User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 5

Bad faith editing by Sarvagnya
Hi. We haven't crossed paths so far, but I've been watching your encounters with the notorious diruptor. He has tagged a number of images you uploaded for deletion out of malice. This is his mode of operation. He tried this trick with me regarding the History of Tamil Nadu article. I have reverted his tags. Parthi talk/contribs 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm
I see you already have one of these, but thought you could use another one. You are much tougher than I have been in upholding the principles espoused by Jimbo in this e-mail. I hope more editors follow your example. Thank you. Saravask 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you like it! Saravask 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: India
You are right I didn't know, my apologies. I will remove it now. SGGH speak! 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindutash
I could find 3 reverts, but not the 4th. Did his first edit today reverted to some old version? --Ragib 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked the user for 24 hours. Please discuss the issue in the article talk page. --Ragib 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the article on my watchlist; if he doesn't behave in a reasonable manner or identify his sources, please feel free to ask again. You can let one of us know (or post to WP:AN3RR) if you need to. Thanks. Saravask 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Fowler & Fowler, would you mind atleast extending the rest of the Map of Aurel Stein (1911)   further north and east to show the whole picture of the Kara Kash valley in Kashmir, if you have an iota of credibility. You  credibility can be judged  from your act of removing Baltit Fort from the article on Kashmir. I am  taking  some time to get more details on the sources and details on my Article on Hindutash and then hopefully you will behave in a reasonable manner! If you continue with your vandalism, I will report you and also request for Protection of the Article on Hindutash which is my original contribution. Until then the truth can always be viewed in the History section of the Article. You have not heard the last from me.  Thanks. Hindutashravi


 * Hindutash is in northern Aksai Chin. W.H. Johnson’s survey established certain important points. Brinjga was in his view the boundary post ( a few miles south east of Karanghu Tagh). Johnson’s findings demonstrated that the whole of the Kara Kash valley was part of Kashmir territory. The Maharaja of Kashmir had built a Fort in Shahidulla in exercise of his sovereignty. What right has China whom you are supporting, have over this area? Absolutely nothing. Of course, to you might is right. Though, all other maps: those of the Schlagintweit brothers, H. Trotter, Aurel Stein, Imperial Gazetteer of India, do not depict that part of India  as part of  Kashmir, never the less depict the northern border just short of the actual Kuen Lun border of Kashmir  and depict the border along the Raskam River depicting inter alia Kulanaldi  and Bazardara,  and Taghdumbash Pamir  as part of Kashmir. The border was never depicted along the Karakoram in central Kashmir as is done illegally now. Most of the  maps you refer to infact depict the Yarung Kash as originating in Aksai Chin. Johnson knew about the status quo pertaining to that particular area that was prevailing during his time. He has been discredited by those who hate India. I did not acquire Hindutash for India. Hindutash has always been part of India. You are trying to acquire it for China which does not have an iota of right over  the part of India. What  the subservient Government of India  regards is irrelevant. What territory constitutes India is defined in the Constitution of India , and the Constitution of India has to be amended to serve your ulterior purpose.   Hindutashravi


 * Dear Hindutashravi, it is better to sign in as yourself and then sign your post by typing four tildes as in ~ than editing as an IP as you have done both above (as IP ) and typing your name Hindutashravi and on the User talk:Hindutashravi page (as another IP ).  Why don't we continue the substantive discussion on the talk page Talk:Hindutash? I will reply to your post there.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, so are you satisfied with the new infobox?
I tried to adhere to a midpath and divided the official languages into Union and state(which you correctly made states).
 * It solved the 8th schedule inconsistency(with English, though not included was linked to the schedule)
 * And also satisfied other editors, by including all languages. Hope edit wars will stop, now.

So now that abundant knowledge about official languages is available to us let's try updating Official languages of India and Hindi(regarding its official status in India). -- Knowledge Hegemony  08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry, to butt in; I saw K-H's message and thought it better to comment here than the India talk page)
 * I don't think presenting the 8th schedule languages as the "official languages of India" (be it union or state!) is accurate; if simply saying "others" and linking to the Official languages of India is thought to be unacceptable I would prefer that the official state languages be listed in the collapsible box. But, I also feel that this whole issue is overblown and if the current solution is thought satisfactory by concerned editors and it halts the edit-warring, I certainly am not going to raise a stink about the issue or revert any of the recent edits. That's my 2c and irrespective of my technical objection, I do appreciate KH's attempt to forge a compromise. Cheers Abecedare 09:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Knowledge-Harmony" that's not my name Mr."Fouler&Fouler". Haha! Though it's not a bad name.
 * Abecedare, your concerns are reasonable...can we fix them???...hmm Knowledge Hegemony  09:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, K-H, about your name, I must have been tired! Yes, the new infobox compromise is great! As for Abecedare's concerns about the official languages, I guess I am confused now. I thought the new infobox does not have the 8th schedule languages, but rather the official states languages. Oh, I see, it is the "others." Well, we could remove Sanskrit and "others," and then we would only have the official states languages (pending a check that the languages listed there are indeed the official states languages). As for the Official languages of India page, I think it is best (for me) to leave it to Lexmercatoria, since he is an expert and wants to present the page in all its nuances. I recently read the page, and realized that I don't have any problems with the main body (other than the lack of secondary references), but just with the lead, and I will convey the concerns to him. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far I see, the collapsible box, though labeled "State and others" lists only the 8th schedule languages. Assuming that the list on the Official languages of India is reliable (and this is a big assumption) the current list is missing languages such as: Karbi, Chhattisgarhi, Pahari, Meitei, Khasi, Garo, Mizo, Rajasthani, Kokborok, Garhwali, Kumaoni and French language. Abecedare 00:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Jinnah
Refrain from editing the Jinnah article. You can spread your disinformation shit somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia and it is a real shame you didn't bother to fix the article when someone vandalized it and Jinnah suddenly became a Sunni for I don't know how many weeks. Emбargo 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: Your edits to Indian Mathematics
You still have not answered my message.

