User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 20

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FLC for List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1960–69)

Hi! I have nominated the subject list for FL. Could you find some time out and give your comments here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I would have loved to help out, but I really have little acquaintance with this topic. Also, I'm editing WP intermittently, which means I'm flat out of the time needed to bone up on the topic, if I do chose to volunteer reviewing it. Thanks for asking! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay! No problem. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Rajawodeyar.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rajawodeyar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:HaidarAliYoungerYears.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HaidarAliYoungerYears.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Patel nehru simla.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Patel nehru simla.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nanjaraja delavai.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nanjaraja delavai.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Patel nehru simla.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Patel nehru simla.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Indian Empire

I seem to recall a discussion on this before. Any idea where? Pinging @SpacemanSpiff, Dharmadhyaksha, and Sitush:.--regentspark (comment) 10:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find it either.... Maybe open up our locked sock drawers. Someone new dedicatedly changing it on all pages is very stinky. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @RegentsPark, John, SpacemanSpiff, Dharmadhyaksha, and Sitush:.--Well, I'll have to look around, but in one instance at least, viz. of Gandhi, the user is correct in changing "British India" to "British Indian Empire." The reason is that the termBritish India is reserved for the regions directly administered by the British, i.e. the Presidencies and provinces of British India, the former page redirecting to the latter. But Gandhi was born in a princely state, ie in a region only indirectly controlled by the British, and not in British India.

One could say that Gandhi was born in Porbandar, Kathiawar Agency, British Raj, but that risks inviting subsequent queries, and even corrections, from other users who might ask why "Raj" is the country, and not just the rule, which is what it literally means. I think when referring to princely states, it is probably best to either use [[British Raj|British Indian Empire]] or, if the context is clear, simply, [[British Raj|India]]

But, nowhere on Wikipedia should we write [[British Raj|British India]]. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm partly to blame for this chap as I delayed blocking him for a while, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kichappan—SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Conversation

Hi Fowler&fowler. Thanks for the coversation at IVC; it's helpfull. Lazaridis 2016 really triggered me into this Iranian connection; I find it fascinating. So, I'm learning while I'm Googling & reading; your arguments help too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Company rule trial warren hastings2.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Company rule trial warren hastings2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated if you could review other images of yours that are pre 1850. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, will take a look. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Punjab edit-a-thon result

As you are a prominent member of WikiProject India, I am inviting your opinion here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Usage request: Qawaali soundtrack

Hi,

As well as being a minor Wikipedia editor, I'm making a community radio series about the history of vegetarianism for London's Resonance FM.

I'm looking for some music to illustrate Sufis, and would like to use this of yours:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friday_Evening_Qawali_at_Dargah_Salim_Chisti,_Fatehpur_Sikri,_UP,_India.theora.ogv I can't use it under a Share-alike license, as this is incompatible with my agreement with some voice actors. Could I possibly have your permission to use just the audio? Perhaps under a CC-BY license if that suits?

Thanks,

Ian

Ian McDonald (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and use it. Be aware though that the song is incomplete (lopped off at the end), and that it is religious (in that it mentions the name of the Prophet Mohammad and God (Khuda), and I remember that when I was recording it, everyone sitting around had their heads covered). You could ask someone who understands the music whether it will be appropriate to your context, but you probably know this anyway. All the best. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fowler&fowler. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Kurta sideopen silkcloseup2.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kurta sideopen silkcloseup2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Didn't notice you've been back(ish) for a while. Welcome home! --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Here's wishing you all the best for the new year! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Bishonen | talk 00:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Thank you, and a happy new year to you too! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir

Hi there. A few points I would like to discuss with you. Hope you won't mind.

1. I have paraphrased Snedden's words in the lead. I hope that this time it is more acceptable to you.

2. If you do not mind, I was thinking we could reword the part on Indigenous Muslim rule in Kashmir so that it can be attributed to Kashmiri historians such as Mahmud Gami, Fida Hasanain, the authors of Tareekh Hassan and Tarikh Kabeer Kashmir etc.

3. I also wanted to know why you label my additions under Dogra rule section as 'POV-ridden' despite the fact that the content I added was referenced and paraphrased from reputable scholars such as Mridu Rai etc. Towns Hill

I will respond to 3. later, however, 1 and 2 are problematic. What you have inserted is undue in the lead. All that needs to be said has already been said in the sentence occurring earlier in the paragraph. As for 2, there is no Wikipedia policy for favoring native scholars. I'm sorry you cannot do that. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobel prize for edit summaries at Mohenjo-daro

Stupendous! Haploidavey (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard for India-related topics

