Talk:Stephen Fuchs

Some reviews of his works
Here are some scholarly reviews of his works (available at JSTOR):
 * The Aboriginal Tribes of India
 * Reviews:, , , , , ,


 * Rebellious Prophets. A Study of Messianic Movements in Indian Religions
 * Reviews:, , , , , , ,


 * At the Bottom of Indian Society, the Harijan and Other Low Castes
 * Reviews:, ,


 * The Gond and Bhumia of Eastern Mandla
 * Reviews:, , , , ,


 * The Korkus of the Vindhya Hills
 * Reviews:, ,


 * The Origin of Man and His Culture
 * Reviews:, ,


 * The Children of Hari. A Study of the Nimar Balahis in the Central Provinces of India
 * Reviews:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 * Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society
 * Review:


 * Tales of Gondavana
 * Reviews: ,


 * Social Origins
 * Reviews: ,


 * Essays in Ethnology
 * Reviews: ,

- NitinMlk (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Thank you for sharing the above scholarly reviews and the two articles in the section just below this one. With time, they would be really helpful in further development and improving the coverage of the subject in this article. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would like to share with you that the author of the book "Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society " is Stephan Fuchs who is a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. He is a different person )) Two wonderful academics with the same name... so wonderful { Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for crossing out the misplaced review. As I mentioned to you earlier in this post, There are so many reviews of his works that I got bored by just listing them. And that's what lead to this oversight. BTW, on a different note, you added this source to the article, but hardly added any content from it. Maybe you don't have access to it. If that's the case then you can ask, as he may have access to it. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do have access to it, if necessary. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and, that would be great )) Sam, kindly send me a copy of that article )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sent Sam-2727 (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Couple of articles about him
Here are a couple of articles about him: &. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:V
In the article, we have build the content with this reference at its core — Please note that any user can access this article by creating an account on JSTOR (this article is available for free). Still, the text of the article is also available here — — in case someone may feel the need to access it quickly. In the article's mainspace, we shall cite the original publication/source as the reference. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:GA
I have edited this article in the light of the advises received from you while working together on Aparna Rao under your guidance. Aparna Rao is in nomination for GA status since 15 June 2020. I request you to, when you have the time, go through this article, and advice me about the further improvements (addition of new information, editing of the current content if required, etc.) that can be made to this article, so that at some point of time in near future, we may nominate this article for the GA status. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please feel free to ask any number of questions that you may have. I will try to answer as quickly as I can. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Looking at it now. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My comments

 * In my opinion the lead needs reworking. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, which I don't think those two sentences could do (as a side note, looking back at Aparna Rao I think the lead could be changed there too but that's a later topic of discussion). This is what I would change it to, but feel free to make modifications:

Stephen Fuchs (April 30, 1908 — January 17, 2000) was an Austrian anthropologist who researched the prehistory and ethnology of India. After obtaining a PhD in anthropology from the University of Vienna in 1950, Fuchs moved to India where he founded the department of anthropology at St. Xavier's College in Mumbai. After a brief imprisonment for being a German missionary by the British government during World War II, Fuchs cofounded the Indian Branch of the Anthropos Institute, later renamed the Institute of Indian Culture. Fuchs, because of health concerns, moved to Austria in 1996 and died at the age of 91 on 17 January 2000 in Mödling, Austria.

In his research, Fuchs conducted field studies in Central India. He particularly focused on the customs and beliefs of modern Indian tribes. Originally when he moved to India, he focused on the social and cultural customs of modern day central Indian tribes, but after founding the Institute of Indian Culture, Fuchs focused on ancient Indian culture, back to the original inhabitants of India. Fuchs wrote a variety of books at his various positions, receiving generally mixed reviews from other academics. (Feel free to edit this)


 * Here's my major comment for now. Since the Aparna Rao article was so short, it made sense to split it up into career/research/reception/works. But because this article is longer, it makes sense to me to merge the sections into something chronological, to prevent confusion. These sections to me could actually be quite similar to what they are currently. For instance, start out with an "early life and education section," but cut this off after he completed his PhD. Then have a new section, perhaps called "early research in India" or "Initial research" where you describe the work he did on modern central Indian tribes. Cut this section off after his imprisonment ends. Also you discuss one of the tribes he wrote about during his imprisonment that he studied before his imprisonment, but it isn't mentioned in earlier text that he studied them before his imprisonment (if that makes sense). Next, have a section called, for instance "later research" which describes his shift to ancient cultures, the founding of the Indian Branch of the Anthropos Institute, etc. The final section should be "move to Austria and death" which mentions why he moved to Austria, the award he received in 1998, and his death. I think the "works" and "reception" can remain separately as they are now.

