User talk:Fowler&fowler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will be impossibly busy until early July. If you leave a message here, please don't expect a prompt response.
Archive
Archives
1 § 2 § 3 § 4 § 5 § 6


Contents

[edit] SH of Indian Independence Movement

What about a few lines on - Rise of Indian Nationalism - national awakening (mainly within the intelligensia)[1] - realization of concept of nationhood (due to central administration of British Government as opposed to the previous small sized regional princely states)- confidence gained due to study of Indian heritage by Max Mueller and others KnowledgeHegemony 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Indian intelligentsia highlighting drain of wealth from India and consequent poverty due to Bristish trade practises. This critique helped in hastening the rise of nationalism

[edit] Your RfC comments

Hey there! There are some concerns that your comments that this RfC didn't address the specific reasons for the RfC and are more of a general character endorsement, rather than a response to the problems listed there. Do you care to stop by the talk page and clarify? Thanks! futurebird (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the professor ...

... interested in being nominated for adminship? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arb comment

Sorry for the revert. I could have sworn you edited another editor's comment, not your own. I was obviously mistaken. Garion96 (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your time. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Hello Fowler. Would you mind uploading Image:IGI british indian empire1909reduced.jpg to Commons, so it can be used in other projects as well? Thanks very much.

Incidentally, I happened to see the discussion on Sangam literature a little higher up on this page while leaving this message. There are actually a range of views on the question of whether Sangam literature was "oral" - Kailasapathy and others take the view that they were oral, George Hart takes the view that the Sangam literature was not oral, although it was written in imitation of actual bardic literature, and Kamil Zvelebil takes an intermediate view that the poems are clearly Kunstdichtung based on older oral forms, but that it is unclear whether they were actually written down on palm leaves at the time. A fourth view was recently put forward by Herman Tieken, who holds that the entire corpus is a 10th century forgery created by nationalist elements at the Pandyan court, but this view has not yet garnered much support in the literature. -- Arvind 11:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I would recommend reverting to the older maps. The rivers maps I drew are not accurate, POV, and poorly drawn, not to mention a less useful raster format. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmir, contd.

Sorry if my immediate response has been less than friendly. It's just that I put some thought into the reorganization and was disappointed to see it overturned. I hope we can work together in the future. And I welcome your input on my Kashmir-related additions elsewhere. Regards, El_C 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I responded on my talk page, here. Regards, El_C 14:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Independence movement and the British Raj

Hello Fowler, I saw the changes you made to the British Raj from the short history section. First of all well done on the good review. However, I will say could you please make a suggestion in the talk page before actually changing it (like in the India page). The reason I say this is because I had earlier linked the first world war bit to the "conspiracies" etc and the relevant events but these were undone by the edit you made.

Also, the talk page of British Raj shows there might be some biased (and inaccurate) views on part of some editors (of the talk page, I dont know if they have edited the main page) which if introduced into the main page would make it PoV. This would include, eg, civil war under Moghuls, suggestions that Quit India movement (I gathered) was linked to the INA, was relatively minor and not of consequence, the stuff on the INA that verbatim repeated war time propaganda. I do think though your additions to the bits on railway economy etc was wanting in the British Raj article, but they will be deemed unneccessary in the Indian independence movement article. Lastly (and not wanting to introduce PoV), there should be a mention of balancing criticisms, including the views on economic exploitation, and poor managements See for example papers on these in JSTOR (Lovett 1920, Sarkar 1921, Sarkar 1983, Tinker 1968, Childs 2001, 2005)

One other thing was, the bit in the World War I, you quote the viceroy as having expressed concerns on denuding India of the troops, whereas Strachan's 2001 history of World War I quotes the viceroy as having expressed the opinion that the less that remains in India he better since they were the likely source of trouble.(Strachan, 2001, p793). These are two diametrically opposite records from the same person in the same situation, you might want to double check this.Rueben lys (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godfrey Phillips National Bravery Awards

Hello Fowler&fowler!

Isn't that a national award? It's called, Godfrey Phillips National Bravery Awards, so I definitely think it's national. What does make you think that it's private? All the most prominent figures of India's government take part in the annual ceremony. I guess, it can't be added in the template in that particular field, but do you have any idea of adding it in the template? The template's name is "Indian honours and decorations", nobody says official or private or whatever, so I strongly feel that it has to be mentioned there.

BTW, did you know about this award before (before I created it)?

Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be called national, but as the article says, "it is a social initiative of Godfrey Phillips India," which is very much a private corporation. Attendance by government officials doesn't make it a government award. Honours and decorations of a country refer to honours and awards given in the name of the nation, and are a part of the order of precedence in the country, and therefore are the official honours and decorations; otherwise, there would be no end to the number of awards that could be added. That is the reason why the Jnanpith award, also a private award, is not included, even though it is very prestigious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It is the same for other countries. See, for example, the template Template:British honours system, or Orders, decorations and medals of the United Kingdom. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem friend:) Well done... tell me please, have you heard of this award before? Interesting. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't heard of it, but then I might not be the best sample for the poll. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case you need to make it clear in the template that they are awards given by the government ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 12:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The template won't say that (because it is understood that a national "honours system" refers to honours awarded in the name of the nation by the government of the day or the reigning monarch, see the British template above), but the talk page of the template has the banner of the Wikiproject (see below) and also (now) a post explicitly saying "No private awards please". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is part of WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve, organise, and standardise Wikipedia's coverage of national honours systems. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page

[edit] Economy of British India

Hello Fowler. The British Raj doesn't have anything on the economy. I know you're currently editing this page quite extensively, but I wanted to add a summary section on the brief economic developments summarising what you found in Riddick (2006, pp138-143). I let you know to avoid any edit conflicts and/or misunderstandings, and also I am not very thorough with this topic. Regards Rueben lys (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just left a message on the talk page. I am taking off on my Christmas vacation, so I will work on the text off-line, and add it upon my return in January. Thanks and regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I hope you enjoy your break and have a Merry Christmas

Thanks and you too! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello... here's a peer review

I have taken Sitakunda Upazila to Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive1, and so far recieved no comments, almost. Please, take a look, and be ruthless if you want. I have high hopes for the article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aditya, I'm going away on my winter break in a few hours, so I won't be able to look at the article until mid-January. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That's very alright. When you come back, can you take a look at the copy? It's been already removed from GAN on copy issues. I sincerely am not able to do much there, as (1) I have lived too close to the article for too long, and (2) I am not a brilliant copyrighter anyways. I, of course, will be able to render much help as an assistant (answering questions, filling in gaps, getting new information, clarifying stuff...), but the real copyeditng needs serious intervention. I am looking forward to your help there. Very much. Pleeease. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Slotin FAC

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Slotin. I responded to your comments. I will fix up the holes that you mentioned. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to thank you for noting some of the issues with the article. Some of them (the ones I could work on) were very helpful, and I'm glad you picked them up along the way. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no issue putting the star on my userpage. I will work on the article from the references you provided, and once I am done, I will surely ask you to review the article again. Fair enough? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Your userpage? I wasn't talking about your userpage (on principle I never read userpages). I was talking about the star on the Louis Slotin page. Anyway, I will be happy to look at the article, when you've incorporated the references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ImageBacklogBot

See item #9 on WP:NFC. The bot is removing the fair use image from the page because it is in the userspace. Per policy, fair use images are only allowed in the mainspace. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China

Fowler,

I listened to your opinion and tried to delete the sentence on the PRC page:"Because of its vast population, rapidly growing economy, large research and development investments, and status as a declared nuclear weapons state, China is often considered as an emerging superpower."

This is bias, undue weight, speculation, unnecessary, not neutral, and not factual. Please leave your opinion on the talk page of PRC. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The China page has lost its Featured Article status, in part because of such exaggerated statements. The India page has been consistently in the top five accessed country pages for the last year and a half. The China article is nowhere in the picture, in part because no one wants to read that crap. Although I greatly sympathize with your concern, I don't really have any interest in the China page. Sorry. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmir region

Hello, Fowler&flower. Regarding the Kashmir region language issue, you did the following:


Fowler&fowler (Talk | contribs) (47,175 bytes) (nope, okwhatever, hindi is not spoken in the kashmir region. (this page is not about official languages, see talk page). uyghur is spoken in aksai chin. OK?) (undo)

I undid this, and I hope you do not mind it. Uyghur is not spoken in Aksai Chin, however, because Aksai Chin is virtually uninhabited. I saw the wikipedia page for Aksai Chin and I noticed that it said that the people there speak Uyghur; that is incorrect, however, because that part of the Kashmir region has a negligible, nearly zero population. Even if there are a few people speaking Uyghur, that number is negligible (for example, I am sure there are atleast 5 Gujarati speaking people in the Kashmir region, however...Gujarati is not up there with the many languages, because 5 is a negligible number). See http://www.ieer.org/latest/ramukashmir.html and http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Aksai_Chin/id/1906006, which both state that the population is negligible/the area is uninhabited.

Hindi is spoken in the Kashmir Region. (http://www.bharatonline.com/kashmir/travel-tips/languages.html "Hindi: The second most spoken language of Kashmir is Hindi. It is mainly spoken by the Kashmiri Pandits and the Gujjar population of Kashmir.") See http://www.kashmirstudygroup.net/awayforward/mapsexplan/languages.html for more numbers regarding Hindi in the Kashmir region. I do not see where you got that Hindi is not spoken in the Kashmir region. It is spoken by thousands permanent residents natively, and the majority of the state speaks it as a second language.

Thank you, and sorry for any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okaywhatever (talk • contribs) 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The web pages you've cited are not reliable references. Find me an article in a peer-reviewed internationally recognized journal on linguistics or South Asian studies that says Hindi is a native language of Kashmir. See Colin P. Masica's Indo-Aryan Languages for the native languages of Kashmir. And yes, even if there are five thousand Uyghur speakers in Aksai Chin, they are not in the same category as your ridiculous Gujarati speakers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)



This is ridiculous. I cannot believe you have the audacity to put Uyghur as a native language of the Kashmir region. Are you on an anti-Hindi and pro-Uyghur drive because of political reasons? Uyghur is spoken by Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Find me ONE source that says that there are Uyghur people in Aksai Chin. Anywhere you look, it will state that Aksai Chin is almost uninhabited, and the few people there are Tibetan.

I guess you looked at wikipedia to find out what most of the "residents" of Aksai Chin are: "Aksai Chin, whose residents speak the Uyghur language (the name literally means "Chin's desert of white stones") is a vast high altitude desert of salt that reaches heights up to 5,000 metres. Geographically part of the Tibetan Plateau, Aksai Chin is referred to as the Soda Plain. The region is almost uninhabited and receives little precipitation as the Himalayan and other mountains block the rains from the Indian monsoon." It says that Aksai Chin is almost uninhabited, and that the residents speak the Uyghur language??? Isnt that a bit contradictory...


