User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 8

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

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


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


 * The quote is from this Wired column:The Wikipedia FAQK, which makes for fun reading. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Army
Please see Talk:British Divisions in World War II --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip, I only just noticed the bottom half of that discussion! I thought you wanted me to work on those army pages!  Will reply there later.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Here is a link to the text after second revert. The revert was partial half-way revert, so I fixed it in next revert (see ) with edit summary "fixing bad revert. 2nd revert: article is not npov. any POV can be properly sourced. Thank you." After that fowler reverted my changes again as expected with edit summary rv desione's second revert. Please take a look at the sequence in. So again, three reverts not one and this is confirmed by your own revert whose edit summary says rv desione's second revert. Does it hold water now? Desione (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not count the first revert you mention above (the partial half-way one with time stamp 04:13), only the second (with edit summary "fixing bad revert" with time stamp 04:14). My edit summary said "second revert" only because at first I believed you, but when I examined the history, I realized your statement was incorrect.  The sequence of four reverts is:
 * 1st revert: 04:53, 16 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:58:24, 17 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:14:44 17 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:43:14 17 March 2008.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

up-to-date administrative map of Azad Jammu and kashmir
Fowler&fowler,

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

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

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

British raj article is now, not making any sense.
Could you please explain why you have removed every single line of negative impact of British rule on Indian subcontinent in the British Raj article. You are a big POV pusher and painting Britsh Raj as a positive development and blessing for India. It was due to mass murders, racial discrimination and transfer of wealth which has led to revolt against the corrupt British Rule in India. Kindly include the negative impacts in the article for NPOV.--Himhifi 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.177.106 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will be adding more material in the near future.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

FAC
I've removed the comments you copied over to Raul's restart for the following reasons: Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Don't copy someone else's oppose; it's not yours to copy, and defeats the purpose of a restart.
 * 2) Your old oppose referred to other even older opposes, rendering it vague and unactionable.  If you want to enter a current oppose, it should be specific, actionable, and based upon the current article.
 * 3) Please try to avoid lengthy debate on the FAC; those discussions can be held on article talk.  The FAC should stay focused on WP:WIAFA.


 * :) OK.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding; part of the point of a restart is to try to get a readable version of where things currently stand, not another rehash of two weeks of history. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Contributions of Indian Civilization
I can't decide if this newly created article should be redirected to Achievements of ancient Indian civilization or Ancient India, merged with some broader article on "Indian civilization" or AFDed as an innately POV list; your thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An IP (User:Moreschi ?) redirected it to the "Achievements" page, and I think that should be fine for now, unless the article creator insists otherwise. Thanks for your respnse, and I agree with you that this is likely to be a good faith effort by an inexperienced editor. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have tried improving the article on A.K. Ramanujan
Kindly have a look at this link. Thanks KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I was quite impressed with your considerable efforts to critique and improve this article. My concerns were exactly the same as yours, but you brought to bear such convincing points. I feel it reads better now, after copyedits, but I still have major content issues with it. --Aadal (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really know nothing about Kannada or its literature and I actually wasn't paying much attention to the article at first; but then a few days ago, while my family was out and the cats were distracting me, I happened upon Shelley Pollock's "The Cosmopolitan Vernacular,", which I immediately picked up, and which I couldn't help but keep reading once I had started it.  It was only when I was half-way through the article that I realized that there was a whole background to the development of the vernacular literatures in different parts of India and even in distant places like Nepal (Newari) and Cambodia (Khmer), that they were all rebelling against, or breaking out from the  grip of the "cosmopolitan" or "trans-local" languages of Sanskrit and Tamil.  (The same happened later in Europe with Latin (cosmopolitan) and the vernaculars, English, French, Spanish, etc.)  The beautiful arguments in the Pollock article finally got me a little energized.


 * I'm sure user:Risker will do a good job, but the narrative (or the lack of it) was only one of the article's problems, as you say yourself. I don't know how much, if anything, will change though.  My guess is that after the copy-edit, the article, in its half-revived but yet half-comatose state, will be hurriedly put back in the FAC mill, a victim yet again of a relentless drive.  The usual suspects&mdash;with their ever-ready supports&mdash;will then for the third time reappear out of thin air, and, lo and behold, KL will clamber its wobbly way into Featureland.  I will try to make sure that nothing too ludicrous is said in the lead, but beyond that (as Ronald Reagan said to someone in some debate), "I can't pick on an invalid."    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks indeed for sharing your thoughts. True, KL may be in the Featureland as you say. If the narrative is good and contents are fair, balanced and well supported, I've no problem. Further, I suspect more than 70% of the material is recycled in several articles (to some extent I can understand it will happen). --Aadal (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I thought you should take this into account.

