better reason than is provided here. See m:The Wrong Version. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was mistakenly done at Oswal because the reverting admin may have missed the fact that the user who requested the revert is also not an extended confirmed user. I request that it also be checked. 2409:4081:16:2847:DF4D:7B92:63E5:D901 (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I made there applies to protections due to edit wars. The protection at Oswal was a different kind of protection entirely (an enforcement of a topic-wide WP:ECR rule per WP:CT/SA, and follows different rules). One could make the case that the dispute here also falls with in the WP:GSCASTE topic area, hence the entire edit war was void ex ante since neither party was extendedconfirmed hence the page should have been extended-confirmed protected rather than full protected and I should revert all the way back to this edit (the last version before any topic ban violations), which happens to include the disputed term. But while I may have done that if I were the first admin on scene, I'm not going to interfere with the way other admins chose to handle it - as an edit warring matter rather than as a topic ban violation matter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premchand Roychand lead content discussion

Hi, @Fawks3107 I noticed your message on this talk page and also saw your comment on my talk. Let’s discuss here on the Premchand Roychand page only.

The reason I removed the sect and caste from the lead is that Wikipedia guidelines advise against including sect or caste in the lead, especially for India’s most famous businessmen. The lead should focus on why the person is notable, while details like sect and caste are already covered in the body MOS:LEAD. Additionally, I removed the duplicate wikilinks per MOS:LINK, which discourages overlinking in a single section.

Could you please explain why you think sect and caste must be included in the lead? I would like to understand your view.

Regarding your comment about "edit wars" on Mahavira and Paravanatha - do you know what constitutes an edit war? a single revert does not constitute an edit war. Edit warring occurs only when editors repeatedly override each other’s contributions. My edits were made in good faith and were reverted only because discussion was not held before editing, not as part of any conflict. see Wikipedia:Edit warring

I would appreciate your clarification. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia policy states that sect or caste is not supposed to be included in the lead? Is there a straightforward policy that says so? Please quote it for my reference. The reason sect is included in the lead is that it is an integral part of his personal life. He constructed the Rajabai Clock Tower for his religious affiliations and it is a notable construction as part of India's heritage. You've made more than 2 reverts on Mahavira, without reaching consensus, and have removed long-standing good and encyclopaedic information. Nor have you made any refutation to the very valid comments from another more experienced editor on the talk page of that article. It is nothing but an edit war. 2409:4040:E1C:5D6:981B:239D:1E0F:3399 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]