That's very decently formulated; thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Amidst our quarrels, a friendly gesture. I first thought about a cup of tea, which may suit your intellectual tastes, but I choose the ordinary stroopwafels, a Dutch 'common' cookie, which I love to buy at the marketplace. And I do admire and respect your knowledge of India and your broad command of the literature. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you for the sentiment and the compliment! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Could you please stop with comments like "turn into into an "Alice in Wonderland" story made up during endless summer afternoons boating on the river Thames in parishes around Oxford"? The way you're commenting on my edits violates basic policies on cooperation and civility. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read my reply to your accusation of incivility on Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Beyond civility: it does not say that incivility is the last resort. No policy says so. On the contrary. It says: "Be aware of precedent; don't commit logical fallacies; don't repeat yourself." It further says: "Precedent" includes (in decreasing order of priority): all the policies, guidelines, and closed discussions that bear on the discussion at hand." It means that you stick to the policies, like WP:PERSONALATTACK. You have provided two nice quotes which substantiate your stance that the Harappan-terminology is the most commonly used terminology; instead of using personal attacks, you could have done so at any moment in the discussion. There was no need for personal attacks. And if you have the feeling that I am "violating the spirit of Wikipedia relentlessly" by "selective paraphrasing," I can't help seeing this as yet another example of hyperbole. So please, for the third time, stop this kind of comments. It's not how we work here at Wikipedia, and no policy supports it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Same for this edit:

"It is possible that you are unable to understand nuance in English."
"I am also more and more convinced that you are attempting to read sources you do not understand.

And regarding "It is best that you not edit this page for a while, and give me a chance to undo the damage you have done", see WP:OWN. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Reiner Jr.

Fowler&fowler, I have moved this DYK nomination so it is now listed under January 27, 2017, the day it was created. New nominations should never be placed in the special occasions section.

I'm afraid I also have some bad news for you in that regard. With the exception of April Fools, all special occasion nominations should be made for dates no more than six weeks in the future. We won't be able to save the article for a year, so this will have to run as a regular hook. Because of that, you may wish to propose an ALT1 hook that does not include a full date. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the helpful info. I've now added an ALT1 hook that does not mention the full date. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

‎Wikiquote

Fowler, you have always amazed me by your ability to quote academics in India related topics although you haven't contributed to our sister project Wikiquote. Will you be able to start a new Wikiquote article on The New Cambridge History of India. Surely you have already read some of those books and as such it should be a nice intellectual goal to set for 2017. If you are unsure how to proceed you can look for my creation q:Millennium Prize Problems as guidance which is basically a series of mathematical problems as I am sure you are already aware. Some redlinks (there) which might interest you include: Vijaynagar, Mughal, Rajput, Deccan, Punjab, Maratha and other q:Category:States of India.

This message is also for other TPSers if they own books of this series. For Sitush if you want to contribute there is no Wikiquote article on Dalit (I guess this might be a good starter). Solomon 7968 13:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Herbert Reiner Jr.

Hello! Your submission of Herbert Reiner Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks. Sorry, I did see this, but managed to forget later. I will respond very soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Herbert Reiner Jr.

Hello! Your submission of Herbert Reiner Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you really need to respond on the nomination page soon; it's been nearly two weeks since you were pinged, and the notice has been archived from this page. I'm hoping we hear from you before it's too late. Thanks in advance for your addressing this. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Very sorry, will respond right away, and will add the references, per rule D2, within the next 24 hours. Thanks for the reminder! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've responded at DYK. The article now meets Rule D2. If I need to do anything else, please let me know. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
		In recognition of all your quality contributions covering the history of Pakistan; past, present and future. Knowing your editing history, I believe this barnstar should have been awarded a decade ago :) Mar4d (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: When the history is that spectacular, the words to capture it come easily. Thank you very much. I consider this a true honor. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Job done

Incidentally your rollback brought back many grammatical dead-ends so I've got them cleared. Even those not originally added by me. Also restored the major copyedits. This time with explanatory edit summaries. Hope this has cleaned the matter! Thank you! Faizan (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)|}

@Faizan: Thank you very much. Yes, I do understand that there were ordinary grammatical corrections in them, but those of us who from time to time attempt to maintain the page have an easier task when the individual edits add relatively small amounts of text and have summaries which explain the nature of the addition. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sahitya Akademi fellows

Hey. I have created articles for three of the Sahitya Akademi fellows (Arjan Hasid, Kanhu Charan Mohanty, and Ronald E. Asher) and moved them to the mainspace. Feel free to review them at the DYK nom here. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Great. I might not review them, at least for now, as it might be considered conflict of interest. But great news. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing Tips

Dear Fowler&Fowler, I sincerely thank you for correction of my editing. Could you kindly give me tips on how to better my contribution to Wikipedia. I really would like to contribute. PeaceEditor (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Will reply in more detail over the weekend. Meanwhile, please tell me what sorts of topics are you interested in editing? That usually is half the battle. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Herbert Reiner Jr.

On 25 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Reiner Jr., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Reiner Jr.. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Herbert Reiner Jr.), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit

My prime reason for reverting 'South Asia' to 'Greater India' was the fact that the usage of Sanskrit has never historically been confined to South Asia alone. The revised lead paragraph relegates Southeast Asia to an unimportant, ambiguous entity. The entire sentence:...South Asia that also served as a lingua franca there; and in consequence of Hindu and Buddhist cultural transmission, a language that was used in some contexts in neighboring regions of Asia is convoluted and could simply be coalesced into 'Greater India'. If the term is being used in the infobox, I see no reason not to include it in the lead either. If Greater India is 'POV pushing', I'm curious as to why the infobox has retained the term.