No personal attacks
''"what the heck is the matter with you? what is illogical other than you knee-jerk tendency to revert; don't you have anything better to do" is a personal attack. And you write such edit summaries far too often. Cease and desist.'' Sarvagnya 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling
I suggest you restore the Kipling link to the Lucknow article. It was not said that Kipling edited the pioneer at Lucknow. He was associated with The Pioneer which shifted overnight from Allahabad to Lucknow without missing a day's edition.

Kipling's association with UP is well known and it was put in as a value added info to the article.

Thanks and Regards, moon 07:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The languages thing

 * Congrats, you deserve it!! With the lang prob still not solved, the final decision is yet to be taken. Should we go for a vote?  Knowledge  Hegemony  06:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Don't know if I should laugh or cry, since I am merely trying to be flexible to accommodate the disparate views (and the OR part seems strangely familiar, as you will see from my "Original Research?" section above". Is this confusion ever gonna end.
 * So true that we are comprimising by adding O.R. just to give Hindi and English their rightful official status. Knowledge  Hegemony  14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the the latest infobox. Knowledge  Hegemony  16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Initial cap for wild ass
Professor, Since what is snow to leopard is also snow to ass, can you please have a look at here and offer a word or two? Wish Purandara also see this. 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.178 (talk • contribs). at 04:12, 25 July 2007


 * I don't know why you are being so coy, but, in any case, I don't have any interest in the subject matter.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Professor, you mistook me. In my browser bookmarks I have only four pages of en.wikipedia. They are, in the order of importance, Decimator of Bigots, Yours, Hornplease, and a wonderful lady]. I am a "banned troll" never coy. If I jeopardise whom I name, it is not my fault but only of the fear complex prevalent here. But that shouldn't deter you from answering a question you are one of the most competent persons to answer. I request you to throw some light on the Indian penchant for initial cap as a honorific. Regards. 59.91.253.94 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that question is a tricky one. For one, Indian language scripts (Devanagari, Perso-Arabic, ...) don't have capitals. That means that if your conjecture ("Indian penchant for initial cap as honorific" in English) is correct, it must be something of relatively recent vintage, since the tradition of Indians writing in English doesn't go back to much before the early 19th century. The question is muddled more by the tradition in English itself (now largely out of fashion) of capitalizing as a mark of respect. The tradition goes back at least to the 16th century and to the beginnings of modern English (and may itself have been acquired from Latin, which does capitalize). Here is the dedication by the translators of the King James' Version (KJV) of the Bible: Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many who wished not well unto our Sion, that, upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth, of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk, and that it should hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title; and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad.

That tradition of capitalizing not only honorifics, but other words, as a mark of respect (or sometimes just emphasis) was still going strong at the turn of the 20th century (and can be seen in many a book dedication or headstone epitaph). Here, for example, perhaps in ironic vein, is the last sentence of the author's note from Conrad's Nostromo (1917), "But this is the idlest of dreams, for I did understand perfectly well at the time that the moment the breath left the body of the Magnificent Capataz, the Man of the People, freed at last from the toils of love and wealth, there was nothing more for me to do in Sulaco." In the 19th century, Indians, as a subjugated people, attempting to master a foreign tongue (English), in contexts like (say) writing a letter to the District Commissioner, must have acutely felt the weight of this tradition. It may be that they chose to err on the side of caution ... Of course, once the idiom became their own, they may have brought to bear, in capitalization, other cultural prerogatives that were originally not part of the English tradition. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, professor. Now you see, I am justified in asking you, of all people. Of two dictionaries immediately available, Merriam-Websters (coming with Britannica software) gives no cap for maharaja (a variant given is maharajah). Oxford Talking Dictionary, which seems to have largely relied on New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1994), gives three other variants for maharaja. They are maharajah, maharaj and Maharaja. Maybe, an MoS should flatten such variations in most cases. May I bring to you attention the fact that En.Wp doesn't have an article on Charles Masson?  59.91.253.92 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment and the picture! Thanks also for the information about Charles Masson.  He is mentioned in the Indus Valley Civilization page (briefly), but does deserve his own page.  Yes, an MOS for India-related things would be a good thing.  I saw it mentioned recently on the Noticeboard of India-related Topics, unfortunately, I'm a little swamped right now to work on an MOS ...   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on History of trigonometric functions
Hello Fowler&fowler,I would like to get your opinion on the following suspicious sentences that were added to the History of trigonometric functions article by Jagged 85 this May, "Archaeological evidence suggests that trigonometry has been extensively used in ancient Sri Lanka in the constructions of reservoirs and other hydraulic structures as early as 6th century BC during the Anuradhapura kingdom. One such example is the vastly extensive irrigation system which used trigonometry to calculate the slope of the earth, canals were constructed to drop 6 inches every mile. Trigonometry also was used by the ancient Sinhalese in the invention of the valve tower and the valve pit (Biso Kotuwa) which were used to regulate water in the reservoirs."