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

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

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

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

F&F, I'll ask you to forgive my reluctance to get into that quagmire. It's yet another datapoint for my rapidly growing portfolio of evidence that encyclopedicity has no long term chance against antiquity frenzy, not just because generalists lack the stamina to go the distance with determined partisans, but also because with WP's broken notions of WP:RS the skepticism of historians must lose out to the enthusiasm of so-called "language experts". (The Chudamani is a classic example: isn't it odd that not a single one of count 'em 96000 verses survived even to be quoted anywhere? I wonder what Al-Biruni might have said about this...)  Pollock's distinction is an excellent one -- otherwise scratches on rocks become "literature" -- but there's no chance of making it stick here. Sorry. rudra (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * :) Somehow I missed this too. That's at once funny, true, and sad.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

KLT clarification
F&f, Just wanted to clarify out that even though I am not responding to your each point on the KL talk page; I am reading through the posts and am not simply ignoring them. For example I agree with you that the "Encyclopedia of Indian Literature", Volume 2 talks of grammatical tradition since the topic itself is "Grammatical literature- Kannada". I wonder if volumes 3 or 4 have similar coverage of "Literary literature/tradition- Kannada", but unfortunately those volumes are not available on Google books. Do you have electronic access to them ? Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. No, I don't have electronic access to them, but I could call someone who likely owns the volumes, and ask him to look in them.  Or he might have some suggestions on how to find them.  It may take a day or two ...     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can access the physical volumes at my library. Will perhaps do so over the weekend. I am guessing that the topics are arranged alphabetically, so volumes 3 or 4 may be relevant to KRM and literary tradition. Logging off now. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image
I absolutely love your userpage detail of Raphael's work. I hope you dont mind, but I've "stolen" it for my own page. Cheers! Dionix (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I "stole" it myself from Wikimedia Commons (I think it was).  Enjoy!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Some impressions
F&f, I am responding to your recent comment on the KL talk page here, since I don't think my reply will really help in improving the article. But since you asked I'll take the opportunity to share my personal impression with you here: Perhaps the current state of KL scholarship is comparable to the mid/late 19th century scholarship in Sanskrit literature, when a few stalwarts first started translating the works into English/German, and felt free to use their intuition to reach (often valid) conclusions. I wonder if the expanding diaspora from Karnataka will, in the next few decades. lead to the establishment of "Kannada Studies" centers at US/European universities and a greater mainstream academic interest in the field. Anyway, that is enough off-topic speculation for now ... Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The scholarly interest in Kannada and Kannada literature pales in comparison with the interest in Sanskrit, or even Tamil literature. This is especially true for scholars outside India, scholars who publish in English, and/or in "western" journals. For example:
 * JSTOR gives 25 links for "Kannada literature" + history out of which only a couple (mainly Pollock) are really relevant. "Sanskrit literature" + history, yields 1320 results!
 * My institute library (which is nothing to sneeze at) has only 4-5 titles on KL history in English and another handful in Kannada (which I cannot read).
 * My impressions on Sahitya Acdemi's EIL:
 * Firstly, I must say it is an awe-inspiring undertaking simply in terms of the breadth of the challenge.
 * The articles are all signed and the contributors seem to be active researchers/teachers. The encyclopedia also listed a list of topic editors (L. S Seshagiri Rao for Kannada) and other advisors.
 * Many of the contributors had entries of their own in the encyclopedia; for instance MV Seethamramiah is apparently the one who settled the issue of authorship of KRM; another of the cited authors wrote the first Kannada-English dictionary (the details may be off a bit) etc.
 * The few bios that I looked up indicated that the scholars wrote largely in Kannada, and were typically profs. at places like the Univ. of Mysore etc
 * Overall I would say that EIL turned out be better than I expected, though some entries could obviously be improved in terms of "encyclopedic tone". And of course, as is true for any such national enterprise, there is always the possibility (probability?) of parochialism and mutual back-scratching.
 * the International EIL, seemed less impressive to me, since the articles were not signed, and it was not clear who wrote and supervised the entries.
 * Mugali's book was commissioned by the Sahitya Academi as part of a project to publish a history of literature for all officially recognized languages. That indicates to me that Mugali was at least a "senior" Indian scholar in the area at the time. The book was originally published in Kannada in 1965, and revised and translated into English 10 years later, with the help of L.S. Seshagiri Rao (see, how small the community is ?!)
 * In summary: as far as I can see wikipedia's article on Kannada literature does seem to reflect the current scholarly opinions on the topic. Rice, Narasimhacharya, and Mugali do seem be the only writers who have written comprehensive histories on KL (and each of those is only around 100 pages long!). of course that does not mean that the current scholarly opinion is correct! There may also be valid concerns regarding whether the scholars are (1) sufficiently removed from their subject, or (2) have enough editorial oversight for their work to be consistent with the highest academic standards. But that is a real world issue, which we cannot judge or remedy on wikipedia.