Concerning POV pushing, I am unaware as to how Greater India would count as POV-pushing in anyone's book. The term is a product of Western Indology, not of the 'Hindutva', 'Akhand Bharat'-supporting fringe. Greater India is in many ways arguably a fairer term than South Asia; the latter of which was borne as a more neutral, de-Indianised way to refer to the Indian subcontinent. As a general rule of thumb, I find that people refer to anything concerning Indian history as 'Ancient India', not 'Ancient South Asia'. Presentism is POV-pushing. I disagree with the changes, and feel that Greater India would be the more sensible academic term to be used here. Tiger7253 (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: The WP page, Greater India, as you will see in this edit was a dab page, when I edited it last, describing various usages of the expression, "Greater India," all of which, except for one in plate tectonics, were more or less historical. Obviously, people have wreaked mischief on that page by adding scrapings of whatever semi-recent usage they can find to resuscitate on WP an archaic term, once promoted by Bengali intellectuals in the 1920s led by Suniti Kumar Chatterjee. That usage was neither that of Western Indologists nor of Hindu nationalists, but of early Pan-Asian Bengali-Indian nationalists. The resuscitation is done by reinventing Chatterjee et al's usage into the lead with scraps of vague references, but putting him into "Other uses. (It went off my watchlist, and I was wrong about Aditya Kabir; he apparently started editing if after I had stopped.) The term is very seldom used today. Please look at Shelly Pollock's magnum opus on Sanskrit history (Language of Gods in the World of Men), where the term is nowhere used, Pollock preferring "Sanskrit cosmopolis," instead. Look at Burton Stein's History of India, or Kulke and Rothermund's History of India, both widely used texts worldwide, for a perspective on the term. For sure, the term is used in the names of some old academic professorships, such as the Chair of History of Greater India at the College de France, but then old academic chairs have old names, such as the Lucasian Chair of Natural Philosophy at Cambridge, which is in the physics department. I wasn't aware that it was being used in the infobox. I will remove it next. As for convoluted, I was merely paraphrasing as accurately as possible what the cited text was saying. But since we are on the topic of convoluted, please read the current lead of Greater India. Which reader coming to WP to learn about Sanskrit will gain anything useful from it? And why does it say "pre-Islamic," for Islam too went from India to Indonesia and Malaysia? That page sadly has been turned into nonsense. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to fix it, but I can make sure that the garbage in it doesn't travel beyond it, at least not to pages to which I am paying attention. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not that well-versed with Indology and do not have the requisite knowledge to debate your points, but they seem salient, so fair enough. Your points about the connotations behind Greater India and the dubious nature of the term seem to hold water, although I must admit that my prime issue with the lead as it is right now is not so much the exclusion of 'Greater India' as much as it is the sneaky inclusion of 'South Asia' by the user I mentioned. I loathe the term 'South Asia' weeding itself into places where it is not wanted or needed, and then later supplanting well-established terms. The term has great currency as a modern geopolitical term - SAARC and UN, sure - but it is cringeworthy when it is used over the well-established 'Ancient India'. Other similarly cringeworthy examples of presentism involving the term include 'South Asian civilisation' over 'Indian civilisation'; 'South Asian religions' over the 'Indian' or the common used 'Dharmic' moniker, and even more comically, 'South Asian subcontinent'.