The reasoning for this is Manual_of_Style/Biography which states that In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. I think we had good reason to do so for Aparna Rao because it's such a short article, but this one needs to be chronological because it's longer. Once you make it chronological, I can give more specific comments. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you so much for providing this precious input )) Tomorrow, I will dedicate a few hours, specially, for working on your suggestions. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , kindly have a look at the article now. Please discuss the further changes that need to be made to this article, and let me know if I had made any changes that I should revert/make changes to. Also, I have changed the suggested sentence from "After obtaining a PhD in anthropology from the University of Vienna in 1950, Fuchs moved to India where he founded the department of anthropology at St. Xavier's College in Mumbai." to "After obtaining a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Vienna in 1950, Fuchs moved to India where he assisted in founding the Department of Anthropology at St. Xavier's College in Mumbai." because the sentence from the citation/source says "After his return to India in 1950, Fuchs helped to establish the Department of Anthropology at St. Xavier's College, Mumbai." He had not founded it, but helped in its foundation. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Research section

 * Fuchs spent several decades in doing studies in should be Fuchs spent several decades performing studies in
 * , and the tribal and dalit peoples of India have been the subjects of prime focus of his research should be The tribal and dalit peoples of India were the prime focus of his research.
 * Typically not a big fan of quotes in articles, but I personally like the one in the intro to the research section, so I wouldn't change anything there.
 * For the text He worked among the Balahis of Nimar is there any date range? It would help to place them if so to give context as to when this happened
 * he was also designated to he was designated
 * sent to a camp assuming this is a prison camp, so it should probably be changed to "prison camp"
 * , and due to that, his research work was halted for some time to . His research work was halted for the duration of his imprisonment
 * he worked out the observations and notes would perhaps be better as he went back through the observations and notes (unless this is not actually what he did)
 * he publishing to merely published
 * and developed interest to . Around this time, he also developed
 * he conducted research on Chamars of Varanasi and Ballia districts should be changed to he conducted research on the Chamars people in the Varanasi and Ballia districts
 * Later, he studied for two years is there a date for this?
 * , but later resigned to . Here later resigned. Also is there a date?
 * execute field researches to conduct field research
 * he had also co–founded the "Indian Branch of the Anthropos Institute" to he co-founded the Indian Branch of the Anthropos Institute (removing quotes and changing wording a bit)
 * that was renamed in 1967 as the "Institute of Indian Culture" which was gained recognition to . The institute was renamined in 1967 as the "Institute of Indian Culture" and later gained recognition
 * I recommend summarizing the quote "back to the Dravidians and even further back to the original inhabitants of India, to the "primitives or aborigines" who according to him were "representatives of the earliest inhabitants of India","
 * Also is there an approximate time when "He developed interest"? It's in the later research section, so I assume it's after 1950, but it would be nice to have an exact date.
 * , and that had resulted in to which had resulted in
 * He was also an editorial board member of the Asian Folklore Studies. Are there any dates for this?
 * Wilhelm Schmidt had mentored Fuchs. From what I remember in the earlier version of the article, this was in his earlier career, right? So why is it in the "later research" section?
 * I think the quotation marks in "modern development in genetics", "paleontology", and "racial classification". should be taken out, but kept in the rest of the paragraph. These terms seem to common to attribute to a quote (even if they are from a quote) to me.
 * It's late where I am right now, but I'll respond to your earlier comments and hopefully get through the rest of the article tomorrow. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , below are some clarifications and the answers to the questions which I could not answer by making edits to the article.

A. — At the moment, I do not know of any source giving a date range. I will look for that, again, and if I find that information, then I would add that to the article.
 * Q. — For the text He worked among the Balahis of Nimar is there any date range? It would help to place them if so to give context as to when this happened
 * ok if no date range then I guess it's fine

A. — No. Currently, we do not have a date or even the exact year of resignation. I will look for that also.
 * Q— but later resigned to . Here later resigned. Also is there a date?
 * ok makes sense

A. — We have something here )) A paragraph from Josef Salmen's article says,
 * Q. — Also is there an approximate time when "He developed interest"? It's in the later research section, so I assume it's after 1950, but it would be nice to have an exact date.


 * I thought about this for a while, but I don't think this would be worth including, as you've probably already thought about, because it doesn't necessarily suggest that this was when he first expressed interest in ancient history.

A. — Presently, no. I will also try to find this out.
 * Q. — He was also an editorial board member of the Asian Folklore Studies. Are there any dates for this?
 * ok