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


 * Hi Abecedare (and Rudra), Sorry, somehow I missed this last night.  Well, Abecedare, I don't have too much time right now, but why don't you, at your convenience, formulate what you think is an accurate formulation (in your opinion) of sentences A and B in my RfC statement, and suggest that in the RfC.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS And, Rudra, if you'd like, you could then weigh in with comments to Abecedare's wording in the RfC; of course, if you don't want to, that's fine too. 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Kannada Literature
I wonder whether you had a chance to look at Andronov's book on Dravidian Languages. I think he will discuss Kannada Literature/language. I don't have any immediate access to this book, which I've used earlier. The contents of the book are very similar to Bhadriraju Krishnamurti's book. --Aadal (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Andronov's is an older book (1970?). I mean, of course, older compared with Krishnamurti (2003) or Steever (1998), but still a whippersnapper spring chicken compared with Rice (1921), Rice (1897), and Kettel (1875).   Will look at it soon.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * There is no hurry regarding the KL questions - I too will be mostly off-wiki for the next day or so. Hope you get well soon! Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, the putting the snippets together can be a lot of fun.  Turns out that the snippets and regular word search in Google Books together is even better. I've got a bunch of stuff already which I'll add to the talk page soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just created a stub on D. C. Sircar and shamelessly copied some of its content from your KL talk page comment. Could you add references for the positions he held in ASI etc, whenever you have the time ? Again, no hurry. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. It looks good.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Google books question
Hi F&f, Thanks for the Pai reference; I hadn't seen it earlier. By the way, did you type the quote from the book, or have you found a way to cut-and-paste content from Google books ? Just curious, since the latter would be a great time-saver on wikipedia. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I had to type it (and probably made some mistakes). The Google guys are too smart.  I did try though, but without success.  I think I may have even tried taking a digital camera image and then reading the image with automated software, but no luck ... :(   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was wishful thinking on my part, but I had to ask! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kappe Arabhatta
Wow! You're going full swing! Thanks for pointing out all those nitty-gritty details. One can see how much Kannada is there! --Aadal (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) "P.S. Good luck!"--Aadal (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've actually learned some stuff in the process.  Mostly relying on A. N. Narasimhia's 1941 University of London thesis, which was recently reprinted.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

POV?
Now that you have embarked on a journey to remove inaccuracies from Kannada literature related articles, here's another piece for you. The lead of the article Kannada language has this line Contemporary Kannada literature is the most successful in India, with India's highest literary honor, the Jnanpith awards, having been conferred seven times upon Kannada writers, which is the highest for any language in India.

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

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


 * Yeah, I just noticed it; a similar sentence use to be there in the Kannada lit. page, and has been made more restrained. I think when Abecedare weighs in, all the pages will be addressed at the same time.


 * The modern Kannada writers at least have been reasonably successful (i.e. at least there is some good reason), but when people begin to add the extinct 96,000-verse commentary (longer than the Mahabharata), composed by one living person, (in contrast to the mythical sage Vyasa), it gets to be a bit much ...

User Rockybiggs, British Raj
Hi F&F. Been a long time. I just thought I would point out an inherent Pro British Bias in the above user. If you see the history oif Jaguar Cars page, he actually removed the Indian flag againt Parent: Tata Motors, for which I cant see any reason. There used to be a British flag at the head quarters heading, and an Indian flag at the parent, which he removed, so obviously indicating his bias. And look at the irony, he accuses others of being "anti British"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ-India (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi AJ, long time no hear! Well, I just checked the other car pages. Apparently, the flag goes with the location of the headquarters (not with that of the owners).  See Volvo Cars (owned by Ford), Aston Martin (also, until recently, owned by Ford, and now by two Kuwaiti companies), Honda, Toyota, BMW, Saab, Mercedes Benz.  So, really, since the headquarters are still in the UK, their flag should remain.  But this really is outside my area of expertise.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

External links in British Raj article
Hi Fowler&fowler. Since you've been working on the British Raj article, could you take a look at the External links section and see if the many articles from are worthy of being included? Seems like a personal website of some sort to me. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw that. It actually has some great resources; wonder why it's a dot com link.  Let me poke around some more.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tripadi
Hello Fowler, Just wanted to let you know that I have nominated Tripadi article, which is created and expanded by you, for WP:DYK, with the below hook: You have done a good job on that article. Thank you, - KNM Talk 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * did you know ...that Tripadi, a Kannada language poetry metre, dates back to 700 CE?