The term 'South Asia' has long been held up as a more neutral counter to anything that remotely mentions India by its obvious opponents - and forgive my bluntness - but many of them are British and American historians of Pakistani descent who have long protested about the Indian stamp all over, well, Indian history, which makes absolutely no sense as an argument whatsover. India has become a dirty word, which is POV-pushing of the highest order, and in the interest of fairness, I think there needs to be a middle point between South Asia and Greater India, and to me it is clear that the middle point is 'Ancient India'. Tiger7253 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: :) Well blame the British for splitting their (old) India into Pakistan and (new) India. Had they split it into Pakistan and Hindustan, neither the Pakistanis nor the Hindustanis would have had any issues with Ancient India or medieval India or even modern India (which, naturally, would have ceased to exist at midnight August 14–15 1947). All terms would have been completely clear. I think your irritation is understandable, but the trend in modern humanities and social science is for using "South Asia," and it has little to do with Pakistani academics in the West. As user:Joe Roe, who is an archaeologist, put is somewhere, "South Asia reflects a preference for neutral geographic terms, that don't reference modern nationalities, in contemporary archaeology." That is, more or less, the view point in many other fields as well. It may be true that Pakistani academics are allergic to any term with "Indo-" or "Indian" in it, but it has nothing to do with why most old India-study departments such as at Cambridge, Oxford, Chicago, Columbia, which have many more Indian academics than Pakistnis, have chosen to call themselves "South Asian." If the great late historian Christopher Bayly's book is called Origin of nationality in South Asia it certainly means it has nothing to do with Pakistan because Bayly had done most of his work on the North-Western Provinces. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's clear that most of this academic strife stems from colonialist domination over academia with little care for indigenous Indian input over something that concerns our very existence and identity - something that is just a mere field of study or fascination for the Western Indologists, but something that we live with on a daily basis. I can only hope that Indian Indology grows in scope and in scale to re-establish suzerainty over our own narrative, in order to take down the aspects of Western Indology that are diametrically opposed to 'Indo-' or 'Indian' rearing its head in the field. I don't think geographic extent or even separate nation-states can be used to justify the change in terminology - China at its territorial extent during the Qing Dynasty covered Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, Tuva, a sliver of North Korea, swathes of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and portions of today's Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, but I have yet to see Ancient China being supplanted with 'Ancient East Asia' as a more 'neutral' term for the land and cultures China once held suzerainty over. Neutrality is overrated; tens of thousands of years of history cannot be changed by the events post-47. I hope 'South Asia', invented and propagated by ethnocentric Western scholars utterly incapable of cultural relativism, trapped in the confines of their own nation-state paradigm, remains limited to the Western academic sphere, because as a budding Indian Indologist, I will always be vehemently opposed to that term gaining currency in our own Swadeshi school of Indology. After all, if Indians stop referring to their history as Indian in nature, that would just be tragic. :P Tiger7253 (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: What does this have to do with indigenous Indian input? It has to do with where the best scholars are. The most reliable scholars of Sanskrit are not necessarily in India. Indians weren't the ones who saw the connection of Sanskrit with Indo-European languages, Indians weren't the ones who deciphered the Brahmi script. In order to properly interpret Vedic Sanskrit, one needs also to know comparative historial linguists, in order to interpret the meaning of a word by comparing the meaning of its cognate in a contemporaneous IE language such as Avestan, Mitanni-Aryan, or Tocharian, etc. as a scholar such as Michael Witzel very likely does. The pundits of Benares, or the Indian politicians who go around promoting Sanskrit, generally do not know about these things, though the pundits are experts in other aspects of the language. After all "India" itself is an English language word, descended from Greek. Why would true indigenous scholars want to use "India" or even "Hindu" (gifted by the Persians). They should be demanding Bharata and Sanatana Dharma. I think you might be underestimating the amount of work and the level of scholarship in the West that has gone into these fields. The much despised Wendy Doniger, for example, knows Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, at a high level of functioning. Anyway, all the best in your endeavors. Best regard, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I just thanked you for your recent edit on Kashmir. It's good to see fellow Wiki editors standing up against the erasure of the Indian subcontinent by certain people with a certain agenda. Cheers Tiger7253 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not that I was standing up against the removal of "Indian subcontinent," it was rather than in geophysics and physical geography the term is still used, and in fact, at at the present time, preferred to "South Asia." In other contexts, and other fields, such as archaeology or the social sciences, the preference is for South Asia, as you will see in the RfC. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

British Raj

Hi f&f. I reverted this as a fringe viewpoint. FYI, in case your input is required. --regentspark (comment) 13:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Jana Gana Mana

Hey, on the Jana Gana Mana page an IP user made some edits, which remove the Hindi information. Please revert.2.51.20.209 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Ok, now why did you revert my edit ? I just improved the info box by adding India flag and duration. 2.51.20.209 (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place for posts about improving a specific Wikipedia article. Please post on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Long time

no talk mr Fowler, hope all is well :) I know of Lingzhi with about 10 years, and will vouch for his good intentions and integrity. Its always hard when people you like bang heads, but it happens, the joys of the internet, eh. There is no right or wrong in such situations, but see you are mending fences, thank you. Its a very substantial subject, it would be just great to have you onside; the rewrite was a huge undertaking; am glad your approach is lets help out from here. Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Long time since we worked on the Lucy stuff, or more accurately you guys wrote it and I hovered around. Now I'm not even sure it was Lucy, but I do remember fishing out my 1864 copy of the Golden Treasury for it. Where is everyone now? Glad to see you are around! Yes, Lingzhi has put in a stalwart effort and has my admiration. I became a little frustrated, but it is nothing that the passage of a day or two won't fix. See you around, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Frustration seems to be daily bread on wiki, its our curse; pride or whatever the hell. I have watched Ling build up the article over the last year and a half, and am frankly delighted to see you hovering around; you have a lot to offer here. Just be nice! Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL

The comment here. This doesn't seem rather civil to me, and given WP:DEADLINE, and that give nthat you're completely dismissing my points, including a very important one in response to your longest comment under 'Discussion'. The RfC has not nearly run for its due course, and there are still many issues to iron out even if we go with the majority vote. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually address legitimate concerns instead of dismissing them poetically. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 20:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your marvelous scrutiny of List of Param Vir Chakra recipients and its parent article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thank you, a very pleasant surprise! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging of PVC recipients page

