This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fowler&fowler. 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.
The article banner says it quite clearly while making an edit; I doubt that repeated violations of 1RR by regular editors of the article (arguably the most frequent editor) have been excused prior on claims of ignorance, I doubt they would help now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Of my 210 edits in the article, only 29 have been made since 17 April 2020 when the lead took its present form. Of these 22 were reverts made during the last 18 months, in which no warning appears about 1RR. The remaining nine had been made earlier. I was honestly unaware that a 1RR restriction was in place. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@DestinyPegasus: I just noticed your very pastel signature. I think there might be some guidelines in place about signatures being readable by the sight impaired, e.g. the color blind, that you might want to honor. I don't know know what they are but I'm pinging a very knowledgeable admin who would surely know. @Titodutta:Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) See the policy WP:SIGAPP: "As some users have vision problems, be conscious of color and contrast issues. If you use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities.". I also am unable to read the signature as is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Very good! It is not for me to insist, but for us to be considerate to the viewing comfort of everyone. It doesn't matter to me, but it probably does to those who have visual impairment. Use your best judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Though technically no policy bar us to use Naipul as source, just for establishing caste of a person (Naipul quotes from the autobiography of Jagan itself), i can understand your feelings associated with this page. You have created that article and i know its difficult for us to see our articles getting deteriorated. So, cheers, I won't add anything anymore. One thing, i have gone through some of your articles and i appreciate the way you have created them. I want to know, do you have British era images of other caste groups, like you have added on Kurmi and Jat. Admantine123 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. The ethnology pictures are not mine, i.e. not privately owned by me. They were taken from old books, available on the web.
The article indian mathematics was constantly vandalised by users by adding false information.
User narayan ventakeshwar iyenger and Arjun Kumar Singh is constantly adding that unsourced reference that you have removed.It is doubt that they were of the same user. Leveinhockerkerala (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 58
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023
Hello Fowler&Fowler,
I'm passionate about improving South Asian articles. Your contributions, especially with India, have impressed me. The article on Pakistan seems to be a mess - do you want to take a stab at it? Your expertise would be invaluable.
Please let me know if you're interested.
Best regards, Wrythemann (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for posting. As the top of my user page says, I have some other projects that I need to move to the front burner.
Wiki Project Pakistan editors have asked me the same question over the years (probably because I wrote History of Pakistan long ago and some pages on IVC- and neolithic sites in Pakistan), but, sadly, I'm flat out of time now.
Hey,
I'm sorry for the inadequate summary. I was using a user script called Auto Formatter for MOS formatting and the automated summary was "General formatting" piped to MOS. That caused the confusion. It was all just blank space deletions, ref name fixing and general trims. Just standard MOS beautification. Should've mentioned it in the summary. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Please leave a note on the various talk pages. I'm worried that in at least one, you've taken away the credit given to the primary author of a chapter in an edited book and distributed it among the editors. I might be incorrect in that suspicioun, but please explain that bit on the talk pages. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Will you also remove all the fringe studies by kak and others claiming indigenous origin as well? As none of those are mentioned in the "introductory texts" from the 90s either? Should there not be some consistency to what is removed or not? Metta79 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Please take to the article's talk page and tell us what you have been attempting to do. Please do so systematically. The WP:ONUS as I explained is yours. It is WP policy. Such major revisions simply cannot be made in longstanding articles in run throughs with casual edit summaries. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I admit I was wrong too since the guideline says ISO 15919 and not IAST, but I was only wrong on one alphabet. So the correct transliteration would be neither of ours; it would be Javāharalāla Nēharū (note the ē).
The reason behind the Indic scripts by Wikipedia's guidelines is not because of the language of origin, but rather the country. The guideline is only for Indian names to avoid bias towards any script, and not due to technical reasons (for example, Nepali names are written in Devanagari and Bangladeshi names in Bengali because they are the only official scripts of their countries). So it doesn't matter whether Nehar is from an Arabic, Persian or Urdu origin. Jawaharlal Nehru was an Indian so it's gonna follow the guideline nonetheless. I don't make the rules, it is just how it is. You could have both if you want, as long as it doesn't look complicated.