A. — You are right to question the placement of this sentence. To be honest, I was actually looking place it in the introduction of the "Research" section, just below the quote "like Wilhelm Schmidt ... heritage". When I moved the quote to introduction ("research") from "later research" (that wasn't the right place for that quote), i just did not moved this sentence with the quote, as I developed some doubt about the best placement for this sentence, and I am still thinking about this. This is important information, so we need to mention it, but where? Can we place it below that quote or should we place it in the "initial research section" or mention this information somewhere else (a separate sub-section ?) ? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Q. — Wilhelm Schmidt had mentored Fuchs. From what I remember in the earlier version of the article, this was in his earlier career, right? So why is it in the "later research" section?
 * Looking at the revised version, it looks better. I would recommend adding just a couple of things. I would recommend changing contact with Schmidt that he decided to contact with Schmidt, whom he considered a mentor, that he decided, to clarify that he considered Schmidt a mentor so the later text makes more sense. Also, I would recommend changing the wording of the modified sentence in the introduction to the research section to Although Fuchs considered Wilhelm Schmidt a mentor, Fuchs dissociated himself.... (← Comments from Sam-2727)
 * For now, I am moving this sentence below that quote (at the moment, that would be the safest thing to do), but, I will have a good look at the source again, and would try to figure out at what time in his career did Fuchs take that turn. Fuchs did went deep into India's history, but he never slowed down on the other side (the study of tribal and dalit peoples in the contemporary time). I need to read that article (source/citation) again. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC) (added comment) Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , tomorrow, I would look into some sources, and add some content about about his works/activities regarding India's tribals and dalits after he built his interest in the prehistory of India. His earlier works were tilted more towards the contemporary social-economic-cultural angles, but the later ones took place in the light of history of migrations to the country as well. There was a difference in the approach. Also, tomorrow, I would do the rephrasing(s). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. Although the contrast is implied in the "initial" and "later" research sections, I think it would be beneficial to emphasize the contrast more. Also I just realized that I put the later section above the earlier one. Sorry about that. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * One more thing I just realized. I'm assuming we currently don't have a date for He was also an editorial board member of the Asian Folklore Studies.. If not, it might be worth moving this to the introduction because we don't exactly know when this was. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I started this article in July but have read a few times about Fuchs before also. I will work out some content this week, starting today, and would try to improve these subsections in the weekend. You have suggested changing contact with Schmidt that he decided to contact with Schmidt, whom he considered a mentor, that he decided. Another suggestion to make the sentence as Although Fuchs considered Wilhelm Schmidt a mentor, Fuchs dissociated himself..... I would like to point out the I am not aware of any source were Fuchs had, himself, called Schmidt his mentor. This is cited from S. M. Michael's article in which he wrote, "He was buried at the seminary’s small cemetery where his mentor, Wilhelm Schmidt, also rests." In the light of this, would you recommend making these suggested changes? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I read the source article again and they have presented it as kind of a fact or general information and without any dates/timeline. I think, the safest thing would be to keep the sentence Wilhelm Schmidt had mentored Fuchs, however, Fuchs dissociated himself from the "rigid culture circle theory of the Vienna School of Ethnology represented by Wilhelm Schmidt in the first half of the 20th century and with that also from the rather rigid understanding of cultural diffusion." just below the quote (as it is, now) in the "research" section (outline/intro) rather than "initial research" or "later research". However, if you feel differently, please let me know. Also, I can see that I have put most of the sentence in quotes, so, I will make an attempt to do rephrasing. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , on your suggestion, I added this information to the lead/introduction: He had also been an editorial board member of the Asian Folklore Studies. I would like to ask that how would it go if we place this sentence in the "works" section after the sentence "Fuchs had written 22 books, nearly 150 articles, and many monographs." or is it good where it is now? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry I meant the introduction to the research section. The works section would good as well. I think it makes sense to keep it in the research section, since it has more to do with research than his written works, in my opinion. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the section Stephen Fuchs tells the readers that even though he was mentored by Schmidt, [scholars also noted that] he had dissociated himself from the Vienna school & Schmidt while writing a book that was published in 1950. It is good that we removed that sentenced from the "later research" section and mentioned in the intro as a general fact. Still, we don't have an exact timeline, but my personal guess from whatever I could remember reading about him (for the talk page discussion only) is that though Schmidt mentored him and he had affiliations with the Vienna school, he might have never walked parallel to them on a same path. From what we have in the article, should we summarize it and mention a small sentence in the article's introduction about this. We have enough juice to add just a few words to the intro, i think. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , to clarify what you're talking about here: Are you saying that we should mention in the section where we talk about his association with vienna school (in the intro to the research section) now, we should mention that he had disassociated by 1950? I think that would be an ok addition. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I want us to mention about this, yes! We know that he dissociated at least by the time he wrote that book which was published in 1950, but we do not know if he dissociated by 1950, or 1948, or 1945 or 19XX... that's a problem. I am just concerned about the WP:NOR. We should write something about our readers, but how will we source this new sentence, and what will we write? Also, can we not add a sentence about this to the main introduction rather than adding it to the intro of the research section? If not, adding that to the intro of the research would also be OK. But, since in the main intro/lead of the article, we only need to provide a summary of the content of article, we would not need to worry about referencing the sentence in the section, and we can only write a sentence as a summary of the sections "Research (into)" and "The Children of Hari: A Study of the Nimar Balahis in the Central Provinces of India (1950)". That would also save us from falling at odds with the WP:NOR. Please discuss this. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , in general, only information already in the article should be in the main introduction section (called the lead). I don't think this would be WP:OR because we could just say something like (not suggesting that this is what you should write): "by 1950..." (so just slip the date in and add the source). Sam-2727 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that I would burn my fingers if I try to add what I want to add to the lead from what we have from the sources. However, I will ask some German speaking persons to look into this, and find any article(s) that discuss Fuchs' relationship with Schmidt & Vienna School in more detail. For now, I would let thing as they are. Anyways, the accurate information is there to read for readers. Actually, I think, I would develop article on the Austrian school of anthropology/Vienna School of Ethnology and discuss some scholars including Fuchs in the article... starting of the movement, their ideology, how things went, how the movement was accused of bias, how it got discredited, etc. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds like a good idea. If you ever want me to review the article once you develop it, feel free to let me know (I will be busier come September but should still find enough time). Sam-2727 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for offering this )) Of course, I will stay in touch and come to you for assessments { I believe, I would start developing an article on that topic somewhere around mid–October or early November. AT that time, I am expecting myself to be in the company of a German speaking friend for a couple of weeks. Just English language sources won't be enough for that subject. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Early life and education comments