"China-administered Kashmir (Aksai Chin) contains an extremely small population of Tibetan origins numbering less than 10,000 inhabitants." (http://www.mapstars.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=174) The few people that live in the region are Tibetan, so why would Tibetans speak Uyghur? Uyghur is spoken natively by Uyghurs, and Tibetan is spoken natively by Tibetans. It does not matter if the Tibetans can even speak Uyghur, because it is not their native language, and you have clearly stated that you are just going for the native languages. If you are going to add Uyghur just because some people can speak it as a second language (which they probably dont, because it makes no sense that Tibetans would speak Uyghur...), then you would also allow Hindi because the majority of Kashmiris can speak it.


Hindko is not native to the Kashmir region either. Hindko is spoken in the NWFP (Northwest Fronteir Province) of Pakistan. It may be spoken by people in Pakistan-administrated Kashmir, but those people are migrants to Kashmir. They are not native to the area. I suggest that you take Hindko out if you refuse to allow Hindi, because there are many Hindi-speaking people in Jammu and Kashmir, even if they are not "native". The language of the Gujjars, which are nomads in Kashmir, speak Gojari, a dialect of Rajasthani. There are many migrants in Indian-administrated Kashmir that speak Punjabi and Hindi natively; why are these languages not accounted for?

Hindko, Pothohari, and Uyghur are not native to Kashmir. Pothohar is native to Pothohar (in Punjab, not Kashmir). Hindko is native to the NWFP. Uyghur is native to Xinjiang. Hindi is not native to Kashmir either. However, there are people in Kashmir that speak Hindko and Hindi natively. If you are going to keep a language that is not even spoken in Kashmir (Uyghur) and not allow a widely spoken language (Hindi) on the basis that it is not native to Kashmir while you allow languages that are not native to Kashmir (Hindko and Pothohari), then I do not see what your point is. What are you trying to do? Please, get rid of political bias when you are editing a neutral encyclopedia.

I could change it again now, but then you would undo those changes once again, for no proper reason. As you undid my changes, you should once again make those correct changes. Please do not edit information to suit your personal, political views, because your political opinions do not change what is fact. It is a bit selfish to give wrong information to the world, just so it agrees with what you want.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okaywhatever (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't impute reasons ("anti-Hindi" or "pro-Uyghur") when you don't really have the information. If you think I am anti-Hindi, please read my various posts here and here. The only reason why Hindi is listed as the official language in the India page infobox (and not all 22 8th schedule languages) is that I and a few other people gathered the sources to demonstrate that. Please also notice the barnstar on my userpage for those efforts. As for "pro-Uyghur" and your conjecture that I extrapolated from what I read on the Aksai Chin page, all I can say is that I had read a number of late 19th century and early 20th century accounts of British Indian expeditions to East Turkestan (now Xinjiang) when I was adding references to the Hindutash article (please see the references there). It is true that Aksai Chin (also, Ling-zi Thang Plains, and (modern) Aksayqin) is sparsely populated, and there is very little modern literature on the subject mainly because the Chinese government doesn't grant permission, but earlier accounts record the presence of Shi'a Muslim Uyghur-speaking nomads in the northern part of Aksai Chin. (It is the southern and eastern part that has more Tibetan influence (see, for example, the place names in the sixth map in Trotter's paper that I added to the Hindutash article , or the W. J. Johnson's map that I also added to the Hindutash article); however, it is also the southern and eastern part that is uninhabited.) The names too, in the northern part, are Uyghur. For example, Karakash (river), Hindutagh (pass). The northern region of Aksai Chin also lay on one of the two routes from Kashmir (Leh) to Khotan (in Chinese Turkestan). At the same time I was putting together the references for the Hindutash article I talked to someone who took motorcycle trip through Aksai Chin. He said many of the old "towns" are now mere "truck stops" (with a few scattered sheds here and there). However, regions, even sparsely populated ones have languages (often deduced by examining place names). Uyghur has to be one of the languages of Aksai Chin; Tibetan could be added as well—the only reason why I didn't add it is that Ladakhi is written in the Tibetan script, but I am happy to change Ladakhi to Ladakhi/Tibetan. As for Hindko etc. I agree that the proper names for the dialects (of Hindko or Lehnda (Western Punjabi)) are Poonchi and Chibhali (see my post on Languages in the Talk:Kashmir page). Some Pakistani nationalist keeps adding the Hindko/Urdu bit. I am on vacation and have only brief snatches of time (not enough to engage people in edit-wars), so I will attend to it when I get back in mid-January. I am against all forms of nationalism, Indian, Pakistani, or Chinese. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
PS. On a humorous note, the Mapstar link you provided is a direct cut-and-paste of an earlier version of the Wikipedia Kashmir region article? How do I know? Well, simply because I wrote most of the article! I didn't write the Aksai Chin bit, and that part is not reliable. (It was likely added by someone after my re-write, or perhaps earlier by someone else, and I let it remain.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compliment to you

I must compliment you on your continuing efforts to improve Western Chalukya architecture. I admire your ability to maintain a clear focus on the article's problems in the face of seeming resistance. It certainly could be a very good article, but I agree with your points about "clarity, cohesion, and coherence" in prose. It is crucial that the writer know in depth what he is writing about (at least this is true of me when I write) and not parrot back information in reworded sentences. And to me there are still major problems in organization. Plus phrases like "worthy of mention" need to be banished. At least Deities has been move from its primary spot. I bet you and I could rewrite the article, and Dinesh would be satisfied at the end. (I do believe this!) Regards, Mattisse 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Unfortunately, I don't have to time to help in rewriting the article. Since you are a superb writer, why don't you attempt the rewrite and I'll weigh in from time to time. (With the "renomination" though, the rewrite will likely have to wait. I don't like this under the gun kind of editing.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yunan

With reference to this edit from a few days ago: whilst I have no opinion on whether the use of "ancient" is appropriate in the context, Yunan is used in Urdu to refer to Greece generally, and not just ancient Greece. The Urdu wikipedia's article on Greece is, for example, at یونان. Also see the infobox on ایتھنز and so on. -- Arvind (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I should have been more careful in my edit summary. The problem one is dealing with (in the translation) is that when an Urdu reader sees "Yunan, Misr, Roma (the last really Byzantium and not Rome)," it is at once clear to her/him what the context is. That context is not obvious in English (unless, of course, one clicks on the links). That is why I have added the "ancient." Well, why don't I ask some experts and see what they say? Will get back in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
PS When I first saw the section title, I thought it was about the Chinese Province Yunan!.
I've personally always thought Iqbal was drawing a contrast between Greece, Egypt and Rome - where the country continues but not the civilisation the land nurtured - and India, where both still exist. Anyway, if you have access to experts, it'll be great to hear what they think. -- Arvind (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This warning is regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Western Chalukya architecture. I urge you to stop making jabs at Dinesh, and talk about the article's issues only. As I mentioned before, be bold and make the necessary corrections yourself. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No templating the regulars.59.91.253.165 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Nishkid, I'll take care of this. Fowler's comments on the FAC were not out of line. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What is "templating?" In any case, thanks to everyone. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Templating" in this case refers to dropping the canned warning on your talk page. Doing that to an established user is considered a slap in the face. Raul654 (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info!  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Raul, I must disagree. This warning was left here for a reason. I told Fowler to be civil, but he continued to make jabs at Dinesh's writing skills and the work he put into the article. So, I left a template on this user talk page as a reminder of our policies on personal attacks. If people would stop feeling elitist about their contributions to Wikipedia, they would realize that templating is employed to remind users that they are violating some sort of policy and that blocks may be issued for future violations. If they are as established as they say, then they surely would not have violated policy in the first place. No disrespect intended, Fowler, but I only left this warning to remind you of our no personal attacks policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That's no problem at all for me. I don't mind the template. Please go ahead and un-cancel the warning or template it again (whatever is the right expression). To be honest, I had not noticed the template. I don't understand the bit about being elitist, but I'm happy to be templated again. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that elitist bit was part of my rant. Some established users expect preferential treatment on Wikipedia, which is why they get upset when you template them. I strongly believe they should be treated like non-established users, but I doubt we'll see that ever happening. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The pendulum's swung too far the other way

Personally, it seems to me you'd got the hint and the FA or rewrite was going to proceed and everything was going to come out all right in the end. Then things veered to the surreal. I don't see why people are still beating you up now (although changing your view to strong support may have been a bit over the top!). If we can't make honest criticism without overreacting, we'll never get anywhere. I hope things work out... sorry if my counsel was part of swinging too far the other way. ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my change of mind had nothing to do with you. Your comments have actually been very helpful (and I'd like to compliment you on your very readable posts). I wasn't trying to be sarcastic either when I changed to "strong support." I know it might appear a bit over the top, but I feel that a rewrite by the various interested people is the quickest way to fix the article. The rewrite won't happen so long as the FA review continues, since the various authors will feel pressured to respond to all the mini comments (pro and con) and won't have time to look at the big issues. So, especially after I read Kiyarr's post, I wondered why not get the FA issue out of the way and attend to the business on hand right away. I know it might appear that I'm being cynical, but I was really only trying to speed up the process. The article doesn't need my comments. What it needs is a sustained effort by user:Frutti di Mare, user:Giano_II and user:Mattisse (with help of course from user:Dineshkannambadi). They already have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. Besides, I myself don't have any interest in rewriting the article, so there is no conflict of interest in my supporting it for FA. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
PS I do think that I need to be more polite. I don't start out with the intention of slashing and burning everything in my path, but it certainly sometimes seems that way when I look back at my handiwork. I'm envious, for example, how someone like user:Raul654 can keep his cool with all the noise around him, some of which I myself have generated. Maybe I should read his talk page more often (and learn a thing or two). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmir

Clarification.