PS. You asked why Noam Chomsky or Azerbaijan can have respell but Jawaharlal Nehru can't. I looked up both and found no respell on either of their articles. Not related to the topic, just putting that out. Pur 0 0 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
You apparently couldn't see what is grammatically wrong with "he along with Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi and other leaders were arrested and put behind bars". "He" is the subject of the sentence; "he" is singular. The verb must match the subject. If you leave the sentence as it is, you have to change "were" to "was". Alternatively, you change the wording to make "He, Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi and other leaders" the subject of the sentence. So I'll be re-doing the correction I just made. Deb (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
(Talk page watcher) Sorry Deb, but you are wrong in this instance. "He" is not the subject. The actual subject of the verb is "he along with Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi and other leaders" so a plural verb is required. Try asking "who or what were arrested" and you'll see that it must be Bose, Ajazi and others. There's also another problem; phrasing it as "he, Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi, and other leaders" is at best ambiguous. It would appear to be a parenthetical phrase: "he (Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi) and other leaders" which is wrong, "he" is Bose not Ajazi. I'm sorry, but I shall be correcting the error back to the original. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Martin of Sheffield - but I have already fixed the problem - and uncovered a more serious problem (that the source only supports that Ajazi was arrested on the march).-- Toddy1(talk)14:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I saw when I tried to rollback Deb's changes. You were working on the article whilst I was working on the talk page. The article is clearer now. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all and apologies to all!
I made that first edit on my phone soon after waking up this morning. In other words, I was still semi-comatose.
As for the article, unfortunately, I had got only as far as the previous paragraph. I can tell by the sources used. (I did add the Nirad Chaudhuri quote, though, his satirical skills in full form. Unfortunately, that sort of Standard Indian English is hard to find in Indian writing any more. As I've said before, Sidney Greenbaum had once expressed the hope that Indian English might become a regional variety, if not in the manner of Canadian and Australian English, at least in that of Caribbean English—hopefully codified in grammars and dictionaries. Unfortunately, the internet killed that idea.) Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
PS The paragraph also says that Bose became the CEO of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in 1924. I had always thought CEO was an Americanism. But the OED places its birth in Australia:
Chief executive officer, the highest-ranking executive of a corporation or other institution.
1914: Of course I am the chief executive officer but I only execute by instructions... ‘Then all our beautiful shrubs are to be spoilt,’ sobbed the telephoner. ‘Not at all, my dear young lady,’ the C.E.O.'s voice was tear laden too. Independent (Footscray, Australia) 7 November
The sub section of calculus in the section of mathematics is given as
In computing the instantaneous motion of a planet, the time interval between successive positions of the planets was no greater than a truti, or a 1⁄33750 of a second, and his measure of velocity was expressed in this infinitesimal unit of time.
But no reference is given to support it.
In that same sub section it is given as
He also showed that when a planet is at its farthest from the earth, or at its closest, the equation of the centre (measure of how far a planet is from the position in which it is predicted to be, by assuming it is to move uniformly) vanishes. He therefore concluded that for some intermediate position the differential of the equation of the centre is equal to zero
I don't think your reversion of my edits was justified.
" 09:20, 20 October 2023 Fowler&fowler talk contribs 287,227 bytes −29 Restored revision 1180953964 by Codegeass123 (talk): Polar opposite: You are not the first one who has attempted to play Gotcha with the lead sentences in vital WP articles. Take your concerns to talk. Please also read WP:Lead fixation updated since your last visit undothank Tags: Twinkle Undo"
As requested, I am bringing my concerns to your talk page.
Would you mind explaining what I did wrong? I do not understand what you mean by "attempted to play Gotcha". I read WP:Lead fixation, but I do not see how it is relevant to your reversion of my edit. Could you explain how it is relevant? Polar Apposite (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi! So while reviewing my watchlist I noticed a discussion from July at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan about a map issue on Commons.
So I was curious and was wondering the issue ever raised with the offending user in an effective manner?
I see that the user maintains a centralized talk at Wiktionary. Looking through the diffs of that time period I see nothing related (with the exception of an uncivil message by someone else that appears to be about a general warning about behavior on Wiktionary itself).
Thanks. I have just woken up. I need some caffeine in my blood and brain before I can think. The beans have been ground and the concoction is dripping in the coffeemaker. I will take a look when I'm restored.