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

And now on Kappe Arabhatta; just nominated. OR
 * ... that the inscription eulogising Kappe Arabhatta, a 7th century Chalukya warrior, records the earliest example of Kannada poetry metre Tripadi ?
 * ...that the Kappe Arabhatta inscription, eulogising a 7th century Chalukya warrior, records the earliest example of Kannada poetry metre Tripadi ?

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


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

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

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

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

I remember you presented many sources—during a debate on inclusion of the name of Bose in the history paragraph of India article—that pointed out the minor role of revolutionary movements and Bose's INA in the freedom struggle of India. No, I am not going to question the appropriateness of those sources citing the result of the aforesaid poll :) However, I have a question. Why do you think the popular notion is so different from scholarly observations? Is it a fallacy in the part of scholars (which is, rationally speaking, unlikely, although not impossible given the intentional undermining of the roles played by revolutionary or INA by the frontline media of that era), or, is it just how media/government policy project someone? (Here, I must say, Bose does not really enjoy a massive media publicity. On the contrary, Gandhi has much more government projection. Bhagat Singh has had some recent media coverages). So, what is your opinion?--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Dwaipayan, That's actually a very interesting question!  The popularity of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, the revolutionaries of the Chittagong Armoury Raid, and others, is not new.  Gandhi, perceptive politician as he was, went out of his way to praise Bhagat Singh both before the latter's execution and after, (even though ideologically he was his polar opposite) because he had noticed Bhagat Singh's popularity, especially among the youth.  In fact, he began to promote Nehru and Bose in the late 1920s, and later Jayaprakash Narayan in the late 1930s, in part, because, he felt that the Congress, with its aging leadership, needed to keep the youth on its side.  Similarly, during the INA trials in 1946, the Congress leaders (who were by then very irritated with Bose) went out of their way to defend the INA prisoners, mainly because they had become very popular.  Nehru, who although more sympathetic to Bose during Bose's earlier socialist phase, was now disenchanted with his fascist involvements; however, that didn't prevent him from actually dusting up his old Inner Temple books and joining Bhulabhai Desai and Tej Bahadur Sapru in defending him.
 * Some of the revolutionaries' popularity has to do with what was (and still is) reported in the press; but, there are cultural and, indeed, Human, factors too: violence has always fascinated human beings and is deeply embedded in humanity's myths. Not only the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but also the Illiad and the Odyssey are a testament to this.  Presumably, Krishna had the choice to advise Arjuna to offer Satyagraha to the Kauravas or commence prolonged negotiations with them, but he clearly chose not to.  Similarly, to consider a more recent example, who remembers the names of the many Sikh leaders who had talks with the Indian government during the 1970s and 80s for greater autonomy for Punjab; however, most Indians (at least of a certain vintage) remember the  name of Bhindranwale.  The hero and anti-hero in myths have always been a powerful draw for humans.  When historical events don't offer them up, humans, it seems, like to make them up.   Mangal Pandey is a classic example; the historian of the 1857 rebellion, Rudrangshu Mukherjee, has written about this very perceptively.
 * The history of the Indian nationalist movement and India's decolonization and independence, is now a well-studied topic. Starting soon after India's independence, but especially during the late 60s, the 70s, and the 80s&mdash;as various British documents began to be made public&mdash;the topic was studied by many schools of historians (Marxists, Cambridge school, Canberra school, Calcutta school, JNU School, Subaltern school, Post-colonial school).  While there are differences in assumptions, approach and emphasis, no one, as far as I can tell, attaches great significance either to the revolutionaries or to Bose and the INA.  Although very popular in their time (and ours), they remain outliers in the historical literature.  The historical role of the Indian National Congress was ultimately more revolutionary than anything Bose or the so-called "revolutionaries" had to offer, because for the first (and only) time in India's history a large-scale national movement was created.  Rajat Kanta Ray of Presidency College, Kolkata, summed it up in his introduction to David Low (ed.) Congress and the Raj: "The Congress brought the country and the 'peasants' (whoever they might be) into its orbit to the dismay of the Raj in the 1930s; the rural upsurge did not prevent the Raj from reimposing its grip on the country; indirectly, however, it destroyed the Raj because the British had taken to governing India by certain electoral rules which the Congress turned to its advantage."