 * I think the article reads much better now organized chronologically. I especially appreciate the how the "research" section is divided into separate parts.
 * Later, his family shifted to Graz, and he studied at the advanced mission high school of the Society of the Divine Word (SVD) from 1922 to 1927 should be Later, his family movede to Graz, where he studied at the advanced mission high school of the Society of the Divine Word (SVD) from 1922 to 1927.
 * When the article says St. Gabriel, and it was after coming, I'm on the edge over whether it would be better to split up into separate sentences, so St. Gabriel. It was after coming.
 * he firstly learned English, Hindi, and the local dialects of Madhya Pradesh, and then did studies and carried out fieldwork in central India to he learned English, Hindi, and the local dialects of Madhya Pradesh, before carrying out studies and fieldwork in central India
 * ,but in 1947 to . In 1947
 * What does an ethnologist in each of the mission areas to facilitate the mission's tasks mean?
 * Summarize the quote "assigned to pursue ethnological studies and to do research in India." instead of using it directly in the article (or attribute the quote by saying "according to xyz," but I think summary would be better here).
 * in the sphere of ethnology and indology to n the fields of ethnology and indology
 * Change, and was able to complete it in 1950 because of the "mass of field material" carried by him from India to Austria and his formerly published articles on ethnography to . He was able to complete his PhD in 1950, just two years, because of the large amount of field material he brought back from India to Austria and the articles he had already published on ethnography
 * Recommend summarizing "showed the connection between this ritual and the Ashva Medha horse sacrifice of the Aryans" instead of direct quotation


 * Will get to the research section in a bit. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you so so much for your time and advises )) Please have a look at the changes made, including the rephrasing done, and kindly let me know if anything needs to be edited/changed in that section. You have asked "What does an ethnologist in each of the mission areas to facilitate the mission's tasks mean?" I thought that since the source has provided it, so for the readers, I tried to give the background/reason for his move to leave central India in 1948 to pursue a PhD in Vienna. The original quote from the source is —

Does there needs to be a change? Should we keep that sentence as it is or edit or remove it? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the sentence, "In 1947, SVD's general chapter decided that there should be an ethnologist in each of the mission areas to facilitate the mission's tasks, and consequently, he was called on to study ethnology and execute studies in India.", I would say that it is looking odd, and to some extent, confusing as well. There needs to be some change! What's the best thing to do here? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok the original quote clears it up. I would change he was called on to he was commissioned the SVD. I think the rest would make sense with that change, at least to me. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , should I change it to he was commissioned the SVD or he was commissioned by the SVD? Also, I said it's looking odd because the sentence is saying that the SVD asked its ordained priest to study ethnology to facilitate its missions' works. There should have been some more information in the source article (what tasks?), but if you think that there is no confusion here, then I am ok with that. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry didn't see this before. Yes, that is a valid change (that was a typo on my part). I do see one thing, upon review, that could be added to perhaps clarify a bit. The source provided says Church authorities thought these aboriginal groups should be quickly and directly missionized. So perhaps having the sentence (in full), be: "In 1947, SVD's general chapter decided that there should be an ethnologist in each of the mission areas to facilitate the mission's tasks, and consequently, he was commissioned by the SVD to study ethnology and execute studies in India.. Then after "tasks," have a footnote that says Among other things, the SVD believed that aboriginal groups should be "quickly and directly missionized" (citation to source). Sam-2727 (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working on this. I have made the change. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Reception Section, Move to Austria and death, and Works