Yeah. That page is a content fork, maybe even a POV-fork. It should be AFD'd in my view, but it won't happen now. It has been around for too long. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The Kram (surnames) section, for example, is OR. The entire section should be removed. It seems to be full of Kashmiri Pandit POV, bordering on fantasy. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 59
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hey there just dropped by to express my thanks for all the hard work you have put in for over a decade into the South Asian topic area you have been the only editor (seriously you are the only one) who has tried to keep a semblance of neutrality in an ocean of pro Indian and Hindutva propagandists its hard and many do not even bother as they dont want the harassment and stress when fighting over a billion brainwashed keyboard warriors from India but you stuck it out and made some great changes and contributions on various articles this new saga of Indians trying to turn every war into a victory (Indo-Pak 1947 war point in case) for India will never end they are just too many of them and they coordinate behind the scenes with edits using multiple accounts and editors backing each other everyone admin/editor knows this but again they dont want to entangle themselves in the toxic Hindu nationalist cyber wars which are so common now on Wikipedia.
You stated Wikipedia has become a joke its far worse than that its misinformation hotspot now and when it finally does lose its remaining credibility and is thrown into the garbage where it belongs you are one of the few editors that can hold there head up high and say they you used it not for propaganda or historical revisionism but for good. I wish you all the best Fowler Wikipedia does not deserve you let it rot and fester as a propaganda tool for these low lifes of the BJP/Hindutva gang take care farewell. Mrdabalina (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
Hi there. I understand that you edited the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 page to restate a UN-mandated ceasefire but then undid such to show an "inkling of Indian-nationalist bias", and I understand your frustration. However, despite the mass bias shown across this encyclopedia, its best you undo this self-reversion and restore it to the scholarly consensus. Thanks. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
If the page gets reverted again, it will come to that for others to deal and you won't need to worry about it, and that will shown the "inkling" of bias as you stated beforehand, however undoing your self-reversion will at least maintain the scholarly consensus for the time being. Thanks. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
After seeing your trials and tribulation of resolving the "flag issue" that has been going on for years, I thought it was time to create an FAQ section to end the nonsense. But can I copy what you said for my draft: Briefly, the Raj was an empire a loose-knit federation of areas that were administered by the British (called British India) and over 500 princely states which flew their own flags, and which were at best only indirectly ruled.The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage)01:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler wanted an opinion here a Indian user has come with the Indian express newspaper as a legitimate source to remove long standing lead section regarding Indias false claims on shooting down an f-16 non consensus at all and the reasoning as expected is just as weak based on conspiracy theories. Mrdabalina (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Fowler&fowler, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Some of them was moved to Commons earlier with a bad license. So I transferred them again so now they should have a good license. If you agree you can remove the {{Keep local}}.
Hello there. PotatoCyborg seems to be adding content that reads like a news article. I had reverted, but they seem to keep reverting back the content rather than addressing the issue. I am not very active, so please intervene on this issue. — LeoFrank Talk15:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey,
Can I export a part of this map of India to Wikimedia Commons? I'm writing an article on the history of Rohilkhand, and couldn't find any other map showing Rohilkhand along with Oudh state and other neighbor states in clear detail. SO I plan to crop it in part and upload to WikiMedia Commons.
Hello, I noticed your changes to the information I provided on Stanley Henry Prater - sorry I am not very familiar with how wiki works.
Stanley was my grandfather, his youngest daughter Gwynneth is my mother. I have gained most of my information from my mother and grandmother and various documents they have passed to me. I am pretty positive about Stanley's heritage from the DNA of both myself and my mother. Happy to pass on any information required AlisonBPS (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I am about to put Hensley Henson up for FAC, but as I have my right arm in plaster after an operation last week I am waiting till I have the use of both hands again. Meanwhile, if you have time and inclination to look in - now or when I get to FAC - it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk19:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you. Here's wishing you a quick recovery from your arm surgery.
As for Henson, the biography of anyone who is buried in the cathedral in which Creighton attended Sunday service as a boy should be of interest to me. I have been away from WP for nearly a year, so it may take me a few days to ramp up, get the old neurons sparking, but I will get there. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Raladic: I must thank you for your very timely intervention. As ideas galore were popping into my head, I got carried away, not so much in pushing a POV, but teasing some clarity here and there ... and soon enough everywhere. I have reduced my footprint. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
No worries, happens to all of us when we get carried away and sometimes it takes a third eye to spot it :) Happy editing. Raladic (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
August 2024
Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version.