The source for this information is the following website http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/ancient/history.htm, and it states the following: The first extensive Sinhalese settlements were along rivers in the dry northern zone of the island. Because early agricultural activity-- primarily the cultivation of wet rice-- was dependent on unreliable monsoon rains, the Sinhalese constructed canals, channels, water-storage tanks, and reservoirs to provide an elaborate irrigation system to counter the risks posed by periodic drought. Such early attempts at engineering reveal the brilliant understanding these ancient people had of hydraulic principles and trigonometry. The discovery of the principle of the valve tower, or valve pit, for regulating the escape of water is credited to Sinhalese ingenuity more than 2,000 years ago. By the first century A.D, several large-scale irrigation works had been completed.  The mastery of hydraulic engineering and irrigated agriculture facilitated the concentration of large numbers of people in the northern dry zone, where early settlements appeared to be under the control of semi-independent rulers (see Land Use and Settlement Patterns, ch. 2). In time, the mechanisms for political control became more refined, and the city-state of Anuradhapura emerged and attempted to gain sovereignty over the entire island. The state-sponsored flowering of Buddhist art and architecture and the construction of complex and extensive hydraulic works exemplify what is known as Sri Lanka's classical age, which roughly parallels the period between the rise and fall of Anuradhapura (from ca. 200 B.C. to ca. A.D. 993).

It should first be noted that the article was not written by a historian of mathematics. Secondly, Jagged 85 somehow manages to get some of his facts wrong when (s)he states that the Anuradhapura kingdom existed in the "6th century BC" when the very article that he cited clearly states "nuradhapura (from ca. 200 B.C. to ca. A.D. 993)." Further, many of Jagged 85's claims, such as "calculate the slope of the earth, canals were constructed to drop 6 inches every mile" are entirely unsourced. Lastly, it seems to deviate from the main topic of the History of trigonometric functions.

I would like to delete the above text from the article for the reasons just mentioned. But, before I do the deletion, I would like to get your opinion on the matter. Thank you for your time.  selfworm Talk ) 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree with you. The reference seems flaky.  There seem to be other problems with that article too.  I'm not sure about Babylonians and trigonometry.  There is a difference between "practical geometry" and "trigonometry."  Here is Britannica (in its Trigonometry page): "Several ancient civilizations—in particular, the Egyptian, Babylonian, Hindu, and Chinese—possessed a considerable knowledge of practical geometry, including some concepts that were a prelude to trigonometry."  Also, the Greeks are mentioned, not as creators of trigonometry, (which they are) but as people who worked on something that was already there.  Here is Britannica again: "Trigonometry in the modern sense began with the Greeks. Hipparchus (c. 190–120 BC) was the first to construct a table of values for a trigonometric function. He considered every triangle—planar or spherical—as being inscribed in a circle, so that each side becomes a chord (that is, a straight line that connects two points on a curve or surface, as shown by the inscribed triangle ABC in the figure)."  The article will need a major revision.  Meanwhile go ahead and remove that Sri Lanka reference.  Thanks for noticing the problems.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I have deleted the sentences and will start to rework the article by adding clearly cited sources and hopefully this will increase the overall accuracy and quality of the article.  selfworm Talk )

Re:Suspect licensing
Re. Sarvagnya 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can spare a minute ...
Professor, it is asking too much of you. Still, if you can spare a minute or two, can you have a very quick look here to see what is wrong with the Roman transliteration, and if the Urdu text is Oakay? You don't even have to touch it there. Just say here, why Roman transliteration is not displaying correctly. Regards. Mlalm 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Sorry, I seem to have missed your post.  The Roman transliteration seems to be displaying OK on my browser, but not the other script.  I'm not sure why.  You might want to ask someone with more experience in Wikipedia fonts etc.  Maybe leave a post on the India or Pakistan related notice boards.  Sorry!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Saare Jahan Se Achcha
Dear Fowler&fowler, thank you for your post on my talk page. I feel that the image adds to the quality of the article as it displays the poem/song in Nasta`liq. Poems were usually written this way in order to show their elegance. Your fair use rationale also meets the required criteria. In light of these facts, I do not see any problem with keeping the image in the article. By the way, thanks for improving the Roman transliteration and adding the footnotes. Recently, you added the national anthems of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Might I ask your rationale for doing so? The song is strongly associated with India today and is little known in the other two counties (source). In addition, if any Bangladeshis or Pakistanis did know the song, they might be hesitant to sing it because today the word Hindustan is usually associated with India (ROI). The reason why Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram appear under the See Also section is because they, along with Saare Jahan Se Achcha are the three most popular patriotic songs of India (source 1, source 2). In light of these facts, I am removing those links from the See Also section. If you object to this removal, could you please explain why? Thanks again for all your work put into the article. I really admire and appreciate it! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I wanted to let you know that I have added a sentence regarding the popularity of the poem in India as a national song. This new sentence is supported by two references. Initially, I placed it here although I moved it to the introduction because the purpose of an introduction is to introduce individuals to main points of a topic. In addition, without this fact being true, the poem would not have the acclaim that it does today. Although you are free to move it back, I felt it was better this way. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Anupam, The sentence about popularity in RoI really belongs to the third paragraph and I have moved it there.  The reason is very simple; the song is about Hindustan (ie. RoI, Bangladesh and Pakistan) and therefore its popularity in all three countries needs to be mentioned in one place.  The same with the national anthems.  It was written for Hindustan (which included Bangladesh and Pakistan).  The fact that it is more popular in RoI now doesn't take away the original meaning of the song.  That is why not only the anthems of RoI but of all successor states of "Hindustan" (i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan) need to be mentioned as well.  If "Pride and Prejudice" tomorrow becomes the number one novel in India, that will not merit a mention in the lead paragraph of the novel's page.  The same with SJSA; it was notable before Independence and would have merited a Wikipedia page whether or not it remained popular in RoI or lost popularity in Pakistan.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply (I'm at my summer job during daytime :. Anyway, I am a bit unclear about the use of the fair use claim on the SJSA page. In any case, the image is replaceable with a free version (unlike rare images of persons which no one else can recreate). It might very well be possible to find a free version, or to get someone write it using the nice script. As a matter of fact, I think if someone draws the text on paper, and scans it, that will be a free version which we can use to replace the scan from the book. Thanks. --Ragib 05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I didn't realize that anyone could write out the poem in Nastaliq and scan it.  (The reason why I thought that was that although the poem is 103 years old, it has only been 69 years since Iqbal's death (i.e. PD-old-70 does not apply).  But I just realized, that in Pakistan and India the copyright period is 50 years after publication (I'll double check), and most likely the book Bang-i-Dara (in which the poem was first published was published in British India).  Anyway, I do have someone (an excellent nastaliq artist) in mind.  Let me see what I can do.  You do not need to reply to this post.  Thanks again!  And good luck on the summer job!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny
isn't it? 59.91.253.250 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An email I recently received
I know that you are working on the article Indian Mathematics. I recently got an email which had the folowing information. Maybe you must be quite aware and quipped with the info. I wonder how much of it is true? So, here I am copy-pasting the stuff-