Since I have received off-Wiki mail about this section, I'd like to clarify that many of my remarks below (and indeed some of Magicalsaumy's remarks as well) are jocular. The jocularity wasn't planned, but was rather a product of the mood and the moment. However, at no time below am I making fun of anyone's English: neither Magicalsaumy's, nor India's or Pakistan's, nor yet the kind acquired at Catholic schools. Indeed my own mother received a superb education at a Good Shepherd Convent high-school, albeit not in India or Pakistan. Underpinning the jocularity is a content issue as well—about the native languages of Kashmir—which shouldn't be disregarded. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Look Fowler, if you don't know, then don't speak. Don't try to show off your naivity by presenting your ignorance. With your comments it is very clear that you don't know an iota of linguistics, but I know much about it, having taken many courses. Hindi and Urdu are the same language, differing only in special vocabulary and script. You comment that "might have syntactic similarities...." proved your ignorance. And you only said on Kashmir page no dialects: so why Dogri? Dogri is a dialect of Western Hindi.Cygnus_hansa (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Magicalsaumy, I've never heard of the word "naivity." Did you learn that in your linguistics courses? Amazingly, my OED doesn't have that word either; only naïveté, which I'm sure is incorrect. You might consider writing them and suggesting the correction. Many thanks. Similarly, according to Ethnologue, Dogri is a dialect of Western Pahari and not of Western Hindi, but I'm sure that's a mistake. It would be wonderful if you could rectify that too. My compliments to your linguistics professors. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see now. You reverted my ENTIRE edits, which INCLUDED my addition of citations that were needed for the paragraph of post 1947. Thats what I was wondering. You are doing the erasing of citations so that the lines "appear" factually insufficient. Never mind, I reverted your edits. And I am not going to plead with ignorants on language talk pages. Why don't you plead your cases instead. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Allow me once again to express my admiration for you untrammeled erudition. I wish I had thought of "doing the erasing of citations." What a superb literary device—at once simple and quick—for delaying the action in the sentence! Imagine the possibilities: "I am walking" = "I am doing the walking" = "I am doing the doing of walking" = "I am doing the doing the doing of walking" ... Brilliant! Not since Vladimir Nabokov, nay since Joseph Conrad, has so much tension been built up in one English sentence. And "ignorants?" Brilliant again! No doubt from your linguistics courses? Alas, Webster's Unabridged—so 20th century—continues to label "ignorant" as an adjective ... But not to worry, I have taken note. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I came to your talk page following some rather irksome comments that had been made about a FAC regarding some kind of architecture article, expecting you to be a miserable pedant. However, these ripostes to Magicalsaumy are a delight and brightened my Saturday afternoon considerably.--John Gibbard (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So again, Fowler, you have displayed your ignorance and started protecting yourself by pointing at my mistakes, which have nothing to do with the issues I have brought. And you are pointing silly comments about my grammar. Who in this world told you that Linguistics = "English grammar taught in India/Pakistan's Catholic schools"? Linguistics is a very different thing, and a Linguist CAN make mistakes while speaking or writing any language. Linguist does not mean to be superbly perfect in verbs, adjectives and prepositions. You make me laugh. As for your praise of my courtesy, it seems very much evident from your talk page that you deserve it. And as for your points (ie my apparent mistakes): Yeah, Naivite I get it, but I don't want to spend my precious time to insert the trema and acute accent mark in the French word. I have other more important things to do, you see. Also, Pahari itself is a dialect of Western Hindi. Now again, "doing the easing of": have you never heard the present participle in English being used as a gerund, and hence a noun? "Ignorants": Have you never heard of adjectives being used as substantives? So keep your pathetic ramblings to yourself, and try to EARN some respect in the community. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Substantives!" How elegant! Alas, Father Randolph Quirk, who taught me old fashioned English grammar in the Catholic schools of India and Pakistan (from his ugly dog-eared tome of seventeen hundred pages), insisted on (oh so inelegantly) calling them "adjectives as noun-phrase heads" instead, and claiming, to boot, that "noun substantives" was obsolete lingo. I remember the learned Father droning on about the three kinds of "adjectives as noun-phrase heads," exemplified by the sentences: (a) The innocent are often deceived by the unscrupulous (b) The industrious Dutch are admired by their neighbours, and (c) She admires the mystical. This was followed by some mumbo-jumbo that I never did understand: "Adjectives as noun-phrase heads (or "noun substantives"), unlike nouns, do not inflect for number ..." Perhaps you could shed some light on it. Anticipating your wonderful plural usage ("ignorants"), I once asked the learned Padre if "The goods die young" had potential as a warning label for perishable food, but—tested beyond his limited grammatical reach—he quickly changed the conversation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah those good old days in the Catholic Schools of India and Pakistan! ... and then there was Brother Colin Masica, who taught us old fashioned Indo-Aryan grammar from a book, Indo-Aryan Languages, he claimed to have written; however, since the book had exactly 555 pages, we suspected the devil had five sixths hand in it. Brother Colin, who had decided against joining the Jesuit Fathers on account of his previous affiliation to the Russian Orthodox Church, and who had chosen instead the expedient of temporary membership in the Irish Christian Brothers, couldn't help repeating from his book that Dogri was a Western Pahari language; it was consequently, not a dialect of Hindi, which was a Western Hindi language. Anticipating your elegant formulation above that "Pahari is itself a dialect of Western Hindi," I once asked Brother Colin if Western Pahari might not in turn be a dialect of Western Hindi. This had the effect of sending the Brother into a paroxysm of Russian-Irish rage and making him not only throw the Devil's tome at me, but also shout, "You fool, Western Pahari is not one language, but a an Indo-Aryan, North Zone, family of languages. Western Hindi is not one language, but an Indo-Aryan, Central Zone, family of languages. How can one be a dialect of another?" At this outburst, my young eyes welled up with tears, and continued to do so long afterwards, as I wrote Brother Colin's refrain five hundred times on the blackboard.
Magicalsaumy, although your brilliant insights have liberated me, given me such unbearable lightness of being that I fear flying heavenwards any day, they have also brought back those painful Dickensian memories of childhood that no amount of reading of Mourning and Melancholia can remedy. Consequently, I have to cease all communication with you and would kindly request you to do the same. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for making me laugh too much. You need to be a little sensitive about ghosts, you know. I almost died laughing, and then I was crudely reminded of my death 500 years ago. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block! A high honor indeed. However, this will likely pale in the blinding light of the block I am about to receive from my family—human and animal, living and dead, material and ethereal—for spending far too much time on Wikipedia, especially during my vacation, especially after numerous promises to the contrary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celt?

I have used the word celt in the article on Sitakunda Upazila, but it is creating some confusion as the word generally means a group of people, not an implement. If you can clear this confusion, please, leave a note on Talk:Sitakunda Upazila. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Fowler, please help me. User:Nikkul is continuously making disruptive edits in Poverty in India page on issue of inclusion of some images. You know very well this user's edit pattern. I added an image of a beggar in Bodhgaya in the article. But this user is continuously deleting the image with excuse that "since all beggars do not have messed up legs, this image is undue and inappropriate". He replaced the image with a poor quality black and white begger image, which is not helping developing the article. He is also hellbent in adding an image, taken by himself, showing some houses in rural India. But farmer's houses are not representative for what "poverty" stands. In my opinion, an article depicting poverty, only those images should remain which illustrate poverty, i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". The farmer's home is depicting rural lifestyle. This user is continuously removing a good and appropriate image of begger with useless excuses. I think you will be able to handle the situation very well. Please look into the matter. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment just shows his ignorance! Most of Indias poverty is rural not urban. OC continues to delete any image that shows rural poverty. We all know that 60 percent of Indias population is involved in argriculture and that those involved in the industry are the ones who are poor. an image showing poor farmers homes are most appropriate.

Also, there is no reason why my beggar image is not good. Disabilities are common among human beings. A disability is not indicative of poverty...so many rich people have disabilites. Nikkul (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty in India

Fowler&fowler, this user in his defence is engaged in personal attacks on me in multiple talk pages. *You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities. There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

  • This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Hkelkar socks about the image. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
  • Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image will be very appropriate. A vote is going on in the talk page. I think you are a neutral and good editor. Your right judgement will be appreciated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Parthian earrings taxila.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Parthian earrings taxila.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Om Prakash

Glad to know it was useful, thought it might cool things down a bit and also help with opinions and views. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It did (I hope). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mumbai

Do you have a page number from the 2006 edition of the Manorama Yearbook? The 2006 edition was cited twice in Mumbai, but a specific page number was not provided. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. Someone like user:Nichalp would though, I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty in India Image

Have you seen this version http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Indian_spiderman.jpg this might change your mind. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 :) I smile only because I know you voted "for." I hope the man is making money off this picture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I doubt that he is making money out of it. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:British Raj

Thanks for your note on my talk page, I'll bear this in mind.

Regards
Pahari Sahib 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI see User talk:Himhifi#Your recent edits --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi title of Indian Rebellion of 1857

Could you please hold off on deleting the hindi title until the survey is complete? The purpose of the survey is to establish the usefulness of the hindi title and it could be perceived as inflammatory to delete it. Also, it is hard for other editors to evaluate the usefulness of the title if it is not there. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to keep it in till the survey is over. Part of the reason for the survey is that the devanagri script is being constantly added and reverted and that is not healthy. Let the survey run its course and the devnagri can then be dropped or kept based on whatever the consensus is. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar (my first!). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolphs

I understand your point, and I am biased of course by the contents of my bookshelf, which is political-science-heavy. That being said, I fancy the sort of precise statement one needs to fight off the quibbling of various POV-warriors quibbling is rare enough. The Rudolphs did do some work some time ago about placing identities and Indian social reform in historical context (though I think most of it focused on Rajasthan), so I'd say they're relatively reliable on this. In particular, the philosophical roots of the pre-1857 reform processes are rarely summed up succinctly elsewhere. Relata refero (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a few remarks,

I am not sure if it belongs in the causes part, but a few remarks on the dispute about the religious nature of the revolt should perhaps be relevant. I think I had a reference in from Chris Bayly, who had looked at sworn testimony of rebels; and of course Dalrymple has been pushing this recently, though he seems to think nobody thought of it before. It's certainly received mainstream news coverage: here's the BBC interviewing WD, [here http://outlookindia.com/fullprint.asp?choice=2&fodname=20060703&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1]'s WD making the point himself in Outlook, and here's a summary of JNU's response. Bose and Jalal privilege "legitimist" reactionaries and "religious millenarianism" in Modern South Asia and Jalal herself in Self and Sovereignty discusses the religious discourse inherent in the call to arms, though indicating that it was not universally viewed as appropriate at the time, a point Bayly also makes. So again: do you think this belongs in 'Causes' or perhaps a brief mention of religion as motivator and more in a separate "nature" section? Relata refero (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I edit-conflicted with you somewhere and screwed up some changes somehow. Sorry about that. Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

You make a valid point. However, the bloodthirsty reaction was not only influential in that it clearly affected the nature of the response, but indeed is one of the most noteworthy aspects of the revolt itself historically. As Brantlinger indicates, it is generally considered the single most influential political event of the nineteenth century in terms of British public opinion. (That the EB article does not have a section on it is puzzling, but not in itself conclusive IMO.)