 * C. von Fürer-Haimendorf panegyrized Fuchs for his immense fieldwork in central India, and suggested that Fuchs had developed a great cognizance of the subject. I recommend less complicated words here, as generally Wikipedia articles should be comprehensible to a general audience. I would recommend C. von Fürer-Haimendorf praised Fuchs for the large amount of fieldwork he had conducted in central India, and suggested that Fuchs was very knowledgable of the subject.
 * I don't think a block quote is necessary for Nothing like it has been written in the last twenty or thirty years. Rather it should be inline with quotation marks like the rest of the short one sentence quotes in this section.
 * , and according to him should be . According to him,
 * Suggest losing the quotes on companion volume and library research
 * , and gave a should be . He gave a. Common theme here: don't use more than one "and"
 * Although I think the block quote should go for The Aboriginal Tribes of India (1973), I think the block quotes for At the Bottom of Indian Society: The Harijan and Other Low Castes (1981) are fine, as they are longer and kind of only make sense as a block quote. Not quite certain though.
 * For section "Move to Austria and death," I have just one comment. Would recommend changing The document stated to The document additionally stated
 * For the selected works section, I think there should be some threshold for inclusion, instead of listing arbitrarily some of his works. Perhaps most cited? Or most reviewed? Sam-2727 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what should we do about this? To be honest, I have just listed his works, randomly. And, how many should we list? We have an exact count for his books (22), and a good estimate for the number of articles (around 150) that he wrote. What's the best way to go here? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , after viewing the articles a few times while editing it, I think that you are right to raise some concerns about the quotes in At the Bottom of Indian Society: The Harijan and Other Low Castes (1981) also. For now, I am making a partial self–revert, and making the shorter one of the two quotes appear inline with quotation marks with the rest of the sentence. I am not touching the longer one, but I would listen to you if you will share an opinion regarding that. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was looking at other articles and there seems to be inconsistent criteria applied to them. For papers, we can refer to a citation index and pick the top 10 most cited papers. For books, it would be hard to find criteria, since citations isn't an accurate measure of a book's popularity. For now, unless someone can think of a better inclusion criteria for books, I guess we can just list a random selection. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking into this more, I couldn't find a good method for counting top publications. I'll ask around on Wikipedia though. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , a paragraph from Bernd Pflug's article says — For this analysis, I will use Fuchs’s three major ethnographic studies on central Indian societies: the Nimar Balahi (1950), the Gond and Bhumia (1968) and the Korku (1988). Fuchs studied and published much more; among his wider anthropological studies are, for example, the ones on messianic movements in India (1965) and on the culture-historical relations of the Vedic horse sacrifice (1996); he also wrote textbooks, for instance on the origin of man and culture (1963) and on anthropology for missionary work (1979). We may list these books in the works section along with the books that we are aware of who have been reviewed by scholars but are not mentioned in this paragraph. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , based on the above comment(s), I have tried to make improvements to the "books" section. Kindly have a look now. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , for the "select papers", if we could not list some of the top cited research articles of Fuchs (how are we going to do that?), we could go for diversity. I mean to say that we can list some 10–15 articles by him that covers different topics. Also, the 5 articles currently listed are not on exactly the very same topics. Could this criteria be a solution to our situation? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia. There, other editors recommend finding highly cited papers in google scholar. Taking the top 6, that would be "Rebellious prophets: A study of messianic movements in Indian religions," "The Gond and Bhumia of Eastern Mandla," "The children of Hari: A study of the Nimar Balahis in the central provinces of India," "At the bottom of Indian society: The Harijan and other low castes," "Magic healing techniques among the Balahis in central India," and "Godmen on the Warpath: A study of messianic movements in India." As for books, I still don't know how we would sort them by "relevance." You mention different topics, but what about selecting six books spaced out throughout his life? This would be a more objective measure than "relevance." Sam-2727 (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you like the paper and/or book idea, I can change the citations; you don't have to do so. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have good experience and I have seen by working with you on this article and Aparna Rao that you are a wonderful Wikipedia editor and guide, so I will happily go with the choice that you would make about this matter )) Please make the necessary changes. Also, in Fuchs' case, as far as I remember, there are some papers and books with nearly the same titles and a few with exactly the same also. So, kindly take a bit extra care )) Thank you so much, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , To be honest, you seem to have better skill at formatting, but since you were taking the bulk of the work on the article itself, I'd thought I'd relieve you of something, at least. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be getting to this tomorrow. Sam-2727 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the kind words )) I enjoy editing this encyclopedia, so there is no question of feeling fatigued )) I would love to do the formatting. Kindly tell me which works should be included in the "books" section, and which works should to be included in the "select papers" section. After your answer, I would do that ASAP )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , this source (from page 8) has listed all of his books and papers (just in case it could of assistance). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok if you want to, here's a final listing. Papers: "The children of Hari: A study of the Nimar Balahis in the central provinces of India," "Magic healing techniques among the Balahis in central India," "Clan Organization among the Korkus," "The Religion of Indian Tribals", "The Religio-Ethical Concepts of the Chamars in Northern India." For books: "The Great Synthesis. Ranchi: Catholic Press," "Social Origins. Bombay: Gyanayatan Publications," "The Gond and Bhumia of Eastern Mandla. Bombay: New Literature Publishing Company," "The Aboriginal Tribes of India. New York: St. Martin’s Press," "Das Leben ist ein Tanz. Lieder der indischen Ureinwohner. Ausgewahlt, aus den Stammessprachen ubersetzt und eingeleitet von Stefan Fuchs. Zurich: Benziger Verlag," "The Vedic Horse Sacrifice. In Its Culture-Historical Relations. New Delhi: InterIndia Publications" Sam-2727 (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to let me know if you need any help on this. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for working on the list. I will make the changes today itself. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could not find the paper "The children of Hari: A study of the Nimar Balahis in the central provinces of India". I can only find the book with the same title. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , is this what you're looking for? Since it has an issue volume and page numbers, I assumed it was a paper and not a book. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please see this. That article is most probably a review. If you can open the article and be sure that it is not a review of the book of the same title (assessed possibly by F. L. S. Bell), only then we should add it. If not, then we should choose another paper to add in the article. Will this affect our list of book (replacement of any book in the list with this one?), or we would just need to choose an article for the "select papers" section and the rest would just remain as it is? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I accessed it and you are correct, it is indeed a review of his book. I don't think it will affect the list of books. For citations, I found one with more than "The Religio-Ethical Concepts of the Chamars in Northern India" as well so remove "The Religio-Ethical Concepts of the Chamars in Northern India" and "The children of Hari: A study of the Nimar Balahis in the central provinces of India" and add "Another Version of the Baiga Creation Myth" and "Messianic Movements in Primitive India." Sam-2727 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for working on the list again. I have made these changes. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