 * India invented the Number System. Zero was invented by Aryabhatta. The place value system, the decimal system was developed in India in 100 BC.


 * Aryabhatta was the first to explain spherical shape, size ,diameter, rotation and correct speed of Earth in 499 AD.


 * In Siddhanta Siromani (Bhuvanakosam 6)
 * Bhaskaracharya II described about gravity of earth about 400 years before Sir Isaac Newton.  He also had some clear notions on differential calculus, and the Theory of Continued Fraction.


 * Madhavacharya discovered Taylor series of Sine and Cosine function about 250 years before Taylor.


 * Madhavacharya discovered Newton Power series.


 * Madhavacharya discovered Gregory Leibnitz series for the Inverse Tangent about 280 years before Gregory.


 * Madhavacharya discovered Leibnitz power series for pi about 300 years before Leibnitz.


 * Bhaskaracharya calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the sun hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart. Time taken by earth to orbit the sun: (5th century) 365.258756484 days


 * Infinity was well known for ancient Indians. Bhaskaracharya II in Beejaganitha(stanza-20) has given clear explanation with examples for infinity


 * Theory of Continued Fraction was discovered by Bhaskaracharya II.


 * Indians discovered Arithmetic and Geometric progression. Arithmetic progression is explained in Yajurveda.


 * Govindaswamin discovered Newton Gauss Interpolation formula about 1800 years before Newton.


 * Vateswaracharya discovered Newton Gauss Backward Interpolation formula about 1000 years before Newton.


 * Parameswaracharya discovered Lhuiler’s formula about 400 years before Lhuiler.


 * Nilakanta discovered Newton’s Infinite Geometric Progression convergent series.


 * Positive and Negative numbers and their calculations were explained first by Brahmagupta in his book Brahmasputa Siddhanta.


 * Aryabhatta also propounded the Heliocentric theory of gravitation, thus predating Copernicus by almost one thousand years.


 * The Surya Siddhanta,
 * A textbook on astronomy of ancient India,

last compiled in 1000 BC, believed to be handed down from 3000 BC by aid of complex mnemonic recital methods still known today.


 * Showed the Earth's diameter to be 7,840 miles,

compared to modern measurements of 7,926.7 miles.


 * Showed the distance between the Earth and the Moon as 253,000 miles,

Compared to modern measurements of 252,710 miles.


 * The value of "pi" was first calculated by Boudhayana, and he explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century long before the European mathematicians. This was ‘validated’ by British scholars in 1999.


 * Algebra, trigonometry and calculus came from India. Quadratic equations were propounded by Sridharacharya in the 11th century.