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it is mass/popular psychology, built up/aided by favorable media coverage, that played a dominant part here. Indeed, there is an undercurrent of anri-Gandhism (that is outrightly criticising Gandhi's ideologies/way of working) in many parts of india, especially Eastern and Southern India. I cannot prove this with a citation, but being here in India I have come across several people who even hate Gandhi, although they know almost nothing about Gandhi/have not read Gandhi's work/biography/autobiography/scholarly history articles. Gandhi's non-extremists views are often criticised in addas, and Gandhi held the main person responsible for the Partition. These views are, of course, not supported by proofs, and are mainly gossiping. But the interesting thing is so much predominance of this notion!--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Future in the past
Hi f&f. I guess you have some ownership in the British Raj article so I'm not going to push this but you should consider rewriting the entire section using the past tense. I understand you're trying to focus the section at the point of change (the act of 1858) but the article would be a lot clearer if you described the organization as it was rather than as it would have been after it was. But, like I said, its your call. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi RegentsPark, I apologize for reverting your copy edit (with a somewhat terse edit summary) last night. I meant to leave a post on your page, but I was extremely tired, and didn't get around to doing it.  I'm glad you wrote since some other editors have found my "future in the past" constructions confusing as well.  So, let me explain what I'm doing, and I apologize if I sound pedantic, that is not my intention at all.  First, the article is written in the past tense; it is, however, not written in the past simple.


 * It is an implicit fact of narrative that the reader is always situated in the past simple; in other words, the past simple is the reader's "present" when they are reading about a past events.  Unless one is describing a strictly temporal sequence of events: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, the past simple is not enough.  So, if I am at 4, and I need to refer to 2 or 3, I have to use the past perfect or the past perfect continuous; similarly, if I am at 4 and need to refer to 8, I have to use "future in the past," unless of course I have nothing to say about 5, 6, and 7, and don't intend returning to 4.  So, consider your copy-edit (here in boldface) "Marquess of Salisbury]] (1874 - 1878) (later three-time Prime Minister of Britain), John Morley (1905 - 1910) (initiator of the Minto-Morley Reforms), E. S. Montagu (1917 - 1922) (an architect of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms), and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence (1945 - 1947) (head of the 1946 Cabinet Mission to India). The size of the advisory Council was reduced over the next half-century, but its powers remained unchanged; in 1907, for the first time, two Indians were appointed to the Council. ... (next paragraph) In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained head of the Government of India and now was more commonly called the Viceroy on account of his secondary role as the Crown's representative to the nominally sovereign princely states; he was, however, now responsible to the Secretary of State in London and through him to British Parliament.|undefined"
 * There is nothing wrong with the changes, until you get to the next paragraph: the reader is now in 1907, so when they read, "In Calcutta, the Governor-General remained ..." they get confused, because they think we are talking about the Governor-General in 1907; however, we are really talking about the Governor-General as he found himself in 1858 (in relation to his previous responsibilities).