About the quality of sources, I do of course agree with you. I've used Christopher Herbert's recent book, but only a section that reports on the general attitude of sources that have stood the test of time. Other sources are available, but his turn of expression is the best. Relata refero (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not bogus

While I may not agree to some of your inputs on the Rebellion of 1857 page, I see that you have contributed constructively to a variety of India related articles. The award was for that - just wanted to clarify in case if you felt I was yanking your chain. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Welcome back

Hi! Although I did not go through the 2 versions of Company rule in India thoroughly, even a 5-second glance at each of them was enough :)

You are the last one, probably, to be frustrated. You have been through similar situations in the past (I remember to collide with you as well!). SO, why don't you put the things in the Indian noticeboard? (however, once again, like any other discussions, this one also may prove to be painstakingly longish)--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is amazing! Somehow NPOV is being interpreted to mean that we should present both the scholarly, reliably sourced POVs as well as the blog viewpoint, which is plainly ridiculous especially for a topic which has been so widely and deeply studied.
I will second Dwaipayanc above and urge you to maintain your calm (even though I know how frustrating it can be!) so that it is clear that this is a issue of reliable and high-quality sourcing and not a he-says/she-says or conduct issue. You may also find the quote on my user page fitting and amusing. I'll add the pages to my watchlist, although I may not have enough time to contribute to the article and discussion directly, at the moment. Regard. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote is from this Wired column:The Wikipedia FAQK, which makes for fun reading. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Army

Please see Talk:British Divisions in World War II#British divisional article titles --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip, I only just noticed the bottom half of that discussion! I thought you wanted me to work on those army pages! Will reply there later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Here is a link to the text after second revert [1]. The revert was partial half-way revert, so I fixed it in next revert (see [2]) with edit summary "fixing bad revert. 2nd revert: article is not npov. any POV can be properly sourced. Thank you." After that fowler reverted my changes again as expected with edit summary rv desione's second revert. Please take a look at the sequence in [3]. So again, three reverts not one and this is confirmed by your own revert whose edit summary says rv desione's second revert. Does it hold water now? Desione (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not count the first revert you mention above (the partial half-way one with time stamp 04:13), only the second (with edit summary "fixing bad revert" with time stamp 04:14). My edit summary said "second revert" only because at first I believed you, but when I examined the history, I realized your statement was incorrect. The sequence of four reverts is:
The point being Fowler needs to fix his POV in British Raj article rather than following me around everywhere I try correct and enhance a British Raj topic article (in this case Company rule in India. His edits started in Company rule in India only after I made the first few changes there. He is merely playing games when the time could be better spend by me fixing the Colony rule in India and fowler focusing on British Raj. Without stepping over each others toes. However, that idea doesn't seem palatable to Fowler. He wants to get into conflicts. Desione (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid your information is incorrect: My first edit on Company rule in India was on August 27, 2007. In fact I uploaded the maps (of East India Company Expansion), which were scanned from a personal copy (as the image page states). Please also see my post on the talk page. However, you made your first edit only on March 14, 2008. Similarly, I made my first edit on British Raj on October 9, 2006 and added most of the images and text there, whereas you made your first edit on February 14, 2008. Lastly, I made my first edit on Indian Rebellion of 1857 on March 2, 2008, whereas you made yours on March 3, 2008. Who is following whom? As for your idea of divvying up the page, Wikipedia doesn't work like that, especially when the material you have thus far added, as evident from Talk:Company rule in India is poorly written and poorly sourced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a look. Relata refero (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Company rule

Most of your edits I'd agree with. For saying the company dominated India though I think this is the better wording. To just say they 'controlled' or 'ruled' India seems a bit inaccurate to me. The time this article is referring to was still officially during the mughal empire; over much of the time period in question their rule was a lot more than fiction. They also could be said to be controlling India.
To say the EIC dominated India though sounds to me like they are exercising very heavy influence over India but not necessarily as the ones physically 'pushing the buttons'.

For HEIC- Why does wikipedia use this name?--Him and a dog 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] up-to-date administrative map of Azad Jammu and kashmir

Fowler&fowler,

On page 10 of the document listed below there is an official up-to-date administrative map of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in color. I don't have the expertise to add this map to the Azad Kashmir Wikipedia article, but it's a much more appropriate map than the map that is currently shown, and it's one that I think it should be shown in place of the current map. I hope you will be able to add it to the Azad Kashmir article.

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_no_ntnu_diva-930-1__fulltext.pdf

Atelerix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelerix (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British raj article is now, not making any sense.

Could you please explain why you have removed every single line of negative impact of British rule on Indian subcontinent in the British Raj article. You are a big POV pusher and painting Britsh Raj as a positive development and blessing for India. It was due to mass murders, racial discrimination and transfer of wealth which has led to revolt against the corrupt British Rule in India. Kindly include the negative impacts in the article for NPOV.--Himhifi 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British raj article now makes sense, thanks to you - but it won't for much longer, I fear

I am fighting a lonely battle to defend your excellent article. What you contributed was totally neutral and highly informative. They now want to errase your fine work, and replace it with a slightly re-worked version of the old rubbish article. They even seem to think that the British ruled India for 250 years.... they really have not got a clue about history. They're going to make an anti-British rant, full of such errors, and call it a "neutral" article. It's a joke. I'm trying to insist on some fairness and respect for historical details, in the discussion page, but I am under threat of deletion from the Indian nationalists (see above) who are acting like brahmin bulls in a china shop. Am I wasting my time?

TB

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.177.106 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I will be adding more material in the near future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hello

Have not seen you around for a while but now I do. Mattisse (Talk) 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Aadal may have some opinions. Mattisse (Talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

I've removed the comments you copied over to Raul's restart for the following reasons:

  1. Don't copy someone else's oppose; it's not yours to copy, and defeats the purpose of a restart.
  2. Your old oppose referred to other even older opposes, rendering it vague and unactionable. If you want to enter a current oppose, it should be specific, actionable, and based upon the current article.
  3. Please try to avoid lengthy debate on the FAC; those discussions can be held on article talk. The FAC should stay focused on WP:WIAFA.

Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 :) OK. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding; part of the point of a restart is to try to get a readable version of where things currently stand, not another rehash of two weeks of history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions of Indian Civilization

I can't decide if this newly created article should be redirected to Achievements of ancient Indian civilization or Ancient India, merged with some broader article on "Indian civilization" or AFDed as an innately POV list; your thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

An IP (User:Moreschi ?) redirected it to the "Achievements" page, and I think that should be fine for now, unless the article creator insists otherwise. Thanks for your respnse, and I agree with you that this is likely to be a good faith effort by an inexperienced editor. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Since you have tried improving the article on A.K. Ramanujan

Kindly have a look at this link. Thanks KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature

Please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done, I don't want to risk any edit conflicts in such a large article. I'll get back to it after you're done. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was quite impressed with your considerable efforts to critique and improve this article. My concerns were exactly the same as yours, but you brought to bear such convincing points. I feel it reads better now, after copyedits, but I still have major content issues with it. --Aadal (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I really know nothing about Kannada or its literature and I actually wasn't paying much attention to the article at first; but then a few days ago, while my family was out and the cats were distracting me, I happened upon Shelley Pollock's "The Cosmopolitan Vernacular," (Pollock, Sheldon (1998). "The Cosmopolitan Vernacular". The Journal of Asian Studies 57 (1): 6-37. ), which I immediately picked up, and which I couldn't help but keep reading once I had started it. It was only when I was half-way through the article that I realized that there was a whole background to the development of the vernacular literatures in different parts of India and even in distant places like Nepal (Newari) and Cambodia (Khmer), that they were all rebelling against, or breaking out from the grip of the "cosmopolitan" or "trans-local" languages of Sanskrit and Tamil. (The same happened later in Europe with Latin (cosmopolitan) and the vernaculars, English, French, Spanish, etc.) The beautiful arguments in the Pollock article finally got me a little energized.
I'm sure user:Risker will do a good job, but the narrative (or the lack of it) was only one of the article's problems, as you say yourself. I don't know how much, if anything, will change though. My guess is that after the copy-edit, the article, in its half-revived but yet half-comatose state, will be hurriedly put back in the FAC mill, a victim yet again of a relentless drive. The usual suspects—with their ever-ready supports—will then for the third time reappear out of thin air, and, lo and behold, KL will clamber its wobbly way into Featureland. I will try to make sure that nothing too ludicrous is said in the lead, but beyond that (as Ronald Reagan said to someone in some debate), "I can't pick on an invalid." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for sharing your thoughts. True, KL may be in the Featureland as you say. If the narrative is good and contents are fair, balanced and well supported, I've no problem. Further, I suspect more than 70% of the material is recycled in several articles (to some extent I can understand it will happen). --Aadal (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I see that it in RfC! I think it is high time someone like you and perhaps others who care for accuracy and fairness in the articles should take it up. What I've seen in the past is gang reverts and unilateral decisions about the contents issues. I want to point out that in the two examples you talk about, one section needs a revised statement. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, in his History of South India - from Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar, does say (though not at the page numbers cited), on page 393 the following.: "Among South Indian Languages, after Tamil, Kannada possesses the oldest literature. Its beginnings are not clearly traceable, but a considerable volume of prose and poetry must have come into existence before the date of Nripatunga's Kavirajamarga (850), the earliest extant work on rhetoric in Kannada." And later on, on the same page, "The Kavirajamarga is based on in part on Dandin's Kavyadarsa and must have been inspired if not actually composed by Rashtrakuta emperor Nripatunga Amoghavarsha I, its ostensible author. But the first extant work of real literature is the Vaddaradhane of Sivakoti (c. A.D. 900), a prose work on the lives of the older Jain saints, written mostly in the oldest Kannada style called purvahala-kannada. Then we have Pampa..."

So, K.A.N. Sastri talks about Kannada literature between pages 393-405, before moving on to Telugu and Malayalam.

I thought you should take this into account.

[edit] K.A.N.Sastry

I don't see all the names mentioned in the statement, but on p. 393 he talks about Durvinita, as follows: "Durvinita, mentioned in the same book as one of the best writers of Kannada prose, might well have been the Ganga monarch of the sixth century. Another early writer was the celebrated Srivardhadeva, also called Tumubuluracarya from the place of his birth; his Cudamani, a commentgary on the Tattvaratha-mahasastra, in 96,000 verses, was known to the great Kananda grammarian Bhattakalanka (1604) who calls it the greatest work in the language. (Aadal's comment: known to an author in 1604?!). Another writer of this early period (c. 650) was Syamakundacarya. Both these acaryas, like most early Kannada writers, were Jains."