 * The largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Hindus used numbers as big as 1053 with specific names as early as 5000 BC during the Vedic period. Even today, the largest used number is Tera: 1012. Knowledge  Hegemony  14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've seen versions of these statements before. The problem is that they are all exaggerated a little.   Take, for example, "algebra, trigonometry, and calculus came from India."  How much of that is true?  Well, only part.  It is true that Indian mathematicians (Brahmagupta in particular) made a lot of progress in algebra, (for example, Pell's equations), but linear equations were developed by the Chinese around 200 BCE, and quadratic equations were  originally solved (in not the most general form) by the Old Babylonians in 1800 BCE.  To be sure, Brahmagupta was the first to state a general formula, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the major conceptual breakthrough was made by the Babylonians.  Same with trigonometry.  The table of chords was defined by the Greeks.  Indians learned about trigonometry from translations of Greek works around 200 BCE to 300 CE.  They were able to improve the Greek works by using half-chords (which later came to be called sines), but the Indian innovation, although very useful computationally and later adopted universally, was not the big conceptual jump like the Greeks.  As for calculus, Madhava's school did prove the infinite series for trigonometric functions (sine, cosine and inverse tangent).  They definitely deserve the credit for those series; however, their methods were geometric.  Taylor's series (in Taylor's formulation), is much more than an infinite series for sine; it is a series for any function involving derivatives of the function at a fixed point.  There were many people (Archimedes for one) who formulated ideas that later became a part of calculus, but for calculus to become a nonpareil "calculating machine" required the fundamental theorem of calculus linking the derivative to the integral, it required more general notion of functions, it required analytic  geometry (which was only created in the 1600s by Descartes), and ultimately it required the universal law of gravitation and Kepler's laws to push it forward ... I will be working on the page again this weekend and hope to clarify all this some more.  Thanks for your post.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tarana-e-hindi.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tarana-e-hindi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Question
F&F, Do you know if the Indian princely states like Hyderabad, were formally part of the "British India Empire" or just some sort of affiliates (say, like Puerto Rico)? If the latter, did they have their own passports, flags and Olympic representatives ? I know I can (and perhaps should) look this up on my own, but thought you may know the answer off-hand. Thanks. Abecedare 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Abecedare, The (British) Indian Empire consisted of British India (proper), i.e. territories directly administered by the British, and the Princely States. All princely states (after 1858) came under the paramountcy (tutelage) of the British Crown (i.e. the monarch, not the British government), under which they had some local autonomy, but surrendered matters of defence, international affairs to the United Kingdom.  The UK government, in turn, had a cabinet level position&mdash;the Secretary of State for India&mdash;who supervised the India Office.  The term British India, although formally reserved only for the British administered territories (like Bengal, Madras, United Provinces, the Punjab, Bombay, etc.) was sometimes used for the the Indian Empire as well, e.g. Census of British India (included the native states), the books Fauna of British India (included the princely states).  In general though, the term "India" was used informally to describe the "British Indian Empire" (unless the full name was needed, for example in maps or passports).  All Indians (from British India or Princely States) used the passport of the Indian Empire when traveling. "British India" is increasingly being used now (e.g. many biographies in Britannica, Encarta) to mean the Indian Empire, when attempting to distinguish between RoI and the pre-1947 entity.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS The princely states did have their own flags, but could only fly it within their territories. A native of a princely state marched under the flag of the Indian Empire at the Olympics and could only belong to the team of India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed answer! I knew about the de facto status of the princely states, but was not sure of the formal arrangement, and your reply clarifies that nicely. Cheers. Abecedare 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

D. D. Kosambi
His birth centenary year. I expect that you will have some wonderful information to add there. Do we any longer have people who are experts in multiple disciplines? Lunarin 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kosambi was certainly a renaissance man. Nice description of him at Aligarh Muslim University in Andre Weil's The Apprenticeship of a Mathematician.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just realized that Weil himself, whose centenary was last year, is in need of attention on his WP page.... "Time, you old Gypsy man, won't you ever stop."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading
Listen, you keep changing your argument (3 Times now), and I have given numerous arguments, and sourced from TIME magazine and Angus Maddison. You are adding nothing but trying gang up with user:Abecedare, and stop continuing to use these harassing techniques.

First debating the accuracy of the content, then repetitiveness (which you still haven't cited yet, and/or your unwillingness for reasoning), and now your claim that Dalrymple is not a historian. Well, according to his small Bio in the TIME magazine article it indicates that he is not only an "Historian", but an "award-winning" one. You've been caught in multiple lies and if your going to have to marginalizing attitude, we should get an independant arbitrator and settle this. Cosmos416 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

F&f, You are not alone. I have been accused of the same bias, immaturity and supporting you in this conspiracy out of personal feelings. :-) Abecedare 01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Abecedare, Yes, I noticed. :)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys have a long History with edit wars and get blocked, so pleas cut the banter. And Folwer, by the recent signs of you showing Retaliation against me by going through many of the past edits and starting adding misleading edits (forcing a Not Notable Source... as a Notable one. ) You refuse to show up proof these are Notable in other ways by showing mutliple sources and varying opinions.

You don't control wikipeida, but you act like you do. Because of your persistent Harassing' attitude, I'm launching a formal complaint against you in the incident notice boards later tonight or tomorrow, and will get someone to review your behavior (retaliation against me) and unwillingness (you won't negotiate, and have documented at least 3 times you changed your argument, and making misleading accusations)

Cosmos416 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do. However, be aware that I have a pretty good idea of what is considered acceptable in a Featured Article, especially one like India that has been worked on by many very able editors (Nichalp for example) over the years.  Your edit simply cannot be backed up by unambiguous reliable evidence to make it to the India article, which is written in a summary-style.  Any statements about historical national income estimates are so fragile that they require myriad qualifications.  Such statements could belong to the Economic History of India article, but not to the India article.  Your efforts will be better served if you read the full-length version of the reviews whose excerpts I have added to the talk page here and try to incorporate their viewpoint into a statement or two in the Economic History of India page.  If, however, you chose to be be fixated on making your particular edit and take this to WP:ANI, please be my guest.  As things stand, you edit has no chance of making it to the India page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

bad that dab is silent
I know you are sort of besieged. But I thought you wouldn't care a shit for that. Blnguyen's dirty act against Hornplease and his subsequent mulishness is of a degree that you can't pass without comments. Dab's silence over the whole thing is not good. I feel that you also haven't spoken enough in this regard, professor. I would like to remind you of your response to my earlier suggestion (as user Bypd, earlier in this page) which Dab and you spurned. I didn't understand the quote about the gypsy man in your reply about Kosambi earlier. Can you please tell me if the academic world attaches any value to Bernal's Science in History nowadays? Vigathathosha 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look at ANI once various people have responded. As for the gypsy man I was just recalling a line from a poem about time not stopping (or, rather wishing for more time, so that I could attend to Kosambi, and a host of other articles.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Sorry forgot about Bernal. Well, I have to confess I don't know that particular book.  Bernal is certainly has sage status in molecular biology.  I was recently thinking about ordering a new biography of him by Andrew Brown ...  Thanks for mentioning him and reminding me again.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't even allow me time to thank you, professor. Those silly idiots. Please see Why is it that even exceptional people appear to be careerist here? Wikipedia affords that much lulz? I expect next your calling me a troll. Upasthadharma 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I mistook your poetic quote as meaning 'high time you (I) went black guard'. :)) Upasthadharma 17:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