Thanks for raising the concerns about the PVC recipients list page, and contributing in keeping the standards of Wikipedia up. So I would like to put forward the steps to merge. As enough content is available in Recipients section of PVC article, I will just copy-paste the list into this section, and blank the former list page, and place a redirect to this section. Is this fine, or would you like to suggest anything else? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Sounds good to me. Thanks for doing this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Please have a look if everything is fine. Apart from this, will the PVC article be a potentially eligible for a FLC or FAC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC, no. Not enough meat in it. Not many reliable sources. Same as with Bharat Ratna. FLC, probably. Let me think about how best that should be done. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Will hopefully wait for your reply. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Largest city

When we place largest city field in infobox, which criteria is considered like population or area?--Vin09 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Population, I think. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

I reinstated my message in this edit of mine, [1] with quite a few quoted lines that directly serve as a reply to the user 'MBlaze Lightning' there. It was only meant for giving a reply, after following your suggestion from your edit summary. Not to offend you, or anything as such. Hope you understand. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is still on the long side (per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text), especially the second one. On or two lines are fine, at most three. ... But I can only lead you to water. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

British Raj

Its been a decade or so since the last formal requested move. If the issue ever comes to another WP:RM please let me know as I very infrequently pass this way and might miss it. If ever you need administrative help with things like fixing redirects etc also let me know. It was an edit to a redirect on my watch list that brought me here, but as I watch thousands of such pages I might miss such edits due to noise). -- PBS (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Great to hear from you! Yes will do if there is significant upheaval on that page or if I need help. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Please show me where a FORK discussion or any other sort of discussion means that edits may not be performed on an article. I am not aware of this issue. I regularly participate in AfD and often the best way to show that there are references for a topic is to improve the article. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian langauage character-set

Hi,
Does WP:INDICSCRIPT mean that articles should not contain names of Indian cities and towns in any language other than English? I recently saw a  regarding that in an infobox. I am a little confused regarding the meaning of WP:INDICSCRIPT. Kindly ping me when you reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Indic scripts refer informally to all scripts used in India with the exception of Indian English's Roman alphabet. The link WP:INDICSCRIPT says that these scripts cannot be used in the lead or the infobox in India-related articles, or rather all articles whose main associated project is WP:INDIA. Thus the city Haridwar, which has the Devanagari in the Infobox is violating the consensus, and its infobox will need to be fixed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am aware what IPA is, but still confused about other character-sets lol. Would you please put it in simple words? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The WP:INDICSCRIPT link was not working. I've fixed it. I've also fixed the infobox in Haridwar, so you an see what it means in practice. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Indic scripts refer to all the Indian language alphabets, i.e. Devanagari, Nastaliq, Tamil alphabet, Gurumukhi, Malayalam alphabet, Kannada alphabet, Bengali alphabet, etc. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious

British India

Thank you for quality articles such as Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), for historic maps of India from your personal collection, for removing POV from the start, for images, and for relying on good faith, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much. A pleasant surprise indeed! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Cites, Ucucha

Many of the cites are formatted incorrectly. Don't worry about it, I'll fix them another day. Ucucha's Harv error script is extremely helpful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Oh. Until you clarified, I thought Uccha was an interjection. What is a link to that error script? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there are a couple different versions: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's the one I use. Very handy. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mahatma_Gandhi#Criticism

Could you take a look at this? It was added late last year and we should make sure it is properly referenced and contextualized. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Yes, I just took a look. The sources seem fine. There are more recent ones though: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/ghana-academics-petition-removal-mahatma-gandhi-statue-african-heroes (apparently that statue has been relocated). Whether it constitutes "Criticism," or merely "protest by scholars" I can't say. There is more scholarly criticism of Gandhi's early-career racism, or, "early career prejudice," in David Arnold's recent biography, Gandhi and quite a few other places. Whether it is DUE, I also can't say. For not just Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, but also Malcolm X were admirers of Gandhi (though Malcolm did't care much for nonviolence). As you probably know, there is a statue of Gandhi in early career barrister's robes in Joburg's Gandhi Square, a plaque at the railway station in Pietermaritzburg proclaiming that his fight against racial oppression began there, which as inaugurated by Mandela in 1993, and a statue in downtown PMB inaugurated by Desmond Tutu the same year, and I'm sure a few in Durban and even more in Natal. None have been removed. Anyway, I'll fix it sometime soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Famine