I did not find references in KAN Sastri) to the names of the authors mentioned in the following sentence: "..are made in it to earlier writers such as Vimalachandra (c. 777), Udaya and Nagarjuna, and to poets including Kavisvara, Ravi Kirti (634) and Lokapala.[23][24][25]"

Page numbers are certainly wrong, but even in other logical places I could not find the names of authors mentioned above.

--Aadal (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

F&F, I'll ask you to forgive my reluctance to get into that quagmire. It's yet another datapoint for my rapidly growing portfolio of evidence that encyclopedicity has no long term chance against antiquity frenzy, not just because generalists lack the stamina to go the distance with determined partisans, but also because with WP's broken notions of WP:RS the skepticism of historians must lose out to the enthusiasm of so-called "language experts". (The Chudamani is a classic example: isn't it odd that not a single one of count 'em 96000 verses survived even to be quoted anywhere? I wonder what Al-Biruni might have said about this...) Pollock's distinction is an excellent one -- otherwise scratches on rocks become "literature" -- but there's no chance of making it stick here. Sorry. rudra (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 :) Somehow I missed this too. That's at once funny, true, and sad. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KLT clarification

F&f, Just wanted to clarify out that even though I am not responding to your each point on the KL talk page; I am reading through the posts and am not simply ignoring them. For example I agree with you that the "Encyclopedia of Indian Literature", Volume 2 talks of grammatical tradition since the topic itself is "Grammatical literature- Kannada". I wonder if volumes 3 or 4 have similar coverage of "Literary literature/tradition- Kannada", but unfortunately those volumes are not available on Google books. Do you have electronic access to them ? Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. No, I don't have electronic access to them, but I could call someone who likely owns the volumes, and ask him to look in them. Or he might have some suggestions on how to find them. It may take a day or two ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I can access the physical volumes at my library. Will perhaps do so over the weekend. I am guessing that the topics are arranged alphabetically, so volumes 3 or 4 may be relevant to KRM and literary tradition. Logging off now. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I absolutely love your userpage detail of Raphael's work. I hope you dont mind, but I've "stolen" it for my own page. Cheers! Dionix (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I "stole" it myself from Wikimedia Commons (I think it was). Enjoy! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pollock

Amazing: the quote from Pollock's "The Cosmopolitan Vernacular", about the author of KRM having to scrounge. That, along with the fact that the KRM is patently modeled on Dandin's kāvyādarśa (and so, examples of precepts were required), blows any theory of "rich" or "sophisticated" literature prior to it out the window. As usual, in keeping with a widespread pattern inherited from Sanskrit (and as Al-biruni remarked), a lot of the preceding "glorious tradition" was manufactured on the spot. Any honest historian would see this, but here on WP, that's WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and whatever else, so the WP:PEACOCKery of obscure "scholars" will have to prevail (I saw your response to Abecedare). Sigh. rudra (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some impressions

F&f, I am responding to your recent comment on the KL talk page here, since I don't think my reply will really help in improving the article. But since you asked I'll take the opportunity to share my personal impression with you here:

  • The scholarly interest in Kannada and Kannada literature pales in comparison with the interest in Sanskrit, or even Tamil literature. This is especially true for scholars outside India, scholars who publish in English, and/or in "western" journals. For example:
    • JSTOR gives 25 links for "Kannada literature" + history out of which only a couple (mainly Pollock) are really relevant. "Sanskrit literature" + history, yields 1320 results!
    • My institute library (which is nothing to sneeze at) has only 4-5 titles on KL history in English and another handful in Kannada (which I cannot read).
  • My impressions on Sahitya Acdemi's EIL:
    • Firstly, I must say it is an awe-inspiring undertaking simply in terms of the breadth of the challenge.
    • The articles are all signed and the contributors seem to be active researchers/teachers. The encyclopedia also listed a list of topic editors (L. S Seshagiri Rao for Kannada) and other advisors.
    • Many of the contributors had entries of their own in the encyclopedia; for instance MV Seethamramiah is apparently the one who settled the issue of authorship of KRM; another of the cited authors wrote the first Kannada-English dictionary (the details may be off a bit) etc.
    • The few bios that I looked up indicated that the scholars wrote largely in Kannada, and were typically profs. at places like the Univ. of Mysore etc
    • Overall I would say that EIL turned out be better than I expected, though some entries could obviously be improved in terms of "encyclopedic tone". And of course, as is true for any such national enterprise, there is always the possibility (probability?) of parochialism and mutual back-scratching.
  • the International EIL, seemed less impressive to me, since the articles were not signed, and it was not clear who wrote and supervised the entries.
  • Mugali's book was commissioned by the Sahitya Academi as part of a project to publish a history of literature for all officially recognized languages. That indicates to me that Mugali was at least a "senior" Indian scholar in the area at the time. The book was originally published in Kannada in 1965, and revised and translated into English 10 years later, with the help of L.S. Seshagiri Rao (see, how small the community is ?!)
  • In summary: as far as I can see wikipedia's article on Kannada literature does seem to reflect the current scholarly opinions on the topic. Rice, Narasimhacharya, and Mugali do seem be the only writers who have written comprehensive histories on KL (and each of those is only around 100 pages long!). of course that does not mean that the current scholarly opinion is correct! There may also be valid concerns regarding whether the scholars are (1) sufficiently removed from their subject, or (2) have enough editorial oversight for their work to be consistent with the highest academic standards. But that is a real world issue, which we cannot judge or remedy on wikipedia.

Perhaps the current state of KL scholarship is comparable to the mid/late 19th century scholarship in Sanskrit literature, when a few stalwarts first started translating the works into English/German, and felt free to use their intuition to reach (often valid) conclusions. I wonder if the expanding diaspora from Karnataka will, in the next few decades. lead to the establishment of "Kannada Studies" centers at US/European universities and a greater mainstream academic interest in the field. Anyway, that is enough off-topic speculation for now ... Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare, that was stellar work on your part. Not to take anything away, though, I share F&f's reservations. I've seen the bit about KRM "implying" a substantial corpus before it in other places too, e.g. Vol.5 of Radhakrishnan (ed) The Cultural Heritage of India, article on Kannada by Prabhu Shankara. It's a meme, and not a particularly good one. Clearly, the Jains innovated under Rashtrakuta aegis, so "several centuries" is wishful thinking for a process that probably goes back no further than the mid-8th CE. rudra (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be right about the dating (I simply don't know enough to make an independent evaluation), but as far as the article is concerned I think this is not a big deal, because we simply need to say what is known and what is surmised (and by whom). So eventually I expect the article will say something along the lines,
"The first inscriptions ... around 450AD. The oldest extant literary work ... 850AD. Some scholars surmise based on the nature of KRM, and the names of poets and prose in that and later works that KL stretches back a few centuries. Recently Pollack has expressed skepticism and said that while ... KL's beginning is contemporaneous with KRM"
Would you say that is a misrepresentation ? Abecedare (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Far too much for the lead! That should simply state the facts, and not any theories about "traditions" or any other kind of Kannadiga chest-beating. "language attested by inscriptions in the mid 5th CE, oldest extant works (Kavirajamarga and Voddaradhana) dating to the second half of the 9th CE." Note that 450 and 850 are pseudo-precise: the dating can be mentioned in the body of the article where there's room to express how accurate they are. rudra (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I meant the above text for the "Early history" section. Of course the theories would be undue for the lead and I agree that 450/850 are imprecisely precise (I was just being lazy :) ) Abecedare (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And to be really clear: I am not proposing the exact text for the section; just the bullet points for what the text should convey. Abecedare (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Well, it's somewhat more complex than that. KRM mentions earlier authors, but nothing more. Not only have the (infered) works been lost, even the names of these works haven't survived. So something like this: "The nature of the KRM as a work on poetics suggests a corpus of earlier literature, but nothing is known of this except the names of authors mentioned in the KRM itself." rudra (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare (and Rudra), Sorry, somehow I missed this last night. Well, Abecedare, I don't have too much time right now, but why don't you, at your convenience, formulate what you think is an accurate formulation (in your opinion) of sentences A and B in my RfC statement, and suggest that in the RfC. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
PS And, Rudra, if you'd like, you could then weigh in with comments to Abecedare's wording in the RfC; of course, if you don't want to, that's fine too. 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

Hello Fowler&Fowler, I don't have any expertise in this domain. However, I'll read the arguments from both the sides and give my opinion, if any. Will need until tomorrow to do that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada Literature

I wonder whether you had a chance to look at Andronov's book on Dravidian Languages. I think he will discuss Kannada Literature/language. I don't have any immediate access to this book, which I've used earlier. The contents of the book are very similar to Bhadriraju Krishnamurti's book. --Aadal (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Andronov's is an older book (1970?). I mean, of course, older compared with Krishnamurti (2003) or Steever (1998), but still a whippersnapper spring chicken compared with Rice (1921), Rice (1897), and Kettel (1875). Will look at it soon. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your vandalism

You have been on wiki long enough to understand that if you want clarifications, you need to ask for. Dont be childish and delete material. Got it. The info you have been talking about in the edit summary will be given tonight.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Give a list of items you want clarification for and I will try to provide it. Dont make your own rules, because there are admins who can teach you rules too. So long as your questions are within the guidelines of wikipedia, you will get answers for them. Trying to make your own rules can be unproductive. savvy?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your citation for Halmidi alternate dating fails WP:UNDUE and has to come off. 99% of sources accept it is from 450 CE. Either you take it off, or I will.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google books snippet view

All content views aside, kudos on wheedling out the Gai quote from Goggle Book's snippet view. I have done a similar exercise on my own, and must admit that beating the system is more satisfying, than probably it should be. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurry regarding the KL questions - I too will be mostly off-wiki for the next day or so. Hope you get well soon! Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, the putting the snippets together can be a lot of fun. Turns out that the snippets and regular word search in Google Books together is even better. I've got a bunch of stuff already which I'll add to the talk page soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just created a stub on D. C. Sircar and shamelessly copied some of its content from your KL talk page comment. Could you add references for the positions he held in ASI etc, whenever you have the time ? Again, no hurry. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. It looks good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google books question

Hi F&f, Thanks for the Pai reference; I hadn't seen it earlier. By the way, did you type the quote from the book, or have you found a way to cut-and-paste content from Google books ? Just curious, since the latter would be a great time-saver on wikipedia. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I had to type it (and probably made some mistakes). The Google guys are too smart. I did try though, but without success. I think I may have even tried taking a digital camera image and then reading the image with automated software, but no luck ... :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was wishful thinking on my part, but I had to ask! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi, sure, I can be contacted by e-mail, but have not enabled it here because I'm not sure of the rules and implications. One of the decent and well-respected users like Arvind recently wrote here about the problems.--Aadal (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada as administrative language

I recall that some source (was it Pollock ?) pointed out that while Kannada was used by the masses, the language of the elite, reigning and literary crowd (and, therefore most of the early writings) continued to use Sanskrit. That must be the reason Ramesh thought it worthwhile to point out the first known use of Kannada as an administrative language. Of course, this is just educated guesswork on my part, but if we can find confirmation in the sources, this could be mentioned on the Halmidi inscription page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ponder over the tagging that you have been upto lately. The tag on Kannada literature has to do with its Rfc and does not apply to other articles. Show me a wiki rule that says "one Rfc applies to multiple articles". Even if you do, you cant use the tag "disputed article" because it is only a few lines that are disputed, not the whole article. Lastly, keep yourself under control. Whatever changes are suggested on Kannada literature by Abecedare, can be smoothly transferred to the other articles as appropriate. Any attampt to enforce tags is just histrionics, which has not helped you in the recent past.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kappe Arabhatta

Wow! You're going full swing! Thanks for pointing out all those nitty-gritty details. One can see how much Kannada is there! --Aadal (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"P.S. Good luck!"--Aadal (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've actually learned some stuff in the process. Mostly relying on A. N. Narasimhia's 1941 University of London thesis, which was recently reprinted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change Required??

