User talk:PHG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 12:22, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Archives

User talk:PHG/Archives1
User talk:PHG/Archives2

[edit] Yokosuka

Hi. Do you have the name of the photographer and/or the source of the Yokosuka Shipyards photo in this article? I'd like to compare with a similar panorama that I have access to. Thanks for any help. Pinkville 20:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kujula Kadphises and Anxi

Hi PHG! I totally agree with you that Anxi in Chinese usually refers to Arsacid "Parthia." However, we have no evidence of Kujula invading "Parthia Proper" but lots of evidence of him conquering much if not all of "Indo-Parthia," and it is descriptions of the conquest of these territories which we find detailed in the Hou Hanshu. These are the reasons why I have interpreted Anxi in this passage as "Indo-Parthia." I will, therefore, change it back to Indo-Parthia. However, if you are still not happy about this please leave a note on my Discussion page and we can talk about it further. John Hill 05:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! It is a good compromise you have suggested on my Discussion page - thanks. I will add in brackets after Anxi: (commonly used for Parthia but thought to indicate Indo-Parthia here). Cheers John Hill 06:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boshin War

Congratulations on the article getting featured! There are few loose ends I think need tying up, see the talk page, but great job!--Monocrat 02:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:GBAMap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GBAMap.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell (talk) (random) 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This might interest you

While thinking of people who might be interested in or have suggestions with regard to this idea, I recalled the excellent work you did on indo-Greek Kingdom. I'd encourage you to take a look at the idea, see if it interests you, and make any suggestions you might have. Thanks, --RobthTalk 03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LaRochelletowers.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LaRochelletowers.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

Updated DYK query On 30 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dupetit Thouars, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern about the Kanishka article

Dear PHG: I am writing to you as I have noticed that you have written a number of excellent, well-researched articles on early Indian history, Buddhism, the Kushans, etc., and have also made significant contributions to the article on Kanishka.

I would like to ask for advice about what to do regarding what I believe is happening on the Kanishka page. It seems a couple of Jat writers are promoting a very Jat-oriented view of Indian history and have been making (what I believe are unsupportable) claims that many famous Indian kings (including Chandragupta Maurya, Ashok Maurya, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II, Kanishka, Yasodharman, and Harshavardhana, among others) were all Jats.

I have had several run-ins with a couple of them on the Jat Discussion page but have found it pointless trying to argue with them as they continually make references to books written by Jat "historians" quoting their statements as "facts" that I am unable to verify, and challenging me to "prove" that such and such a king was NOT a Jat. Apparently, if I am unable to do this I am expected to just accept their Jat-oriented "historical traditions" as established "fact."

I have tried to point out (see my notes in the Jat Discussion page archives) the differences between traditions and facts but logic seems to have little effect on these people who, in my view, approach "history" from the standpoint of "true believers."

They have added a whole section called "The clan of Kanishka" to the article on Kanishka and I (at least) believe it makes a mockery of the careful reconstruction of the history of Kanishka and the Kushans which has been assembled over the last couple of centuries by a wide range of distinguished scholars.

Sections like this, with questionable traditions and beliefs presented as factual is one of the main things that brings criticism of the Wikipedia (and, indeed, modern historical scholarship in general) into disrepute and gives it a reputation as an untrustworthy source.

I believe this matter should probably be put to some form of arbitration with neutral editors. I have been trying to discover how to initiate such a process but have been unable to do so.

I would be most grateful indeed if you could please advise me what I should do next.

Many thanks, John Hill 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) PS If you wish to write to me off-line you can email me at: wynhill@bigpond.com


Dear PHG:: I have just cleaned up the Kanishka page a bit and removed the section on Kanishka's clan which contained the claims about him being a Jat. So, please don't bother answering this - I will let things sit for a while and see what happens. If there is more controversy I will let you know. Cheers, John Hill 04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Greeting

PHG,

Thanks for the greeting. I hope you didn't find my sabbatical to be too disconcerting, as we've certainly had quite the repartee over the past year. In any event, seems like you've been fairly productive. As you know, I fully respect the efforts to maintain and augment valid material, but as I've affirmed numerous times, I do take issue with rather far-fetched and one-sided reconstructions. I was a little disappointed to see the consensus map, on which you and Vastu worked so hard to engender, disappear. It didn't even appear as if there was some discussion preceding it. As we both know, a greek invasion of the gangetic is far from gospel and has been subject to intense debate. In fact, one of the main authorities on the Indo greeks, A.K. Narain, has actually noted that Menander may simply have joined the kings of Panchala and Mathura on a raid down the Ganga. And the hathigumpha inscription itself remains an uncertain source as Kharavela's reign has been linked to centuries before and after the start of the common era and the word dimi has also been read as vima (as in vima kadphises, who I know you are familiar with). As for the Yuga Purana and MBH citations, those interpretations by Michener have been contested by other authorities such as Kak et al. I have not problem positing those theories, alongside others, but I do believe they need to be qualified. I am not alone in this opinion, and have respected our previous accords, as seen with the Ashoka debate.

As always, I respect your time and work on these pages and am willing to cooperate with you on compromise phrasing if you are so inclined.

Regards,

Devanampriya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC).


PHG,

Working on them. I will let you know when they come in through the mail. It definitely is a very interesting aspect of this period. As per your question, Kharavela remains a rather enigmatic figure ever since they found the hathigumpha inscription 2 centuries ago. He hasn't been concretely fixed to an era. The earliest date we have for him, I believe, is 125 BCE. This of course precludes the possibility of a conflict with Demetrius of Bactria, leaving one of his namesakes as a possibility. Accordingly, there are 3-4 Satakarnis, making a Satavahana reference point difficult. As I understand it, dates for his reign range from the late 2nd century BCE to the mid 2nd century CE. Bearing in mind our extended discussions on the term "yavana", you can recognize the tenuous nature of the hathigumpha inscription's status as evidence of greek campaigns to the east. Kushan campaigns, and indeed conquests, are well-established and well-attested, hence the increased likelihood of such a case. Nevertheless, as we both know, there is a great deal of discussion surrounding this (ranging from carbon-dating to script dating). It will be interesting to see if any progress on this topic is made in the Ivory Tower.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/g/User_talk%7EPHG_bd1d.html"