British Raj/India
You have recently discussed the name of the British Raj article at Talk:British Raj and might be interested in a move request there. —  AjaxSmack   07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also on the topic of British India I noticed you swapped out my map awhile back. I found your comment that it was incorrect, with Kashmir being too big puzzling, especially since you replaced it with a map showing Kashmir the same size as mine did. I don't really care if my map is used in the article, but if it does have a mistake I'd like to correct it, I traced the borders from a period map. Kmusser 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's the aspect ratio that is off. Kashmir in your map is flatter and squatter than it should be (and than it is in my map).  Also, something is not right about the NW corner of Kashmir.  It's Chitral.  In 1857, Chitral became a protectorate of Kashmir and from then on until 1947, was shown in maps to be a part of Kashmir.  I can't decide if you've included Chitral in Kashmir (in your map).  If you haven't, it is incorrect; if you have, the Chitral shown isn't wide enough.  In the absence of lat/long lines it is hard for me to figure out what is where.  (Please compare the two maps more carefully.)  There are also some other minor problems:  In 1860, the town Shimla was spelled Simla; Kanpur was spelled Cawnpore.  There is also a problem with the map of Baluchistan (it does seem to include  all of Baluchistan), but I'll double-check the sources and get back to you.  I think having lat/long lines would really help.  BTW, what map did you model your sketch on?  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, town spellings I can definitely fix, I've added refs to the image page, I primarily used 2,6,and 7, the map is supposed to be a generalization, looks like I used #2 for the Kashmir border. None of the period maps show Chitral as part of Kashmir though. I could just re-date the map to 1857 if that looks more correct.  Kmusser 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On 2nd look I do see some of the maps show that NW frontier province extending north to include the Chitral area, is that what your're talking about? I could match that.Kmusser 12:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Map updated.Kmusser 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

India and Indian National Army
Hi, I noticed you took an issue with my earlier edits win the India section regarding the last decade of the The Raj and the Indian independence movement. I think you may have come under impression that I making a PoV edit to promote Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army, which I will have to say I am not. I have indeed expanded a lot on the Indian National Army because I came accross a lot of good books on the article and its associated bits. But regarding your views that we shouldn't be taking a monolithic view, I have now provided referenced portion from the Encyclopaedia Britiannica entry on the INA that should convince you that it played a very prominent and indeed turbulent role in the last five, especially last two years of the Raj and as the article in Britannica itself says, the rebellious army proved a formidable force in the equally important struggle between the British colonial government and the pro-independence Indian leaders for the hearts and minds of the Indian population. Before I edited the article, I came under the impression that anybody who read and didn't know anything would think that the movement started in 1920 with the arrival of Gandhi and then India got Independence in 1947 which is not only less than 1/10th of the picture, it is also wrong, because the movement started way back in 1880s and in fact had a number of notable events around the World War I time that had nothing to do with Gandhi and was in fact a lot more to do with what happened. It is neccessary I believe that it is brought out clearly that Gandhi and Congress's was the in the last two decades one of the strongest ones of many movements and the India article should not make a statement credting anybody with winning India independence because as you say, it was not a monolithic movement.Rueben lys 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically summarising the long and eventful Independence struggle is difficult. Who deserves how much importance (The the moderates, the extremists, the revolutionaries, Gandhiji, Subhash C Bose(& INA)) will inevitably into a turn out POV debate. Hence finding a solution requires expertise.(WP:RS)

I believe this discussion should be moved to Talk:India or the discussion started on Talk:India should be moved here. Knowledge Hegemony  07:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Indentation of collapsible boxes
Just wanted to make sure that you are ok with this edit (see edit summary for the reason). Regards. Abecedare 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks!  Sorry about that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have no idea why it happens, just discovered it by hit-and-trial and thought I'd let you in on the secret. Cheers. Abecedare 04:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir edits
I am highly displeased that many months ago you removed my edits, which were very NPOV and supported by verifiable references, about Kashmir's accession to India in Kashmir article. I have readded the edits, and I am not impressed by your idea that these edits should just belong to Jammu and Kashmir article and have no place in Kashmir.Cygnus_hansa 12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