Please see Talk:Kappe_Arabhatta#Name change required - Thanks --Aadal (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Now that you have embarked on a journey to remove inaccuracies from Kannada literature related articles, here's another piece for you. The lead of the article Kannada language has this line

Contemporary Kannada literature is the most successful in India, with India's highest literary honor, the Jnanpith awards, having been conferred seven times upon Kannada writers, which is the highest for any language in India.

Don't "most successful in India" and "India's highest literary = Jnanpith awards" all amount to WP:OR and WP:POV.

PS:I clearly recall DK trying to put this sentence on the India page. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed it; a similar sentence use to be there in the Kannada lit. page, and has been made more restrained. I think when Abecedare weighs in, all the pages will be addressed at the same time.
The modern Kannada writers at least have been reasonably successful (i.e. at least there is some good reason), but when people begin to add the extinct 96,000-verse commentary (longer than the Mahabharata), composed by one living person, (in contrast to the mythical sage Vyasa), it gets to be a bit much ...


[edit] User Rockybiggs, British Raj

Hi F&F. Been a long time. I just thought I would point out an inherent Pro British Bias in the above user. If you see the history oif Jaguar Cars page, he actually removed the Indian flag againt Parent: Tata Motors, for which I cant see any reason. There used to be a British flag at the head quarters heading, and an Indian flag at the parent, which he removed, so obviously indicating his bias. And look at the irony, he accuses others of being "anti British"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ-India (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi AJ, long time no hear! Well, I just checked the other car pages. Apparently, the flag goes with the location of the headquarters (not with that of the owners). See Volvo Cars (owned by Ford), Aston Martin (also, until recently, owned by Ford, and now by two Kuwaiti companies), Honda, Toyota, BMW, Saab, Mercedes Benz. So, really, since the headquarters are still in the UK, their flag should remain. But this really is outside my area of expertise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links in British Raj article

Hi Fowler&fowler. Since you've been working on the British Raj article, could you take a look at the External links section and see if the many articles from [4] are worthy of being included? Seems like a personal website of some sort to me. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that. It actually has some great resources; wonder why it's a dot com link. Let me poke around some more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tripadi

Hello Fowler,
Just wanted to let you know that I have nominated Tripadi article, which is created and expanded by you, for WP:DYK, with the below hook:

You have done a good job on that article. Thank you, - KNM Talk 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And now on Kappe Arabhatta; just nominated.

OR

Again, thanks for your contributions on these articles. - KNM Talk 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome and thanks in turn for the nominations! I guess the second version above is more direct, but since many people might not know what Kannada is, it might be better to write it as: ...that the Kappe Arabhatta inscription, eulogising a 7th century Chalukya warrior, records the earliest example of the poetry metre, Tripadi, in the Kannada language. How does that sound? Of course, maybe people do know what Kannada is, and my addition is redundant. I'll leave that judgment to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] dyk Kappe Arabhatta well done

Updated DYK query On 25 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kappe Arabhatta , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purdah

You're welcome! Purdah (disambiguation) still needs to be dealt with, by the way, if you want to turn it into a redirect (or possibly a disambig page with only 2 items). --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions sought on an interesting poll

Hello! How are you? Some days back I was reading an issue of the print edition of India Today, a major Indian news weekly. They conducted a poll (web and sms based) for 60 greatest Indians (commemorating 60 years of independence).

The result of the poll is here. It is very interesting to note that Bhagat Singh came at number 1 with 37% of votes (probably an effect of popular media, such as the film Rang De Basanti). Second in the rank was Subhas Chandra Bose with 27% vote, followed by Gandhi with 13%.

I remember you presented many sources—during a debate on inclusion of the name of Bose in the history paragraph of India article—that pointed out the minor role of revolutionary movements and Bose's INA in the freedom struggle of India. No, I am not going to question the appropriateness of those sources citing the result of the aforesaid poll :) However, I have a question. Why do you think the popular notion is so different from scholarly observations? Is it a fallacy in the part of scholars (which is, rationally speaking, unlikely, although not impossible given the intentional undermining of the roles played by revolutionary or INA by the frontline media of that era), or, is it just how media/government policy project someone? (Here, I must say, Bose does not really enjoy a massive media publicity. On the contrary, Gandhi has much more government projection. Bhagat Singh has had some recent media coverages). So, what is your opinion?--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dwaipayan, That's actually a very interesting question! The popularity of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, the revolutionaries of the Chittagong Armoury Raid, and others, is not new. Gandhi, perceptive politician as he was, went out of his way to praise Bhagat Singh both before the latter's execution and after, (even though ideologically he was his polar opposite) because he had noticed Bhagat Singh's popularity, especially among the youth. In fact, he began to promote Nehru and Bose in the late 1920s, and later Jayaprakash Narayan in the late 1930s, in part, because, he felt that the Congress, with its aging leadership, needed to keep the youth on its side. Similarly, during the INA trials in 1946, the Congress leaders (who were by then very irritated with Bose) went out of their way to defend the INA prisoners, mainly because they had become very popular. Nehru, who although more sympathetic to Bose during Bose's earlier socialist phase, was now disenchanted with his fascist involvements; however, that didn't prevent him from actually dusting up his old Inner Temple books and joining Bhulabhai Desai and Tej Bahadur Sapru in defending him.
Some of the revolutionaries' popularity has to do with what was (and still is) reported in the press; but, there are cultural and, indeed, Human, factors too: violence has always fascinated human beings and is deeply embedded in humanity's myths. Not only the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but also the Illiad and the Odyssey are a testament to this. Presumably, Krishna had the choice to advise Arjuna to offer Satyagraha to the Kauravas or commence prolonged negotiations with them, but he clearly chose not to. Similarly, to consider a more recent example, who remembers the names of the many Sikh leaders who had talks with the Indian government during the 1970s and 80s for greater autonomy for Punjab; however, most Indians (at least of a certain vintage) remember the name of Bhindranwale. The hero and anti-hero in myths have always been a powerful draw for humans. When historical events don't offer them up, humans, it seems, like to make them up. Mangal Pandey is a classic example; the historian of the 1857 rebellion, Rudrangshu Mukherjee, has written about this very perceptively.
The history of the Indian nationalist movement and India's decolonization and independence, is now a well-studied topic. Starting soon after India's independence, but especially during the late 60s, the 70s, and the 80s—as various British documents began to be made public—the topic was studied by many schools of historians (Marxists, Cambridge school, Canberra school, Calcutta school, JNU School, Subaltern school, Post-colonial school). While there are differences in assumptions, approach and emphasis, no one, as far as I can tell, attaches great significance either to the revolutionaries or to Bose and the INA. Although very popular in their time (and ours), they remain outliers in the historical literature. The historical role of the Indian National Congress was ultimately more revolutionary than anything Bose or the so-called "revolutionaries" had to offer, because for the first (and only) time in India's history a large-scale national movement was created. Rajat Kanta Ray of Presidency College, Kolkata, summed it up in his introduction to David Low (ed.) Congress and the Raj:

"The Congress brought the country and the 'peasants' (whoever they might be) into its orbit to the dismay of the Raj in the 1930s; the rural upsurge did not prevent the Raj from reimposing its grip on the country; indirectly, however, it destroyed the Raj because the British had taken to governing India by certain electoral rules which the Congress turned to its advantage."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So, it is mass/popular psychology, built up/aided by favorable media coverage, that played a dominant part here. Indeed, there is an undercurrent of anri-Gandhism (that is outrightly criticising Gandhi's ideologies/way of working) in many parts of india, especially Eastern and Southern India. I cannot prove this with a citation, but being here in India I have come across several people who even hate Gandhi, although they know almost nothing about Gandhi/have not read Gandhi's work/biography/autobiography/scholarly history articles. Gandhi's non-extremists views are often criticised in addas, and Gandhi held the main person responsible for the Partition. These views are, of course, not supported by proofs, and are mainly gossiping. But the interesting thing is so much predominance of this notion!--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future in the past

Hi f&f. I guess you have some ownership in the British Raj article so I'm not going to push this but you should consider rewriting the entire section using the past tense. I understand you're trying to focus the section at the point of change (the act of 1858) but the article would be a lot clearer if you described the organization as it was rather than as it would have been after it was. But, like I said, its your call. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark, I apologize for reverting your copy edit (with a somewhat terse edit summary) last night. I meant to leave a post on your page, but I was extremely tired, and didn't get around to doing it. I'm glad you wrote since some other editors have found my "future in the past" constructions confusing as well. So, let me explain what I'm doing, and I apologize if I sound pedantic, that is not my intention at all. First, the article is written in the past tense; it is, however, not written in the past simple.
It is an implicit fact of narrative that the reader is always situated in the past simple; in other words, the past simple is the reader's "present" when they are reading about a past events. Unless one is describing a strictly temporal sequence of events: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, the past simple is not enough. So, if I am at 4, and I need to refer to 2 or 3, I have to use the past perfect or the past perfect continuous; similarly, if I am at 4 and need to refer to 8, I have to use "future in the past," unless of course I have nothing to say about 5, 6, and 7, and don't intend returning to 4. So, consider your copy-edit (here in boldface)

"From 1858 until 1947, twenty seven individuals served as Secretary of State for India and direct the India Office; these included: Sir Charles Wood (1859 - 1866), [Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury|Marquess of Salisbury]] (1874 - 1878) (later three-time Prime Minister of Britain), John Morley (1905 - 1910) (initiator of the Minto-Morley Reforms), E. S. Montagu (1917 - 1922) (an architect of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms), and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence (1945 - 1947) (head of the 1946 Cabinet Mission to India). The size of the advisory Council was reduced over the next half-century, but its powers remained unchanged; in 1907, for the first time, two Indians were appointed to the Council.[1] ... (next paragraph) In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained head of the Government of India and now was more commonly called the Viceroy on account of his secondary role as the Crown's representative to the nominally sovereign princely states; he was, however, now responsible to the Secretary of State in London and through him to British Parliament.