 * As far as I am aware, the English language allows only two ways of talking about an event that was in the future at a particular time in the past: (a) would/was to (for things that actually happened) and (b) would have/was to have (for things that were expected to happen, but didn't). Thus (a) "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday and would reach Meerut two weeks later," means that he did reach Meerut two weeks later.  In contrast, (b) "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday and would have reached Meerut two weeks later" means that he was expected to, but didn't.  Why bother with this construction?  Why not simply write, (c) "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday and reached Meerut two weeks later" (past simple)?  Again, nothing wrong with (c), unless you want to say in the next sentence, "Five minutes into the journey, he received a telegram bringing welcome news of British reinforcements," in which case the reader gets a little confused, expecting perhaps another journey in Meerut.  I usually mix  in the "would" constructions (more formal) with the "was to"s (less formal), but didn't in that particular instance.  Anyway, let me know what you think.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you or with your reasoning. But, writing in past future is usually less preferable than writing in simple past from the perspective of readability. Most readers are really looking for a simple sequence of historical events and don't really want to have to use their noggins when reading (imagine what their professors will say when they cut and paste your text into their research papers!). Thus, "Lord Canning left Calcutta on Monday at 2pm. Five minutes into his journey he received a telegram bringing welcome news of British reinforcements and when, two weeks later, he arrived in Meerut, the reinforcements had cooled the finest champagne for the Governor-General. " However, I'm not going to belabor this point. You're doing a great deal of research and have created a fine article and don't need any nits picked by the casual passers-by! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a funny reply. :) I guess you do have a point.  I noticed too that one editor who had used past future constructions in some FAs, is no longer using them.  Let me think about it some more.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Do you have some connections with Myanmar? If so, is everything OK with the cyclone?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar
Unfortunately, yes. I have many Burmese friends (in and out of Burma) and it doesn't look good. The delta region is flat with low vegetation, lots of water, and everyone lives in shacks. You can imagine what a category 4 cyclone must have done to the area. The country has no civic services worth mentioning, a government that cares little for its people, and a population that was barely subsisting before the cyclone. Add a distrust (on the part of the government) for international organizations and I'm afraid the worst is yet to come.--RegentsPark (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very sorry to hear that. I hope your friends' families are safe.  I hope some aid agencies can get there soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Fowler, hope you are well. I see there is a heated discussion going on in the British Raj talk page (I chipped in with a coupla cents earlier). I was wodnering if I could ask you for a favour. I have just created an article on the Ilbert Bill, which I realised was not there and seems to be very important landmark, not least for the origins of the Indian National Congress.However, although there are a lot of references that talk about the effect of Ilbert Bill, I cant seem to be able to find a detailed account of its content. Wonder if you might be able to point to any references. Would much appreciate your contribution to the article as well, if you have the time. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. I'll get to it some time tomorrow.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Famine

 * Bagchi has worked in particular on changes to land tenure under the Raj: for a representative article discussing increased insecurity and vulnerability to famine under those changes, see.
 * His other major field has been monetization of the Indian economy post-1750, which is precisely what Nick Dirks is pushing his students to do now: For an overview, see
 * A useful overview is the appropriate sections of
 * Most relevant essays are contained in Bagchi, Amiya Kumar. Capital and Labour Redefined: India and the Third World. London: Anthem Press (2002), pp. 336,. ISBN 1-84331-069-4.


 * The rural economy was non non-monetized in the 19th: it was undergoing monetization. That is, according to some - including Dirks - part of the problem.
 * Sen himself frequently quotes the 1947 "cut-off" in his public speeches: in Foreign Affairs, which is not quite your run-of-the-mill popular publication, if not quite a journal, he says "It could be supplemented by noting that there were big famines in India -- the subject of Kipling's eloquent phrase -- until the very end of the British imperial rule. The last one, the Bengal famine of 1943, killed between two million and three million people four years before Indian independence. Since the end of the Raj and the establishment of a parliamentary democracy, there has not been a single one." (The phrase in question is the White Man's Burden.)
 * See also the less-often read later part of Poverty and Famine, where IIRC he says that the Raj was "basically non-interventionist" till the Strachey Commission. That entire section mingles discussion of 19th c famine in South Asia with sub-Saharan famine in the 1970s/80s.
 * For an overall view of Sen and nineteenth-century famine, see Siddiq Osmani's chapter in
 * Another useful paper is
 * Feed the cats. Always feed the cats. -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Since everyone is a volunteer here, please try harder to be constructive and polite. FAC is already stressful and we should do what we can to make it helpful. Detailed suggestion like this that you give are extremely valuable, so please continue, but comments like your first one in that diff detract from the process and are needlessly confrontational. Lots of people don't know that difference. In general if you gave the same quality of advice with more effort to be polite while being constructive, then everyone would enjoy FAC more and get more out of it. Just some thoughts. - Taxman Talk 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I became impatient when I saw the same mistakes being repeated in the successive FACs. But, that's no excuse and you are right, of course.  I need to be more temperate in my remarks.  Thanks for noticing.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it is too late to amend remarks, since they have already been acted upon.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindukush
Hello Fowler, I noticed sometime that you seemed to know quite a bit about languages, particularly northern Indian/Kashmir ones, so I thought I'll ask you. Do you at all know anything of the origin or etymology of the name "Hindukush"? I ask because the Hindukush entry mentions in one part something about the name being linked to the death of slaves from India, and this seems to have been grabbed upon by Hindu-nationalists (including some people I unfortunately have to work with) as further evidence of Hindu persecution by Muslims (I dont know if Islam even existed at the time the name came). Would much appreciate your help. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that (doubtful) etymology has been around, no doubt firing up some folk with fantasies of revenge. Most people think it is a "translation" of Caucasus Indicus, and Britannica simply says it is Arabic for "Mountains of India." Will look more into it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, I am probably barking up the wrong tree, and if you have the time I would be happy to find out where I'm wrong. Naval History is my key area but all historical matters interest me, one side topic being Victorian policing in India. Apologies for bothering you and cluttering your talk page. --Harlsbottom (talk|library) 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I think the main reason (from my perspective) to stick to the "British Raj" title is that it is more widely used among present-day scholars than any of the others.  Thus, for example, if you do a Google Scholar Advanced Search for the exact phrase "British Raj," you get 8,140 returns (journal articles/books); "British Indian Empire," on the other hand, returns 1,010.  "Indian Empire" does return 7,820, but if you limit the search to modern references (say, the last 30 years, 1978-2008), "Indian Empire" returns 3,350 links;  "British Raj," on the other hand, returns 5,370.  That seems to jibe with my personal assessment of the literature.  "British Raj" is not that common in the older literature, but it is very widely used in the contemporary literature.  In fact if you look at the references in the British Raj page, almost all the books in the "contemporary general histories" section as well as the "monograph" section, use "British Raj" in their pages, and more than just once.  Very few, however, use either "British Indian Empire" or "Indian Empire," and when they do, it is in passing.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you are saying that "British Raj" was not contemporaneous usage, I don't have any argument with you. Pretty much every one until 1947 referred to the region as "India" or in more formal contexts, "Indian Empire."  Wikipedia page names, however, (in my understanding of them) go by what is majority usage in the secondary sources, especially the modern ones.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