You have violated enforced BRD on a CTOP. You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. Further, you have made an edit that is currently under discussion in an RfC. This is a sanctionable action. I suggest you self-revert before someone else notices.[1]O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
You have to offer a transparent and cogent reason for reverting. You did nothing of the sort. You cannot just revert a statement that has the support of three scholarly sources, one of which is Yolanda T. Moses, the former president of the American Anthropological Association. I will be happy to discuss it, but my edit will remain in place until you have offered a reason for your revert in an edit summary that is a little more than, "Is there a scintilla of doubt?" You are welcome to take me to ANI before I join the discussion if you'd like, but beware of the boomerang. I have cited to the scholarly sources, Wikipedia's "most reliable." Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
F&F, while yes, having sources is good, that doesn't revert-proof an edit. In a CTOP area that is under a 1RR (which Kamala Harris is under) ... when you are reverted for any reason you need to discuss on the talk page. Not add the information back in and invite boomerangs, because this is clear-cut and you can be sanctioned for it. If I saw this brought up at WP:Arbitration Enforcement, I'd have to support a sanction, so for your own best interests, self-revert. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I added a sentence, "Kamala Harris self-identifies as a Black woman of ..." in this edit which was cited to a scholarly source, using "self identifies" as well.
O3000 changed "self-identifies as" to "is" in this edit with edit summary, "Is there a scintilla of doubt?"
I then reverted their edit and added two more scholarly sources for KH's "self identification," both using that expression.
Question: Is O3000's edit a revert? They seem to think it is, but they have put their own spin on something I had added; they hadn't removed my edit. After I self-reverted, what is in place there now is their edit for which I did all the hard work.
Kamala Harris is Black and Asian-Indian. The sourcing for this is huge. When the words "self identifies as" are used before this, the text will appear to many readers to say that she is just claiming to be such, and may not really be -- as that is exactly what her opponent is doing at this moment, claiming she just suddenly decided to be Black, contrary to her life story. But that is not why I edited it. I edited it because, as you well know, there is an active RfC on the very subject of how to refer to her race/ethnicity. You made the change before RfC close. Now, perhaps I should have reverted your entire addition. I decided not to remove all of it without discussion, as per BRD. You can if you wish. As for your "scholarly sources", they clearly appear cherry-picked and your addition of such sources in the RfC discussion has drawn little or no interest as we are talking about the bio of a living person who's life may be changed dramatically in the near future. But that discussion belongs in the RfC. Patience will out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The important bits of policy are at Wikipedia:Edit warring at WP:1RR where a 1RR is defined as "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"." so we look up at the 3RR section which states a revert is "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part." so... given that definition above ... sure looks like a revert to me. It's the "in part" bit that gets folks a lot. Reverting isn't just "hitting undo" it's a lot more complicated. And, no, admins won't weigh in on the content dispute going on, so I have no clue who is "right" in this situation. I will say that trying to change the information while an RFC is ongoing about that same information is not a good look and should not be done in CTOP areas, whether or not there are sources behind an edit. That attempt would not have helped your case if this had gone to WP:AE. More talk page discussion without personalizing it is your best course of action here. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to make inappropriate or abusive edit summaries or comments, you may be blocked from editing. What on Earth were you thinking when you put Reply to facile attempt to ensnare me in your edit summary? This is a wild accusation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Reminder
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Latest AP notice appears to be four years ago, before DS changed to CTOP. Of course you can add AP to your aware list. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
O3000, Ret., I think F&f is cool--they don't have any political problem here, I don't think. I think they just took the "identifies as" phrase, which is so fashionable, a bit more serious than you and I might. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, they've been pushing this quite heavily for some time on the article TP. But I don't think it's political on his part either. Perhaps overly academic. Oops, I'm talking to someone in academe. CTOP is a pain. As I say on my UP: Only a fool or a masochist would edit Wikipedia controversial articles. I prefer to think of myself as a fool.O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I disagree with how F&F approached the issue (and have a slightly nuanced take on the locus of the content) but the block feels too long, Bbb23; the other side barely put any effort in maintaining appropriate standards of sourcing, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Antony-22: I can't edit other pages for the next three days, and I'm not sure I can edit this page for anything but block related business, but I saw your post on Talk: Kamala Harris. Yes, please consider my vote to be a support for a split. You don't even need to bring the the old early childhood section back as the phrasing now is much better. Just ignore my old vote and let the split stay as is. Apologies for the rigmarole. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk»21:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can edit this page for anything but block related business. You're right. I'll let this comment slide, but please don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I've started work on Mandell Creighton in my sandbox, which pray feel free to edit as much as you like, if so inclined (or to ignore if you prefer). My chief aim at the moment is to find alternative sources for as many references to Covert 2000 as I can. Some progress so far, but more needed. I hope, meanwhile, your trip is proving splendid. Tim riley talk13:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Your aim is entirely worthwhile, Tim.