India
Actually, I've been following that and have already weighed in:. Hornplease 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: India page
Hi Bhadani, Since you are one of the most experienced Wikipedians, I thought it would be wise to get your opinion. In February 2007, we had an RfC on the Talk:India page concerning addition of new material (see here), and it was felt by a majority of the people commenting that stability of the article is important. Yesterday, out of the blue, Blnguyen, who has no history of editing on the India page, made a post on the page, that has created a lot of confusion. Could you take a look at this section of the Talk:India page? In particular, User:Sarvagnya, for example, has returned to his scheme for de-constructing the India page. (By way of background: Nichalp, who usually watched over the article is busy this summer; Ragib, who was subbing for Nichalp is busy too. Blnguyen seems to think that the page is in bad shape and is about to be de-FA'd.  He feels that it needs many more citations (and their lack) is reason enough for it to fail an FAR.  Nichalp, when he was active, discouraged over-crowding the text with too many citations (especially when the text was composed in the summary-style, as India is).  I think Blnguyen has some valid points: the page needs more (and certainly better) citations and the prose (especially of some new sections that were created by other people) needs revamping, but I think you might be in a good position to assess Blnguyen's idea of expanding the article to twice its size.)  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for coming to my talk page. I would surly love to contribute to India page. I shall certainly look into the matter and try to present my comments though free time at my disposal is rather limited on account of real life commitments. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed you created India/word count as a "subpage" - in the main article space "/" is not treated as a subpage delimiter. Can you move this page to either a subpage of the talk page or someplace in user space (and ask me or any other admin to delete the resulting redirect)?  Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to stop mentioning my name in the course of your misleading rants on multiple talk pages. You can appeal to spite("...Sarvagnya is back!..."), tradition (Nichalp, nichalp, nichalp), fear('Urgent:!', 'deconstructing the article'(sic)) and whatever else you want, but I cant see how that is going to help you on the bonafide discussion that is going on there (where again, you seem to be trying your best to divert attention). In any case, I request (nay, expect) that you stop taking my name and misrepresenting my stance. I usually put in writing what I 'feel/think' and it is out there for everyone to read and understand. I am sure they dont need you to write 500 word editorials about my stance.

And just so you know, Blnguyen has been a leading editor on WP:INDIA articles. So if he comments on the India talk page, there's nothing 'out of the blue' about it. Sarvagnya 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. knowall, filling up your empty rolls with Wiki links to make them appear like thick wads is just ludicrous, at best. Cf. Professor culling sources. It is you who rant because you lack substance. Like wordy Blnguyen you make much noise and little substance. Out of your asininity, if you call Fowler names, the harm is merely on yourself. As for Blnguyen, the "leading editor" on India project, we have seen his editorial capacity, for example on Anuruddha. His new zeal on India article is just a retaliatory attempt for his failure here and the chiding he got for that. 59.91.254.21 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC in the India page
Hi, I saw your edits to the India page says we need to discuss this in talk page. I have put an RfC there, please have a look.Rueben lys 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Controversial claim on India page
Fowler&Fowler, I've not gone into any detail of what the RfC on Talk:India is about, but it appears that as long as there is a discussion going on, and some editors feel there's something wrong about the material in the article, there's every justification for a tag on the relevant portion of the article informing readers about the issue. My suggestion, for whatever it is worth, is that your credibility as an editor will greatly improve from its already high level if you don't keep removing such tags that are accompanied by relevant discussion on talk pages unless you have a convincing reason. deeptrivia (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I won't remove the tag the next time he puts it. But for an FA, if you allow people with highly idiosyncratic views, to keep putting tags because the page doesn't agree with their views, the page will always have tags.  This is the first time since October 2006, (when I started editing Wikipedia), that I've seen a controversial tag on the India page.   You say you haven't gone into any detail on the RfC.  Well, why don't read Rueben lys's statement (and cursorily skim through his comments) and tell me if you think any reasonable discussion is about to take place any time soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I share with you the view that the objections of the editor involved are not particularly serious enough to put around tags in any article, but this is only our view, and hopefully consensus can be built on it. But until such time, the editors who objected are entitled to let their objections be known to readers. Of course, had it been a clear case of trolling, reverting the tags would have been completely justified. (FA or no FA does make some difference, but it is not impossible that some controversial material is overlooked during the FAC process. So, there is no policy to stop people from objecting to or tagging portions of articles that have passed the FA criteria.) deeptrivia (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, for telling me. I've reverted my de-tagging.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Urgent:India page
Fowler&fowler, I was away travelling and noticed your messages only today. Will pitch in with my comments soon. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try and see how I can help. Am pretty busy these days, so am avoiding getting too involved with wikipedia. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfC
Fowler, I am guessing the RfC is about to close, and while I am still to be convinced that my grounds are unfounded, I will congratulate you for making a good effort (again, even if I dont agree with the direction your argument took). Nevertheless, I will assume from the evidence that you are a well read and evidently knowledgable person. I hope we can work in the future in collaboration and not in confrontation as no doubt you will accept happened here. Good luck with your edits.Rueben lys 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Support
I too personally support your depictions with Gandhi as the pivotal leader. Rest can have their rightful share on this page. Knowledge Hegemony  04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad timing
May you continue, Sir. Just one more thing from personal experience - "Please be patient with newbies"(No need to add the last line to your award shelf.  Knowledge  Hegemony  15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues regarding India article
Sorry for my late reply. I've been a bit busy with "real life". Looks like it's late in the game now. If you still need help, let me know and I'll try to put in my two cents. Ciao. Tombseye 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Partition of India maps
So did you have something specific in mind for modifying/improving those maps? I think just converting them to color would make them more readable. Also I was thinking of using the 1909 map as a base since the historical district boundaries are easier to make out there. Do you know if there were significant changes between 1909 and 1949 that would mess that up? Also for the 3rd map, does the original source give a table with numbers as well? I'll have trouble re-creating that one otherwise. Kmusser 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Urgent: India page
Folwler&fowler, thank you for inviting me to make comments on the current discussion. I apologize for not replying earlier but I have been extremely busy. As of now, would my potential comments still be beneficial? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Brahmagupta
Hello, It looks like the article has changed much since you worked on it last. For example, this passage. "In mathematics, Brahmagupta is considered the father of arithmetic, algebra, and numerical analysis. The modern arithmetic used today spread from India to Arabia and then to Europe. Initially, it was known as Al Hind in Arabic and De Numero Indorum in Latin. De Numero Indorum means "method of the Indians" and has become our arithmetic and algebra replacing the earlier Roman numerals and abacus-based methods." Can you please review the changes? Regards, 59.91.253.97 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