5/24 DYK

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

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

Great Famine of 1876–78

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

Your Recent Conduct
Hello. I didn't want to bring this up in the talk page of the Mahatma Gandhi article as to not let the discussion of policy/content become further clouded but I'm distressed by your comments towards me as well as your edit summaries. A summary like "wrong again" and comments telling me to work on another article, as well as comments indicating that 2 months of experience some how disqualifies me from the editing process are not conducive to a productive and civil environment in which faith is had that all contributors, even new ones, are there to improve articles. Please reconsider your recent manner of interaction here at Wikipedia. Thanks for reading and good luck. Beam 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have said nowhere that you shouldn't edit the Gandhi page; I just observed that you haven't. In fact, I'd be delighted if you did edit some real pages, instead of talk pages.  If you are interested in Gandhi, I'm sure there are lots of Gandhi-related pages that need work.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Among other things you urged me to work on another article because I disagreed with you. You are now apparently calling into question my previous and prior contributions to articles, insinuating again about inexperience. Another assumption unfortunately. My past contributions should not affect the value of my opinion and interpretation of the naming of the Mahatma Gandhi article. Dig a little deeper and notice that I have been involved heavily in the editing of articles. See my user page for more information.
 * You really need to refocus on debating content and not the editor. After I pointed out all those instances of less than exemplary dealings towards me you still belittled me. You're either patronizing me or you don't see anything wrong with the way you acted. I didn't "get help" from an admin as you tried to intimidate me with, I came to you with my slight grievance as a sign of respect. I'd appreciate even a morsel of respect towards me, from you, if you could. Beam 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you've gone as far as to lie about me on not only Husond's page, but on the Mahatma Gandhi page itself. Sockpuppeting? I didn't previously, but now I'm thinking of going to some one else for help with you. You have been less than kind towards me and now you make false accusations. You also seem to have a complex with editors based on time here. I won't be taking part in a straw poll in which you lie and insult me. No thanks. Beam 13:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I am careful with language. I said "edit-warring or sock-puppeteering"  Nikkul is the sockpuppeteer, who made his Wikipedia debut with inventing three or four surrogates to support him in a similar straw poll.  The Gandhi straw poll, by the way, is user:Nikkul's handiwork, not mine.


 * I was unfailing polite to you for a number of days, while you were blustering forth with: "I'm puzzled as to how you continue to use other encyclopedia. Wiki is not just "another" encyclopedia. We'll see what everyone else thinks, but as it stands the consensus is for the name to be put back where it was." when there was no consensus for a proposed move that was invalid anyway (since the rules for a controversial move were not observed), or (to user:Nikkul), "That's a great point! I don't see a reason why we can't make the move now.")