More general comments

 * Next time I have a look, I'll go through the sources and look for any information that might be missing. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be so great )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's taking me a bit of time to get through all of the sources. I'll hopefully have it done by the end of the weekend. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I had added a new section "Life as an anthropologist and a missionary". Is the title of the section right? Seems OK to me, but kindly discuss this also if required, please. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the section is good. I would remove Sifting through his both sides – an anthropologist and a catholic missionary – as it reads awkwardly to me. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into this. I have removed those words. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Rephrasing quote(s)
, there is a sentence in the research (intro) section — Wilhelm Schmidt had mentored Fuchs, however, Fuchs dissociated himself from the "rigid culture circle theory of the Vienna School of Ethnology represented by Wilhelm Schmidt in the first half of the 20th century and with that also from the rather rigid understanding of cultural diffusion." I need your help to rephrase the large quote in it... my head is swinging while making attempts to perfectly rephrase it )) Also, you may already know this, but still, I would like to clarify (because all the first letters are written in capitals) that the "Vienna School of Ethnology" mentioned in the sentence is — a 20th-century anthropological movement, now discredited (not really an institution). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * see if my rephrasing in the article makes sense. If it is a movement, we should mention that in a footnote. I'll add that. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's so much better than what I was writing in my notepad )) And yes, it was a movement. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead
, we have this sentence in the lead — Fuchs wrote a variety of books at his various positions, receiving generally mixed reviews from other academics. At present, in the article, there are more favorable reviews than unfavorable. With time, more reviews were added to the article, and that further increased the gap between positive and negative assessments. I think we should update the lead, as currently, it is going against the content of the "reception" section. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I changed "mixed" to "positive" so it now reads "generally mixed." Is this a more accurate reflection? Sam-2727 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the change. I think that it's a more accurate reflection, but I would suggest adding a couple of words about criticism also, since not everyone had assessed him positively. Here the timeline is also of interest. I will try to explain what I mean. In February 1965, Harumi Befu questioned his knowledge of paleontology, racial classification, and the advances in genetics. However, a decade later, he was favorably assessed by Rudolf Rahmann, Christine Cottam Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf, Gabriella Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi, Soumendra Mohan Patnaik (but unfavorably reviewed by Edward J. Jay – we could take a few words from Jay's criticism also) for his book with the title The Aboriginal Tribes of India in which he had discussed races in deeply ancient times in India. It's a bit difficult to put in words, but I hope you are getting my point. Maybe, we can highlight something from this. Also there is a complaint from Yoshio Sugimoto. Maybe, we can keep this sentence as it is — Fuchs wrote a variety of books at his various positions, receiving generally positive reviews from other academics — and mention a few words/points from both favorable and unfavorable assessments in a new and small sentence or add a comma and add some words regarding this. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , or maybe I am overthinking here and it's just best the way it is? • Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , basically what you're saying is that there were more negative reviews initially, but it became more postiive later on, although he still had a minority of negative reviews? The thing is, I see a more complicated picture that would be hard to express beyond "generally favorable" (or similar short phrase). If we were to say that the reviews were initially generally negative in the 1960s, this would be ignoring generally favorable assessments of Rebellious Prophets: A Study of Messianic Movements in Indian Religions and essays in Ethnology (1969) (as examples). One thing I think could be modified though. What about changing the sentence to Fuchs wrote 22 books, receiving generally positive reviews for most of them but receiving generally negative reviews for a few. (this also adds specificity in how many books he wrote). Sam-2727 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not saying that there were more negative reviews initially. It would be incorrect to say that. I was just pointing out a particular single case about a particular area (I just thought something in my head, did some overthinking and made things over–complicated for myself). I agree with you here. This sentence would say it all )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , made the change. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Completeness
I looked at a long time at the sources currently present in the article, and you've done a very good job adding everything to the article. I couldn't find anything to add. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Спасибо большое (thanks a lot) { There is one more important thing to do here — when we click on "show" at the "WikiProject Catholicism", the template expands and shows a sentence — This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status. Looking further inside, it shows a checklist that is to be filled up. Kindly fill up this checklist, as it will be helpful to the GA reviewer )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I filled out the checklist. I don't know what it means by "supporting materials," but I suppose we probably have these. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I also believe so )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I went through the entire article again and did some general cleanup on the article (e.g. switching out more complex words). I'll review the entire thing again in a couple of days. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for going through the article. I want to highlight some points and ask some questions:

Having asked these questions, I want to say that I am really very thankful to you for making the changes (I am leaning from each of your edits on this page and on Aparna Rao) but I have some doubt and concerns about 4 of the changes made in this edit, and it would be a good learning experience for me to have the answers. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC) (changed a "." to "?") Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) You changed "He was of the view that to ascertain the provenance of untouchability, the indologists must "penetrate deeply enough" in the history of the peoples who have had ascendancy in India." to "He also believed that to find the origin of untouchability, the indologists must "penetrate deeply enough" in the history of the peoples who have had ascendancy in India." I used those words because I was trying to rephrase the words "origin of untouchability" as the source says, "...Stephen Fuchs proposes a new theory regarding the origin of untouchabiiity. According to him..." The source used the words "origin of untouchability" and now so are we (going similar). Is that OK? How dissimilar should we must be to stay away from COPYVIO issues?
 * 2) You changed "Hutton also highlighted (...) it was free from the "theoretical bias" that was [then] imputed to the Vienna school." to "Hutton also highlighted (...) it was free from the "theoretical bias" associated with the Vienna school." The source says, "...this detailed account (...) is not coloured unduly by theoratical bias which has come to be associated with the Vienna School." Are we not going too similar to the quote from the source now?
 * 3) You removed "in apropos of" from the sentence "Fuchs had examined (...) the study of India's "prehistoric races" in apropos of the early, middle and late..." The source says, "...prehistoric races of India with reference to early stone age, middle stone age, late stone age, Indus valley civilization and post Harappan stage." Are we sure that the sentence is accurately saying what the author said with the removed words?
 * 4) Fuchs did not view "ritual purity and impurity" (...) artisans and laborers in the "highly–developed complex farming culture" they had, but their..." to "Fuchs did not view "ritual purity and impurity" (...) artisans and laborers in a "highly–developed complex farming culture", but their..." The source says, "He concludes (1) that the low castes and Harijans were in possession of a highly-developed complex complex farming culture, but (2) that they were..." The old sentence had those words to highlight that they had it, and they were not artisans and laborers on the farms of other races. Is the new sentence saying exactly what Fuchs said without any ambiguity?
 * , kindly take out some time for these 4 points. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Responses below:
 * I wasn't aware the source used the word origin, but provenance sounded odd. I can't find another way to phrase it that doesn't use the words "origin of untouchability" off the top of my head that doesn't sound odd and forced, so it is probably fine for now
 * Hmmm... Again here I didn't look at the source, but rather changes it to something that sounded less complicated. I'll consider, like the above, a way to rephrase this without using a more complex word like "imputed" while not using a phrase from the source, but in the meantime I think it's ok to let it stay.
 * From my understanding, "in apropos of" means "with respect to" or "with reference to," in this situation implying that these are the specific prehistoric races he studied. I believe along with the study of India's "prehistoric races" of the early, middle and late stone age still conveys this, without using a more complex word like "apropos" (it's best to keep the language as simple as possible without loss of meaning)
 * For this point, I see now why the sentence was like that so you can revert my changes for that sentence.
 * With respect to point number one, it can be changed from to find the origin of untouchability to to find where the theory of untouchability originated from
 * With respect to point number two, I just realized it might be wise to change it was free from the "theoretical bias" associated with the Vienna school to it was free from the "theoretical bias" he believed the Vienna school had. This emphasizes that it is the belief of the source (and not a universal fact), as well as making the language cleaner and removing the close paraphrasing of the source. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , when including quotation marks such as in For his Ph.D. disseratoin, he studied the Bhumias' (Baiga tribe's branch) ritual of "horse sacrifice" and... is this term coming from the source cited? I'm not sure it's necessary to include quotatino marks on two word terms such as this when it is likely a common term. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , below is my reply, point by point:


 * 1) If we add the words "...theory of untouchability..." then that would be erroneous because it did not start as a theory offered by any particular person (never read any mention of that ever) but began as a behavioral practice among/within some social groups (though after this practice gained momentum in the Indian society, some might have tried to justify it from what I can remember from my random readings). That would confuse the readers. I would be confused to read that. Maybe, we can use the words "...practice of untouchability in India..." and find a substitute for the exact word "origin". "Origination" or some other word like that can be of use in this situation.
 * 2) Agreed ))
 * 3) Without the use of "in apropos of", we are not saying exactly what Fuchs did and that is worse than the use of one complex word. There is a difference. He took a particular approach and the source is clearly highlighting this. Keeping the present sentence in the article would be like withholding some (even if not much) information from our readers. That's just not right!
 * OK.
 * Yes, the term "horse sacrifice" is coming from the source. I used quotation marks because of the same reason – I wasn't sure – so, I made the safer choice. Should we remove the quotation marks? I would remove them if you want us to – I, personally, am not sure. When I was writing that sentence, I thought of writing "sacrificing a horse" (without quotes) but I was not sure sure if they sacrificed/killed one horse or more (the source doesn't say anything about that), so I did not do that. Can we write the sentence with the use of the words — ritual slaughter? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Point 2 ——, I gave it another good thought. Kindly read — Stephen Fuchs. We already have two scholarly sources stating the that Vienna school was not doing things the right way. And, on the internet, I just saw numerous other scholars haring the same opinion about the Vienna school. There is nothing less than a general consensus among the scholars regarding the Vienna school, and we should respect that. I think that your original suggestion of suggesting to keep the word "imputed" was better than your later suggestion. We have one more source in the section, and it would seem strange to attribute this view to Hutton only while he has presented it as a general fact, and there is another source just within the same section presenting it as a generally known fact. Also, "imputed" is not really a much complex word. It should be fine. Kindly comment. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC) (minor edit) Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you want, for now (until I develop a much larger article on the subject), I can added a small "criticism" section to the article Kulturkreis in which I would add the criticism from a few scholars (now, by modern scholars, there's even more criticism – the movement is clearly seen in a bad light). That would be also be helpful to the readers who would be interested in reading that page after reading this article. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , also, if we look at the quote provided above, he is saying that the theoretical bias was imputed to the Vienna school (like as a general view of scholars), and he has himself not taken it upon him. He is not explicitly, himself, associating the bias with them. So, in the light of that information also, we should follow your earlier comment, not later. The later suggestion will change the context here. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , since Point 1 could have landed us close to a COPYVIO issue, I have made this edit on priority now after waiting for a few days (without getting your opinion on the newly proposed words). Now, the sentence reads, "He also believed that to ascertain the origination of the practice of untouchability...". It appears ok to me now, but still, please let me know if there needs to be any change or any word needs to be replaced. Still waiting for your opinion on my comments above regarding Point 2 & 3. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry I misunderstood for point one. Your modification is better (and explains the practice correctly). For point 3, I believe that the phrase along with the study of India's "prehistoric races" of the early,... still suggests that this is what he did. The listing of prehistoric races, combined with "of" suggests that he suggested that list of prehistoric races. Could you explain your point further if there is still a misunderstanding? Sam-2727 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please don't apologize. It's OK )) about Point 3 — English is not my first language so certainly you understand it way better than me when it comes to these tricky parts, and I am just worried about the context here. If you believe the context will remain intact/unchanged even if we drop "in apropos of" (and it's synonyms), then I am just fine with that. I want this to be your call )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , let's also conclude it about Point 2 also. Waiting for your thoughts on my comments above. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok for point 2 I think "imputed" is a more archaic word (mostly used in specific contexts), and a simpler word should be used if found. If there is a general consensus, then we should reflect that. So how about just changing that part to a quote? I.e. change it was free from the "theoretical bias" associated with the Vienna school. to it was free from "the theoretical bias which [had] come to be associated with the Vienna School.". Sam-2727 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As for point 3, I do think my version has more or less the same meaning. But I'm just realizing now that in the phrase along with the study of India's "prehistoric races" of the early, middle and late stone age, the Indus Valley civilization and "post Harappan" era,, it is a bit unclear that the Indus Valley civilization and "post Harappan" era is referring to prehistoric races. This could be clarified by adding semicolons in the broader clauses. I think further clarification could be brought by splitting up this long sentence into separate sentences, such as  Fuchs examined different inward migrations to India including the arrival of Aryans. In the book, he studied India's "prehistoric races" of the early, middle and late stone age; the Indus Valley civilization; and the "post Harappan" era. He also examined contemporary tribes of Bengal; southern, central, northwestern, northern, northeastern, Himalayan and sub–Himalayan regions of India; and some tribes of Nepal. Semicolons can be used to connect items in lists like commas if the items contain lists themselves. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am always for the quotes )) So, Point 2 is settled, I believe. I will make this change now, then reply in a moment for Point 3. thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am in agreement with your suggestion regarding Point 3 as well. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination
, is the article now ready to be nominated for WP:GA? If yes, I invite you to nominate if for WP:GA. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please see some brief edits that I made. I'll go ahead and nominate it (thanks for letting me) tomorrow, but in the meantime, I do not understand the sentence "He assented to a certain degree of pliant form of the theory of cultural area." Could you clarify what is meant here (and I can suggest a clearer wording)? Sam-2727 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am texting below the paragraph from the source from which that information has been cited. Kindly go through it, and of course yes, please make the necessary changes as required.

Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that your clarification for the selection/list of books is wonderful )) However, I am concerned about your clarifying comments about the list of selected research papers. The google scholar link provided in this edit is not showing (to me) his research papers that have been listed by us. Or, am I not looking at the pages there the way I am supposed to look... I can't see them! Kindly look into this, again. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , The struggle for me is understanding what is meant by "a flexible form of culture area theory". I do not know what that phrase means. But, if it is perhaps hard to paraphrase it, maybe a quote will do. So, According to [source author], Fuchs "accepted a somewhat more flexible form of culture area theory." As for the google scholar link, perhaps try this link 9). The studies aren't ordered by amount of citations. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is possible for me to give it a go to try and explain that in a face to face conversation, but not really by texting here )) If it has got your attention, then probably my rephrasing might not be perfectly summing up the sentence (because I do not know the English language that well) from the paragraph, so yes, going for the quote seems ok here. I will replace the sentence with a direct quote from the source, but before that, I will read the source again and find if I can add anything more also and would add if there would be anything suitable to be added around that sentence. I will do that by tomorrow in the evening (time zone: Moscow). Also, I may make another rephrasing attempt if I could find more clearer wording. By tomorrow evening, we will have it solved either way. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds good. It's not that your rephrasing of the sentence is that poor, though. I think it's more that the original sentence is vague in meaning, so it might be best to reflect the vague meaning. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , well if that would be the best thing to do here, then quotation it is. I have added the quote )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the latter google scholar link does show his works, but I still cannot see the research papers listed by us in the ascending or descending order as per the number of times they have been cited by other scholars, so, I will just trust you on this matter. However, please re–do the citation at Stephen Fuchs, and replace the reference url provided in this edit with the one provided in this edit by you. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will look into the papers again tomorrow to make sure we have the right ones. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Defining commentators in parentheses
Appears to be practice in this article of defining the commentators in parentheses, and then using a citation to back up that information.

The citation used itself often does not mention the subject of this article, itself.

Examples:

This would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Right cite (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I mentioned before, I'm not certain this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. That policy states the drawing of opinions from synthesis of sources. Here, we are just providing additional information. Think of it this way: instead of providing a link to another wikipedia article which would essentially say the information currently in the parenthetical, we just provide it in a parenthetical since the subjects aren't notable enough to merit a separate article. The example at WP:SYNTH provides an opinion (that the UN failed to achieve its stated purpose) through synthesizing two sources. Here, we are not providing or suggesting any opinion or interpretation through the inclusion of credentials in parentheticals. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the reader can go to the original citation itself to the cited source and find out more about that person. If they are noteworthy enough for citing as a source, that can be checked further later. Perhaps the original source says their profession. Going and finding another sources to describe each person cited is itself WP:Original research. Right cite (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)