India: The collapsible lists in the infobox not working
The collapsible lists are useless if they are set  by default. Can we do something about it. Knowledge Hegemony  15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't for you
My comment: When starting a new section its wise to inform other editors so they they can also chip and and contribute their ideas. That's what I feel. was in response to Reuben's comment: The last thing I dont understand is why I have to ask for permission if I wish to add an additional section on S&T, or Education, or tourism or whatever? I guess I was misunderstood because my comment was not in the right place.
 * As expected the History Indian Independence Movement section you have prepared looks great. Thanks Professor. Knowledge  Hegemony  12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose1930sa.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose 1930sa.jpg. The copy called Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose 1930sa.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi
Hellow Fowler. I noticed you reverted an earlier edit I had made in the Gandhi page with regards to the sentence "strongest driving philosophies". You would've seen from the edit was changed by me coupla months ago. I think you will see why I may say have explain that I think "leading India to Independence" might seem like a less appropriate sentence as compared to say "one of the strongest driving philosophies" (or even the strongest driving philosophies would be more appropriate than "led India to independence" in my view).Rueben lys 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rueben, Actually, I didn't know it was you.  (I didn't check the history.)  I guess my complaint is that "strongest driving philosophies" just sounds clunky.  Well, let me think about it, I'll try to come up with something ...  Thanks for writing back.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Sorry, I did not realize it was a sub-page. Meanwhile, I was curious if you could provide me with the exact text of the following at your convenience: # ^ (Spear 1990, p. 176), (Stein 2001, p. 291), (Ludden 2002, p. 193) - I have to say that I will be doing my own digging to not only gather sources that refute terrorist label for Indian freedom fighters but also in a more general context to using the word terrorism. We are going to have a lengthy discussion on this regard :) --Blacksun 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Freedom fighter" is not really a historiographic term. It is really another word for "patriot."  As for the terms "revolutionary" vs. "terrorist,"  (that someone else had broached on the Talk:India page), of course, they refer to different things.  Gandhi, for example, was a revolutionary, albeit a pacifist variety.  But one of the things that identifies a revolutionary is an ideology of revolution (sudden change).  As far as I am aware, none of the "violent revolutionaries" in India were even remotely close to formulating an ideology in the same way as Michael Bakunin, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, or Mao, or Che Guevara,  people that we normally call revolutionaries.  To which one  might retort: the ideology doesn't have to be theoretically sound.  After all the "Hindustan Socialist Republican Association" of Chandrashekar Azad and Bhagat Singh, did formulate something, even though their group was really not much more than a reading group.  That seems to be the consensus among most sources and, for that reason, I do refer to the 1920s groups as "revolutionaries," since they had at least paid some attention to ideology.  The 1905 groups, however, were too adhoc and I think "politico-religious terrorism" (if there were such a term) would probably be their best description. Here are the quotes:  1. (Spear)  "More ominously the pent-up emotion in Bengal engendered a group of terrorists who thought the attainment of freedom a religious duty and of assassination a sacred offering to the goddess Kali." (p.176). 2. (Stein) "Attempts were made to assassinate high British officials, and armed robberies were committed to finance terrorist activity and publications." (p. 291) 3. "Religious fervour combined with political protest in bombings of government buildings and assassinations of British officers by inspired young patriots. ... (About Aurobindo Ghose) In 1905, his advocacy of terrorism landed him in prison" (p. 193).  4. (Metcalf and Metcalf), "The movement was led by Surendranath Banerjea and other moderates, but small groups committed to terrorist activity also began to mobilize under its banner." (p 156).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:archiving India RfC
Hello Fowler, yes, I think archiving that bit would be a good idea. Incidentally, I would still point out that the short version of IIM you are writing (good work, I would say), in my opinion, should put the mutinies after the INA trials, since that was the context in which it happened, and also, the trials began in 1945 and not 1946 (correct if I misread it). Also you might want to mention that it did become a galvanising point (insert your own well-judged word-substitute there) and not just an event in the whole movement. But otherwise, very good effort, I will say in appreciation.RegardsRueben lys 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Short version of IIM history
Hello Fowler, I just had a look at the short version as it currently stands at the moment. I can see you've put in a lot of work into this and I appreciate that, but I will say I can see quite afew grounds on which it might just fall short or disputed. The figures in the Jallianwallah bagh massacre is a start. The lack of mention of allied leadership, in particular, Nehru and Bose during the first Non-coop movement, is a second (re:Copland, 2001, Bose and Jalal, 2003...). There is also (majorly) the lack of Lal-Bal-Pal swadeshi triumvirate (feel free to point out if I overlooked this) which I believe was one of the first major shifts in Congress policies. There is also no mention of the Ghadarite movement, and the section towards the end on mutinies and INA trials does not either put the two in chronoligical and mutually corresponding context, nor explain how the trials and the mutinies shifted the ground situation (I mean how they affected the movement, as well as Atlee's policies, which were logical after-effects. re: Ghosh 1969, James 1993, Fay 1993, Bose and Jala 2003, Hyam 2007...). I do not wish to belittle your efforts here. But as you will see, these are the grounds on which the edits may and will get scrutinised and challenged. Regards Rueben lys 01:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was an initial outline, which I am now expanding on. The draft is barely half done, and I am not proceeding in a linear fashion.  Thanks for the input, I will keep it in mind.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)