There is nothing wrong with the changes, until you get to the next paragraph: the reader is now in 1907, so when they read, "In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained ..." they get confused, because they think we are talking about the Governor-General in 1907; however, we are really talking about the Governor-General as he found himself in 1858 (in relation to his previous responsibilities).
As far as I am aware, the English language allows only two ways of talking about an event that was in the future at a particular time in the past: (a) would/was to (for things that actually happened) and (b) would have/was to have (for things that were expected to happen, but didn't). Thus (a) "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday and would reach Meerut two weeks later," means that he did reach Meerut two weeks later. In contrast, (b) "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday and would have reached Meerut two weeks later" means that he was expected to, but didn't. Why bother with this construction? Why not simply write, (c) "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday and reached Meerut two weeks later" (past simple)? Again, nothing wrong with (c), unless you want to say in the next sentence, "Five minutes into the journey, he received a telegram bringing welcome news of British reinforcements," in which case the reader gets a little confused, expecting perhaps another journey in Meerut. I usually mix in the "would" constructions (more formal) with the "was to"s (less formal), but didn't in that particular instance. Anyway, let me know what you think. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you or with your reasoning. But, writing in past future is usually less preferable than writing in simple past from the perspective of readability. Most readers are really looking for a simple sequence of historical events and don't really want to have to use their noggins when reading (imagine what their professors will say when they cut and paste your text into their research papers!). Thus, "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday at 2pm. Five minutes into his journey he received a telegram bringing welcome news of British reinforcements and when, two weeks later, he arrived in Meerut, the reinforcements had cooled the finest champagne for the Governor-General. " However, I'm not going to belabor this point. You're doing a great deal of research and have created a fine article and don't need any nits picked by the casual passers-by! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a funny reply.  :) I guess you do have a point. I noticed too that one editor who had used past future constructions in some FAs, is no longer using them. Let me think about it some more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Do you have some connections with Myanmar? If so, is everything OK with the cyclone? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myanmar

Unfortunately, yes. I have many Burmese friends (in and out of Burma) and it doesn't look good. The delta region is flat with low vegetation, lots of water, and everyone lives in shacks. You can imagine what a category 4 cyclone must have done to the area. The country has no civic services worth mentioning, a government that cares little for its people, and a population that was barely subsisting before the cyclone. Add a distrust (on the part of the government) for international organizations and I'm afraid the worst is yet to come.--RegentsPark (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that. I hope your friends' families are safe. I hope some aid agencies can get there soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Fowler, hope you are well. I see there is a heated discussion going on in the British Raj talk page (I chipped in with a coupla cents earlier). I was wodnering if I could ask you for a favour. I have just created an article on the Ilbert Bill, which I realised was not there and seems to be very important landmark, not least for the origins of the Indian National Congress.However, although there are a lot of references that talk about the effect of Ilbert Bill, I cant seem to be able to find a detailed account of its content. Wonder if you might be able to point to any references. Would much appreciate your contribution to the article as well, if you have the time. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll get to it some time tomorrow. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famine

  • The rural economy was non non-monetized in the 19th: it was undergoing monetization. That is, according to some - including Dirks - part of the problem.
  • Sen himself frequently quotes the 1947 "cut-off" in his public speeches: in Foreign Affairs, which is not quite your run-of-the-mill popular publication, if not quite a journal, he says "It could be supplemented by noting that there were big famines in India -- the subject of Kipling's eloquent phrase -- until the very end of the British imperial rule. The last one, the Bengal famine of 1943, killed between two million and three million people four years before Indian independence. Since the end of the Raj and the establishment of a parliamentary democracy, there has not been a single one." (The phrase in question is the White Man's Burden.)
  • See also the less-often read later part of Poverty and Famine, where IIRC he says that the Raj was "basically non-interventionist" till the Strachey Commission. That entire section mingles discussion of 19th c famine in South Asia with sub-Saharan famine in the 1970s/80s.
  • For an overall view of Sen and nineteenth-century famine, see Siddiq Osmani's chapter in Sen, Amartya Kumar; Kaushik Basu, Prasanta K. Pattanaik, Kōtarō Suzumura (1995). Choice, Welfare, and Development: A Festschrift in Honour of Amartya K. Sen. Oxford University Press, 343. 
  • Another useful paper is Hall-Matthews, David (1996). "Historical Roots of Famine Relief Paradigms: Ideas on Dependency and Free Trade in India in the 1870s". Disasters 20 (3): 216-230. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.1996.tb01035.x. 
  • Feed the cats. Always feed the cats. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Since everyone is a volunteer here, please try harder to be constructive and polite. FAC is already stressful and we should do what we can to make it helpful. Detailed suggestion like this that you give are extremely valuable, so please continue, but comments like your first one in that diff detract from the process and are needlessly confrontational. Lots of people don't know that difference. In general if you gave the same quality of advice with more effort to be polite while being constructive, then everyone would enjoy FAC more and get more out of it. Just some thoughts. - Taxman Talk 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I became impatient when I saw the same mistakes being repeated in the successive FACs. But, that's no excuse and you are right, of course. I need to be more temperate in my remarks. Thanks for noticing. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess it is too late to amend remarks, since they have already been acted upon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindukush

Hello Fowler, I noticed sometime that you seemed to know quite a bit about languages, particularly northern Indian/Kashmir ones, so I thought I'll ask you. Do you at all know anything of the origin or etymology of the name "Hindukush"? I ask because the Hindukush entry mentions in one part something about the name being linked to the death of slaves from India, and this seems to have been grabbed upon by Hindu-nationalists (including some people I unfortunately have to work with) as further evidence of Hindu persecution by Muslims (I dont know if Islam even existed at the time the name came). Would much appreciate your help. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that (doubtful) etymology has been around, no doubt firing up some folk with fantasies of revenge. Most people think it is a "translation" of Caucasus Indicus, and Britannica simply says it is Arabic for "Mountains of India." Will look more into it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Raj

Hi - just to let you know I removed the 'under construction' tag as it seems like you've finished working on the article for the present (best not to leave them on there too long!). All the best, EyeSerenetalk 13:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consider adding articles to DYK

Noticed that you have created some new articles. It not bad idea to make DYKs out of them. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the British Raj

Thanks for the link. Regards, rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Raj title

Hi. I'm fully aware that is probably a useless point, hence why I'm keeping it off mainspace talk pages. I saw your highlighting of British rule in India dab page, with the explanation "It explains why the British Raj (or Crown Rule in India) is still the best name for what this page is about." I am afraid I can not see how it does. The only pertinent point I can see there is that British Indian Empire was the official name from 1876 to 1947, and that it covered everything the term British Raj may have covered to 1858.

I haven't the heart to hack my way through the archives of Talk:British Raj, but I have a point to offer. I realise that British Raj offers a convenient catchall term to the Indian Empire, but from what I gather it wasn't that prevalent in print. Go to http://books.google.com and plug in "British Raj" and go to Full View (i.e. pre-1930s books whose copyright has expired) and one receives 631 hits. But in "British Indian Empire" and one gets 794, and with "Indian Empire" 1640, although of course the latter can refer to other eras and regimes, but not much. It is interesting to note that despite the mass of parliamentary literature Google has digitised, "Crown Rule in India" pops up only twice. To me this suggests that Raj is hardly an accurate or even that much convenient manner of describing British Crown rule in India when set against the sources of the times.

Of course, I am probably barking up the wrong tree, and if you have the time I would be happy to find out where I'm wrong. Naval History is my key area but all historical matters interest me, one side topic being Victorian policing in India. Apologies for bothering you and cluttering your talk page. --Harlsbottom (talk|library) 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the main reason (from my perspective) to stick to the "British Raj" title is that it is more widely used among present-day scholars than any of the others. Thus, for example, if you do a Google Scholar Advanced Search for the exact phrase "British Raj," you get 8,140 returns (journal articles/books); "British Indian Empire," on the other hand, returns 1,010. "Indian Empire" does return 7,820, but if you limit the search to modern references (say, the last 30 years, 1978-2008), "Indian Empire" returns 3,350 links; "British Raj," on the other hand, returns 5,370. That seems to jibe with my personal assessment of the literature. "British Raj" is not that common in the older literature, but it is very widely used in the contemporary literature. In fact if you look at the references in the British Raj page, almost all the books in the "contemporary general histories" section as well as the "monograph" section, use "British Raj" in their pages, and more than just once. Very few, however, use either "British Indian Empire" or "Indian Empire," and when they do, it is in passing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if you are saying that "British Raj" was not contemporaneous usage, I don't have any argument with you. Pretty much every one until 1947 referred to the region as "India" or in more formal contexts, "Indian Empire." Wikipedia page names, however, (in my understanding of them) go by what is majority usage in the secondary sources, especially the modern ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5/24 DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bihar famine of 1873–74, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford Pray 01:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmir

Thanks for addressing the issues. I really don't like it when people remove the tags but I understand your point. You may feel free to remove the tags after you believe you have went through the article throughly. Thanks. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Famine of 1876–78

Updated DYK query On 27 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Great Famine of 1876–78, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Recent Conduct