I want to reboot things here. We have worked together in the past in (to put it nicely) difficult circumstances, plus regentspark is vouching and I have always taken him at his word. My last round of copy-edits were imperfect sure, but not intended to change meaning; they were for flow and what have you, *only*. Ling is a somebody I've been around for 10 years, and whom I consider *very* solid and who is very well respected. We all need to establish a better way forward. My intemperament remarks were from frustration, rather than observation, and for that I apologise. But, this is a two way street, and I would just love if you could form a working relationship with Ling. Ceoil (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thanks for your sensitive note. Not everyone can write one, so I do mean the thank you. I too hope Lingzhi and I will establish that working relationship. I too trust RegentsPark. He is one of the wisest, most unflustered and neutral, Wikipedians around. Lingzhi has done stalwart work in finding and using most of the sources there are on this much-written topic. He has attempted to stay scholarly, to avoid using emotional language or to bringing a manifestly pre-existing POV to the writing. What is my work here? It is to correct for a few kinds of errors I see in the text: (a) some sources are paraphrased incorrectly, ie the authors are saying one thing and the text another, (b) some authors have been cited out of context, i.e. the authors are making a comment in one context, as an aspect of making one point, and the text is citing them in another context, as an aspect of making a different point. (c) some cited authors are themselves making errors (a) and (b) (this can happen, for example, in the more popular non-academic books, sometimes even in trade paperbacks published by academic publishers). I don't mean that these errors are unique to Lingzhi's text. We all make the errors, especially when we use a large number of sources. I'm not worrying about issues of DUE for now, but about more elementary things. There is no other way of integrating what Lingzhi has done into a more reliable text. But this will take time. This sort of work can be difficult, even enervating, when the issues are encountered in too many sentences, or when their unraveling, even within a single sentence, is complicated. So, just as Lingzhi has to be patient with my progress, I have to keep my calm, accommodate his source within a better sentence, and keep moving. I am trying not to get into too many talk page debates, with too much finger pointing. I am essentially taking yours and RegentsPark's advice to fix it rather than talk about it. I am aware though that Lingzhi has done stalwart work in assembling all the reliable sources, in creating a framework and a narrative, which may have its issues, but is quite comprehensive. I'm not dismissing AidWorker either. He may have some valid points, but they are more of slant and perspective, which we'll deal with later. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your not taking my advice at all, which anyway was after the fact. To be clear I am urging you to desist from character assassination and an overall smugness which seems to be throwing all this araw. From my POV, valid points are being lost in the delivery. This might be something regentspark could comment on. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fowler, Ceoil is right. Pointing out what you think are systematic errors in Lingzhi's work is not productive and will not help us move forward with the article or help build a productive relationship with Lingzhi. Focus on individual changes to the article moving forward not on what you think about how we got here. The reality is that Lingzhi has done a lot of work on the article and anyone looking at the pre-Lingzhi version versus the current version, starting with perhaps the very first para, will see a far better article. Nothing you do with the article going forward would be possible without that effort, nor will the article get to featured status with Lingzhi's help, and that's what you need to focus on.--regentspark (comment) 14:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies to you both and to Lingzhi. I didn't think I was engaging in character assassination, only commenting on the work, but perhaps, I need to be doubly sensitive here. Thanks again, and apologies to all. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

F&F you are kidding nobody with "doubly sensitive". Respect goes in two ways, and all this insincere "Thanks again" nonsense is just exasperating the situation. Plain talking please, or GTF. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't being insincere. What is GTF? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A wonderful example of your willful obtuseness. Heard of Google. Ceoil (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving back to an earlier comment you made, you seem to constitute a minority of one who believes that including AidWorker's contributions has a snowball's chance in hell of being either constructive or NPOV. The previous version of the article – the one I replaced – may have been one of the most needle-to-the-redline cases of POV then extant on Wikipedia (aside from various religious figures and South or Central American dictators). It stood not because of a dedicated gang of POV guardians, but because no one took the time to research the issues. Bringing AW back would just be putting the POV worker back on task. Why? I ask you, why? No answer needed because no answer satisfactory. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Burma refugee section: more details but far hazier picture

I'm sure you'll say I should post on the article's talk, but I don't wanna interrupt AidWorker's POV blast. [At some point in the future I would be interested in seeing if you agree or disagree, point by point, with AW's many opinions. That would be very interesting.]

I printed out one section (Burma refugees) and compared my userspace to your current. Yes, yours has many more details. It should have more details; it almost precisely three times as long (621 versus 1859 words).

But.. the cumulative effect... is that although the info I had and what you have is mostly the same (you did delete one of my points, which I will research), in yours the key points and (more importantly!) the link between those points and the actual famine are quite lost in a sea of details.

Summarization is not WP:OR.
Please try to explicitly draw links between key points and the famine. Make it easy for the reader to draw connections. Better yet, draw connections for them.
I know you said you're gonna trim, and I know I have harped on this already, but try to focus on Bengal and the famine when you do so. Bengal Bengal Bengal, famine famine famine. As I mentioned earlier, forex, the Cripps mission stuff can be a sentence or even just a phrase or clause. You can also move a lot of the "exodus from Burma" info to the Burma campaign article, where it will be summarily deleted by the article's WP:OWNer.

Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have deliberately not yet drawn any independent conclusions in the three sections I have edited, only presented the details in context, i.e. details of your evidence, your inferences, and your warrants in their respective source-contexts. Consequently, it may appear that all I have done is expanded the details, but drawn the same conclusions, and—as the inferences can't be expanded as much as the evidence—that the points are lost in a sea of details. As I have already stated, I will reduce, greatly reduce. I have little interest in the Burma exodus except as a proximate cause of the famine. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What you just said seems to leave open the door to the possibility that you will draw new inferences and new conclusions. Is that correct?