 * It was only when your pronouncements went from mere blustering to the ridiculous, as in "You're missing the point. It wouldn't matter if Mahatma meant poopy pants. If that's what everyone who speaks English calls him and knows him as.... that's what our article should be called." that I became frustrated and resorted to some sarcasm. I am unreservedly sorry for the sarcasm, but it took some provoking for me to get that way.  You are welcome to take your complaint against me to any one you want.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Alexander the Great
f&f, I don't agree with your analysis that Alexander the great is necessary for disambiguation. Alexander of Macedon could easily point to the article with "this article refers to the Macedon king also known as Alexander the Great. For other Alexanders of Macedon see the disambiguation page." Or some such thing. It does seem inconsistent to allow Alexander the Great but not, say, Saint Francis of Assisi and this does fuel the move for Mahatma Gandhi, etc. Just a thought. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I said (and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear) was that the regnal name Alexander requires qualification for disambiguation. In the case of the son of Philip II, it takes the form: Alexander III of Macedon, or Alexander the Macedonian, or Alexander the Great.  The decision to choose the last is based on precedent (all print encyclopedias, history books, and other reliable sources).  In Gandhi's, case, the name, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, doesn't require any disambiguation.  And all print encyclopedias have the same page name.  If he had only one name "Gandhi," like Madonna or Prince, then, sure, he would need qualification in some form either Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhi (Indian independence movement leader) or ...  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The name "Francis," is clearly ambiguous. But the qualifier "of Assisi" is enough to pin the man down, so Francis of Assisi is enough and further qualification in the form of Saint Francis of Assisi is not required.  Similarly, Alexander III the Great would be redundant qualification, as Alexander the Great is enough.  Please see the Gandhi talk page, where I have now added a more detailed argument.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Other encyclopedias may have their own policies but wikipedia does try to counter a western bias wherever possible. Using the Great for Alexander and not allowing Mahatma for Gandhi does seem to be a potential WP:CSB issue when Alexander the Macedon or Alexander of Macedonia would do just as well. At the least, arguing in favor of the Great makes it plausible that there is also a case for Mahatma. Which is unfortunate because I think using any honorific brings a POV into the article. (Not everyone things that Gandhi had a great soul and not everyone, especially in the lands he conquered, would think of Alexander as the great!)--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I don't have any disagreement with "the Great" representing  a historical bias, but Alexander still requires qualification in some form.  If for example, someone wanted to change "Alexander the Great" to another form of qualification like "Alexander III of Macedon," I would support the move.  But Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi doesn't require qualification.  We can't start chopping up people's names and then claim they need qualification.  By the way, Indian regnal names too require qualifications like Ashoka the Great or Akbar the Great; its not just Alexander.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But it does open the door a little and in that sense Alex the great is not, um, great. I see another endless war in the offing.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 17:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And similarly, I'm sure Ashoka the Great was not Great in the eyes of the people of Kalinga or Akbar the Great in the eyes of those he conquered. The problem with regnal names is that they are often so short (or so long) that qualification is a must.  It is OK to battle the problem of grandiloquent qualifiers in regnal names, and I'm sure historians have been thinking about it a lot lately.  I grant you that choosing the most NPOV name for a historical figure is not an exact science.  But how is that problem solved by creating an unnecessary epithet for Gandhi?  You might be right about the endless bickering, but allowing honorifics for South Asian names as a special dispensation is hardly an option; otherwise, what is next?  Jawaharlal Nehru-->Pandit Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah-->Qaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Iqbal-->Allama Iqbal, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman-->Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Subhas Chandra Bose-->Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak-->Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan-->Badshah Khan or, worse-yet, Frontier Gandhi, pretty much all South Asian politicians of a certain vintage have honorifics, the possibilities are endless ...     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»

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

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

The reason why the Alexander the Great article uses the honorific is less to do with disambiguation and more to do with a tussle between Greeks and Macedonians. (I did a polite check.) The use of 'the Great' turns out to be the NPOV solution. (This is FYI.) --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, you mean Macedonians as in the Republic of Macedonia (to the north of Greece)? That's a new one.  :) Who would have thought the post-cold war sensitivities and tensions would play out that way!  That still leaves Ashoka the Great and Akbar the Great.  Since Ashoka's father Chandragupta Maurya was supposedly from the Gandhara area or at least he met his mentor Chanakya there, and since ancient Gandhara is in the neighborhood of present-day Peshawar,  I will be proposing that the dynasty be called "of the NWFP"  So, Ashoka the Great would become Ashoka of the North West Frontier Province (and we'll paint in a AK-47 in his pictures); and since Akbar's grandfather, Babur came from Samarkand, the hub of the Silk Road, I will also be proposing the name Akbar of the Hub of the Silk Road for our illustrious Moghul ...  Now I need to get some coffee, so I can wake up.  Thanks for starting my morning on a humorous note!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for Akbar we could suggest Akbar the Mughal. But then, Donald Trump would want his article retitled to Trump the Mughal!--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)