Hello. I didn't want to bring this up in the talk page of the Mahatma Gandhi article as to not let the discussion of policy/content become further clouded but I'm distressed by your comments towards me as well as your edit summaries. A summary like "wrong again" and comments telling me to work on another article, as well as comments indicating that 2 months of experience some how disqualifies me from the editing process are not conducive to a productive and civil environment in which faith is had that all contributors, even new ones, are there to improve articles. Please reconsider your recent manner of interaction here at Wikipedia. Thanks for reading and good luck. Beam 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have said nowhere that you shouldn't edit the Gandhi page; I just observed that you haven't. In fact, I'd be delighted if you did edit some real pages, instead of talk pages. If you are interested in Gandhi, I'm sure there are lots of Gandhi-related pages that need work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Among other things you urged me to work on another article because I disagreed with you. You are now apparently calling into question my previous and prior contributions to articles, insinuating again about inexperience. Another assumption unfortunately. My past contributions should not affect the value of my opinion and interpretation of the naming of the Mahatma Gandhi article. Dig a little deeper and notice that I have been involved heavily in the editing of articles. See my user page for more information.
You really need to refocus on debating content and not the editor. After I pointed out all those instances of less than exemplary dealings towards me you still belittled me. You're either patronizing me or you don't see anything wrong with the way you acted. I didn't "get help" from an admin as you tried to intimidate me with, I came to you with my slight grievance as a sign of respect. I'd appreciate even a morsel of respect towards me, from you, if you could. Beam 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you've gone as far as to lie about me on not only Husond's page, but on the Mahatma Gandhi page itself. Sockpuppeting? I didn't previously, but now I'm thinking of going to some one else for help with you. You have been less than kind towards me and now you make false accusations. You also seem to have a complex with editors based on time here. I won't be taking part in a straw poll in which you lie and insult me. No thanks. Beam 13:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I am careful with language. I said "edit-warring or sock-puppeteering" Nikkul is the sockpuppeteer, who made his Wikipedia debut with inventing three or four surrogates to support him in a similar straw poll. The Gandhi straw poll, by the way, is user:Nikkul's handiwork, not mine.
I was unfailing polite to you for a number of days, while you were blustering forth with: "I'm puzzled as to how you continue to use other encyclopedia. Wiki is not just "another" encyclopedia. We'll see what everyone else thinks, but as it stands the consensus is for the name to be put back where it was." when there was no consensus for a proposed move that was invalid anyway (since the rules for a controversial move were not observed), or (to user:Nikkul), "That's a great point! I don't see a reason why we can't make the move now.")
It was only when your pronouncements went from mere blustering to the ridiculous, as in "You're missing the point. It wouldn't matter if Mahatma meant poopy pants. If that's what everyone who speaks English calls him and knows him as.... that's what our article should be called." that I became frustrated and resorted to some sarcasm. I am unreservedly sorry for the sarcasm, but it took some provoking for me to get that way. You are welcome to take your complaint against me to any one you want. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I wanted. But it goes further than sarcasm. You insulted my editing history when I have edited some controversial articles and worked very hard at NPOV and Consensus. And to say I edit warred...well that's not really helpful. I've been banned once for 3RR and other bans... weren't exactly legit to say the least. The true problem I have and still have with you is some sort of "newbist" quality you have. You can't try to deny new editors from contributing, that doesn't help wikipedia. Let's say I had never edited any page ever, my opinions are still valid. It's editors who take your stance that ruin this place, it's my greatest concern.

And honestly I truly felt that the consensus was there or close, the arguments you made were counter argued, and then you just made them again. I'm not some sort of asshole, I'm all about discussion. I won't go and rat on you, I was just kind of flustered... especially because you again misrepresented what happened by talking to Husond who, I assure, won't be able to "help you" with me "a newb" because of previous things that I won't go into.

Where do you want to go from here? If you address your other comments regarding me than I'm happy to move on into some sort of dispute resolution process. I hate the AN things, I don't want to do that, I rather us work it out. But I do need some respect from you! I do understand that you got aggravated over what I said, but it wasn't enough to start belittling me and making me feel unwanted. That's not right. Beam 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander the Great

f&f, I don't agree with your analysis that Alexander the great is necessary for disambiguation. Alexander of Macedon could easily point to the article with "this article refers to the Macedon king also known as Alexander the Great. For other Alexanders of Macedon see the disambiguation page." Or some such thing. It does seem inconsistent to allow Alexander the Great but not, say, Saint Francis of Assisi and this does fuel the move for Mahatma Gandhi, etc. Just a thought. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What I said (and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear) was that the regnal name Alexander requires qualification for disambiguation. In the case of the son of Philip II, it takes the form: Alexander III of Macedon, or Alexander the Macedonian, or Alexander the Great. The decision to choose the last is based on precedent (all print encyclopedias, history books, and other reliable sources). In Gandhi's, case, the name, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, doesn't require any disambiguation. And all print encyclopedias have the same page name. If he had only one name "Gandhi," like Madonna or Prince, then, sure, he would need qualification in some form either Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhi (Indian independence movement leader) or ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The name "Francis," is clearly ambiguous. But the qualifier "of Assisi" is enough to pin the man down, so Francis of Assisi is enough and further qualification in the form of Saint Francis of Assisi is not required. Similarly, Alexander III the Great would be redundant qualification, as Alexander the Great is enough. Please see the Gandhi talk page, where I have now added a more detailed argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Other encyclopedias may have their own policies but wikipedia does try to counter a western bias wherever possible. Using the Great for Alexander and not allowing Mahatma for Gandhi does seem to be a potential WP:CSB issue when Alexander the Macedon or Alexander of Macedonia would do just as well. At the least, arguing in favor of the Great makes it plausible that there is also a case for Mahatma. Which is unfortunate because I think using any honorific brings a POV into the article. (Not everyone things that Gandhi had a great soul and not everyone, especially in the lands he conquered, would think of Alexander as the great!)--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't have any disagreement with "the Great" representing a historical bias, but Alexander still requires qualification in some form. If for example, someone wanted to change "Alexander the Great" to another form of qualification like "Alexander III of Macedon," I would support the move. But Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi doesn't require qualification. We can't start chopping up people's names and then claim they need qualification. By the way, Indian regnal names too require qualifications like Ashoka the Great or Akbar the Great; its not just Alexander. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. But it does open the door a little and in that sense Alex the great is not, um, great. I see another endless war in the offing.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 17:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
And similarly, I'm sure Ashoka the Great was not Great in the eyes of the people of Kalinga or Akbar the Great in the eyes of those he conquered. The problem with regnal names is that they are often so short (or so long) that qualification is a must. It is OK to battle the problem of grandiloquent qualifiers in regnal names, and I'm sure historians have been thinking about it a lot lately. I grant you that choosing the most NPOV name for a historical figure is not an exact science. But how is that problem solved by creating an unnecessary epithet for Gandhi? You might be right about the endless bickering, but allowing honorifics for South Asian names as a special dispensation is hardly an option; otherwise, what is next? Jawaharlal Nehru-->Pandit Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah-->Qaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Iqbal-->Allama Iqbal, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman-->Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Subhas Chandra Bose-->Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak-->Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan-->Badshah Khan or, worse-yet, Frontier Gandhi, pretty much all South Asian politicians of a certain vintage have honorifics, the possibilities are endless ... Fowler&fowler«Talk»


As I told Regent, I will tell you fowler, that I welcome regents greatly into this discussion. Maybe you could take note of how he talks to me and others, with respect and without insulting. I'm still debating whether or not to bring this to AN or something similar but like I say above if you can atone for the other comments you've made against me, I definitely won't. But that also means that you can't keep lying/manipulating me or what i've said at places like Husond's talk page or other places.

Again, I look forward to Regents contributions to this discussion. Beam 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the Alexander the Great article uses the honorific is less to do with disambiguation and more to do with a tussle between Greeks and Macedonians. (I did a polite check.) The use of 'the Great' turns out to be the NPOV solution. (This is FYI.) --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, you mean Macedonians as in the Republic of Macedonia (to the north of Greece)? That's a new one.  :) Who would have thought the post-cold war sensitivities and tensions would play out that way! That still leaves Ashoka the Great and Akbar the Great. Since Ashoka's father Chandragupta Maurya was supposedly from the Gandhara area or at least he met his mentor Chanakya there, and since ancient Gandhara is in the neighborhood of present-day Peshawar, I will be proposing that the dynasty be called "of the NWFP" So, Ashoka the Great would become Ashoka of the North West Frontier Province (and we'll paint in a AK-47 in his pictures); and since Akbar's grandfather, Babur came from Samarkand, the hub of the Silk Road, I will also be proposing the name Akbar of the Hub of the Silk Road for our illustrious Moghul ... Now I need to get some coffee, so I can wake up. Thanks for starting my morning on a humorous note! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, for Akbar we could suggest Akbar the Mughal. But then, Donald Trump would want his article retitled to Trump the Mughal!--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage and the Gandhi naming mess

Thank you for the knid words about my userpage. It is indeed frustrating to watch a debate like the one unfolding on the Gandhi page. I was actually not sure at first whether your move was proper or not for the same reason Beam articulates about making use of the most common name, but once you systematically explained the wikipedia policy on page naming your position made perfect logical sense. Unfortunately, as we have both seen, rational argument rarely wins the day on wikipedia when a person with an agenda comes along. Good luck, and if this does go to mediation and you need assistance of some kind, let me know. Indrian (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:218059904 (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

"resistance to tyranny" more common (cf Hobbes ("resistance to rights of sover...", Jefferson "resistance to tyrants ..."); plus "resistance of " is ambiguous: can mean resistance offered by tyranny

Me thinks it depends on which side of the Atlantic you get your grammar from. Anyway, it is not ambiguous. I can't see how it could be read to mean it's exact opposite. Thanks, Monkeyblue 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why I had both Hobbes (British) and Jefferson (American). Here are the full quotes: 1) Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (volume 2), (II. xxx. 175) "Such is all resistance to the essential Rights of Soveraignty." and, of course, Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "Resistance to tyrants is Obedience to God"
What I meant by ambiguous was simply that "resistance of" is sometimes also used to mean resistance offered by; so, (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 edition) quotes, GREEN (1874) Short Hist. viii. §5. 499 "The threat, however, failed to break the resistance of the (House of) Commons." (that clearly means resistance offered by the House of Commons). Or, we could make a sentence, "The Germans succumbed to the resistance of the French underground in World War II." Here again "resistance of" means "resistance offered by." Granted that no one is going to misinterpret "resistance of tyranny" in the context of Satyagraha (!), still, I think, "resistance to" is the more common expression (especially as a result of Jefferson). (But, nothing in language is hard and fast.)
Anyway, I'm delighted to come across someone who at least pays attention to grammar. "Resistance to" had been there in the text from at least October 2006 (when I first happened upon it) until December 2007, and most readers simply ignored it. Now that I know there is another fellow traveler (in you), I will run by other language related issues with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
PS If you do a Google search for the exact expression, "resistance to tyranny," you get about 46 thousand links, whereas, a search for "resistance of tyranny" yields 845 links. But again, I'm not saying your construction is wrong. (The Google links may have a lot to do with Jefferson and books written about him.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

I appreciate the comment you left on my talk page. I too forget to assume good faith many times. Ketankhare (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Henceforth, I will be Supreme Unmanifest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme Unmanifest (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Hi there

Hello Fowler. Sorry, I was away for a few days. Do you still need my help in this Gandhi issue? Regards, Húsönd 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Buddy

I was just reading at Husond's talk page, and wanted to let you know that you weren't being sarcastic and it wasn't "newbie nerves", you were being an asshole and even a veteran would take offense at your attitude. There is a difference. See you around friend. Many regards, Beam 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)