Please also note the vast, gaping chasm between AW's story regarding inflation and... the account offered by everyone on earth not named AW (with the possible exception of ...Bowbrick). Inflation is one locus of POV here; I am very keen to see if you preserve its central role or soften it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It might appear that I'm being deliberately tight lipped, or playing my cards too close to the vest, but, really, I can't draw any conclusions, until I have seen the evidence and examined the warrants. That is what I am in the process of doing. I think you might be worrying too much about AW. I haven't read his latest post. I'm now traveling, in fact now, at pretty much the other end of the world, jet lagged, and attempting to keep my head clear, in light of all the other responsibilities and distractions, to attend to this article. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I should be back working on BFo1943 sometime later today. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

India#Culture

Hello again friend. I've been inching close to a break for a long time while trying to complete what I proposed at Talk:India#Culture section restore. Fast forward to today, I've done 95% of the job in my sandbox, but my break is imminent so I hate to leave this almost finished. Take a look at User:Ugog Nizdast/sandbox. All is left of me is to copy this safely to the main page and put my report on it at the talk for you and the rest to inspect. There's quite of number of issues I've unearthed which may be of interest for future. Copying may sound like an easy and straightforward job, but I emphasise the word "safely" (the biblio section has changed, the inline refs, image rotation should all work etc).

There's shouldn't be any problem per se, I've checked it quite a few times. Quickly add that this ready draft shouldn't have anything controversial, I merely tried to restore it to that version, keeping all the minor, essential changes that happened afterward. Anything doubtful or pending, it's highlighted in my soon to be added report. Let me know If you're up for this (not that active as well?) or have questions about my draft. Best wishes, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ugog, Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I think it might be better to discuss all the issues above on Talk:India. Also, I'm personally uncomfortable about copying something to the main page from a sandbox. It is probably better to copy it to Talk:India (in collapsed form) and discuss it there first. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Bengalis article

Hi could you please develop Bengalis article, already discussion took place in the talk page of the article. You're help is certainly required, the article development has been pending for too long.Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 17 Milhist article reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 2 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

@AustralianRupert: I just realized this is an award, and not a news item! A pleasant surprise indeed. Thank you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sitush's concern with the edit warring

Per Sitush:

No opinion regarding who is right or wrong but is there any chance you and the other can discuss this stuff rather than keep adding and removing? I am getting a lot of pings related to linked articles that, presumably, I created. The little blue thing at the top of the screen is driving me daft. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Let us discuss each source you are removing and the sourced content, one by one. Let us avoid the edit war. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Let us first discuss the sources you are attempting to add on the article's talk page, especially after I showed source misinterpretation, in a detailed section (see here, which Vanamonde, has acknowledged in this post 10 July 2017, which says, "Let me point out in passing, though, that while Fowler has uncovered some problems with source interpretation, they are at the level of the description and nature of cattle theft, not it's existence or its notability as a topic. So I'd recommend we focus on improvements within the scope of this particular article." When you discuss problem edits such as yours, you don't keep adding them to the article. Please discuss them on the talk page first. Those edits will need to be removed from the article. They are issues of source misinterpretation. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PS In case, you have not understood this, I am not debating here the notability or existence of the topic, only what Vanamonde has called "problems with source interpretation" which are "at the level of description and nature of cattle theft." When an article has such content, it is best that the editor who is adding it not continue to add more. That is why I am requesting that the proposed additions be discussed on in bite-sized bits on the talk page first, so that I can check it for source misinterpretation. If you will continue to disregard my request, you will created a disputed article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

heads up

I hope you had a nice trip... I seem to have recharged my batteries as well...

I see you've been working on various India-related articles.. In a few days I will tear into BF43. It is going to PR (where no one will be able to do anything with it, but you have forced me to send it there) and it is going to FAC again. I do hope you and various of you colleagues will not derail this again.

I might ask you to scan some book pages into pdfs to confirm some of your statements. We'll see how it develops.

Cheers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I am traveling, as I've said before. I'm not back home yet. Check my editing times. I said on the talk page of the article that I'd be away for some time. I've laid off editing BFo43, for now, only because I don't have my sources. The India articles are easy to edit because they don't require specialized sources, I can grab stuff off the internet. I had said the revision will take a few months. It started in early May. Please don't push the agreed-to schedule. I've asked my wife to give a number of books and papers to someone who is traveling from the US to India, where I currently am. They should arrive over the weekend. I will then return to editing BFo43 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't agree to a period of several months; you unilaterally pushed that schedule. The article will be done when it's done, and there is no reason why that should be "months" from now... but I did in fact post this thinking you had returned... I can ease up/slow down on my mental calendar a little for that reason... but the article will be moving forward fairly soon. Your last edit to the article itself was over a month ago; I am ready to resume editing, with you or by myself, in a few days... I will add some things I mentioned on the talk page that need to be added... Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is not a question of your agreeing. It was what the consensus was at FAC. I left the US in early June. My edits reflect that. The revision will take time because of the major problem of your citing multiple sources, sometimes five or six, for one statement, and the consequent work required to separate the individual threads of attribution and to then identify any source misrepresentation, which occurs aplenty. This I believe is a major issue in the article. When I set out to work on the article, I had no idea it would be such a pervasive issue. It will be resolved, but it will take time. No PR reviewer will be able to do this. I am happy to work with you though. Not looking to derail anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  - Meanwhile I've asked a local historian to get the microfilm of Statesman, August 22, 1943 from the Nehru Memorial Library. Your post reminds me that I should prod them a little more. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  - I see things quite differently on every detail of what you just said, including "consensus" and "pervasive" and even "issues". The corrections, if you could call them that, that you have made have been few and minor; your main contribution is large swaths of irrelevant text... So... deadline for FAC entry... September 1st should do. I'll look at my calendar; may adjust slightly. Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made those corrections. Merely explicated the individual threads in a few instances so that I can identify them in their relative contexts. That accounts for the article expansion, a stop-gap, before I can make an accurate precis. Again, it will all depend on what else I uncover. There is no deadline as long as there are issues. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

September 1st, or thereabouts. Be there or be square. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I do see that you are entangled in a series of debates. I won't return to engage too many times...
Try to see things from my perspective. I spent an entire year of my life on BF43. An. Entire. Year. I did it not for you and not for me but because the public deserves to know. The Public. Deserves. To. Know. The article (before you added fluff) was awesome... certainly at the very least, in comparison with the unmitigated shit that proceeded it.
I put it in MILHIST A and you took a huge steaming shit on it there; I put it in FAC and you took a huge steaming shit on it there. So far, three months later, your edits have added zero discernible value to the text (I am not being bitter or pissy when I say that; it's objectively true), and the "terrible issues" you claim to be uncovering are nearly nil.
From my perspective, undeniably, your participation could be summed as follows: 1) obstruction of truly extreme proportions, 2) a tangle of excelsior text, 3) unsupported claims of vast problems.
Where's there's smoke there's fire, or at the very least it's very hard not to assume so. Aside from your early (and massively POV!) assertion that the British war effort was only marginally related to the famine (POV, POV, hard core POV), you haven't made glaring POV moves... but your edits do seems to obfuscate rather than add clarity... so smoke... fire... or hard not to see it otherwise.
Now YOU have appointed YOURSELF as the sole arbiter of when the article is ready to go to FAC! Your qualifications for doing so are described above.
That's my perspective. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia Newton's Law of Acclamation which says that if an editor edits something outside of Wikipedia, they can add it to Wikipedia in one edit and receive respect which is directly proportion to the time they spend outside and inversely to the square of the rigor they show in writing it. Just because I am not editing the Bengal Famine of 1943 article actively, doesn't mean I am not reading the sources, and taking notes. However, I have given up on simply improving the article by keeping your exact sentence-by-sentence plan. That is too time consuming. It is clear that you have used primary sources such as the Famine Commission Report in pretty much every other sentence of the article. It is clear that you have combined multiple sources, often widely outside their contexts, often misinterpreting the individual sources themselves, to craft a sentence which is SYNTHESIS of high order. I am trying to help you by spending an inordinate amount of time understanding each source, each page of each source, so as to untangle their attribution and craft an accurate summary. I could be complaining too: The sources themselves are a delight to read. The transformation you have wrought in summarizing them is depressing, giving me daily headaches. Besides, I had to ask many people, before I found one who was willing to carry my books from the US to India. They arrived Tuesday morning. I started editing the text on 7 May and stopped on 8 June when I began my travels about which I had already intimated you. I am working on the article again, but with a different approach after I had an extended conversation with a professor of economic history at Delhi University. Again, I cannot agree to a 1 September deadline. Writing abusive letters here will not help. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE. - Sitush (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

- - meh, screw the deadline (see third and fourth comments below).
  - Every use of the Commission report is easily verifiable in a reliable secondary source, and in fact usually is thus verified... which is a major cause of the multiple citations per assertion that you have been moaning and pissing about... and if you're gonna piss and moan about use of Commission report, you have to show that I am giving my own interpretation in an unsupported manner... primary sources are NOT "see it, delete it".... And besides again, that's almost certainly the only major source that is arguably primary... Everything you've said about synthesis is just "I am the only competent one here, your writing is shit, it gives me headaches, you suck" obfuscation and talk-talk.
  - I do need to see this Famine article through to the end, to hopefully (hopefully, hoping against hope! unlikely though) prevent pro-British obfuscation and POV... but after that I am very out of here... You have made it painfully obvious that Wikipedia is a waste of everyone's time (well, everyone except POV warriors).
  - Email me when you're done fixing my headache-inducing, fourth-grade level "what I did over summer vacation" scribbles with an article that is at least marginally worthy of your attention. I'll be reading "Dick and Jane" or Dr. Seuss somewhere or other. I'm unwatching that page. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)