As for me, I won't look at it just yet. Not only does the article need a pair of fresh eyes, but in my book adding my two cents so soon after you have taken on the mantle of improving it would be disrespectful.
Creighton, the articulate moralist, would have given a better reason for not interfering, but I have no double his decision would have been the same. All in good time.
From 2021: Request for clarification on your point about Harappa and the ASI
Hi Fowler&fowler! I posted a question for you here on September 6, 2021 but it got auto-archived the next day. I just wanted to repost it as I'm still curious. I'm not Indian, by the way. Thanks!
Original post:
Hello, my friend! A few months ago, you stated the following:
"They don't in India, but that is because India doesn't have any major sites. The promotion of "Harappan," despite it being a type site, was a deliberate and ultimately futile attempt by the ASI to diminish Pakistan's geographical claim to IVC and bolster India's. You may read about it in the Discovery section, and also in this talk page's archives. It has been much discussed. Sorry, this is all I have time for." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC) (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Indus_Civilisation)
I was just wondering if you could please elaborate on this point as I could not find more info via searching the talk page archives nor via Google search (I am new to Wikipedia). How would the Harappan label help India's claims to the IVC if Harappa is within Pakistan? It would be appreciated if you could point me to any reading material on this too. Thank you. Arlinosam (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
If one is looking for deliberate intent on the part of postcolonial Indian archaeologists in preferring the "Harappan" usage, one could posit that most people do not know where Harappa is located, and a culture whose type site, i.e. whose first excavated evidence, is a town in Pakistan, which thereafter was stripped recklessly for bricks in the construction of the British Indian railway system near Lahore and of private housing in the area, has precious little to show. It becomes a kind of mythical site whose spawned culture can be claimed far and wide.
On the other hand, the Indus is very much a river of Pakistan. Had Mohenjo-daro been the first the first excavated site (and it lost out to Harappa by a few years), I doubt very much that postcolonial Indian archaeologists would have called their sites Mohenjodaran (because Mohenjo-daro is a spectacular site much visited by tourists). But these are hypotheticals ... Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Creighton
I've pretty much finished my first draft, which is in my sandbox. I am reluctant to post it into the main article before you've had a look at it, but if you're too busy I can do so and put it up for peer review. Yours to command. Hope your trip is going well. Tim riley talk15:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Tim riley: Thank you, Tim, for turning the article into a professional one (from the somewhat gossipy one I had penned). All the changes are excellent. Please post it in main space and put it up for peer review. A big thank you to you. My trip is going well, but unpredictably and erratically busy Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Ravensfire. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I am furious. Your coment [4] here is a reprehensible personal attack that has ZERO place, even in a heated discussion. At a minimum, strike out the attacks. I'm done with this - when your making it personal with crap like that, there's zero chance of useful discussion any further. Good job.Ravensfire (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not see this note. I wrote what I wrote rather quickly and did not realize that I might have hurt you. I'm happy to scratch those comments. Many apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
A new user Σουνιτική άμυνα is on a vandalism spree. He has changed the name of Wikipedia article about Sherwani and have vandalized the entire article. I am unable to undo his/her edit. Please check Hu741f4 (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
PS The survey is too weak, too innocuous. It needs to ask harder questions, especially why admins are increasingly reluctant to act against WP:Civil POV-pushing, which, in my view, has become the bane of Wikipedia's more controversial topic areas. Relatively new editors in such controversy-ridden pages, have quickly learned how to spout the rule book and report their opponents-of-the-moment for (what ten years ago would have been) very minor infringements. They also share information off-Wiki about the Wiki-sins of their opponents, which by repetition receive wide notice.
Note This is a communication to WMF. I have no information that responses such are mine are read and expect no reply. This thread is not the place for talk-page-watchers here or stoppers-by-of-the-moment to post their thoughts.
Hi. I'm reworking your sources for the network-model map into a note, to have less text in the lead. Knowing your responses, I thought it wise to inform you personally, so you know that nothing starine or outlandish is going on. I really appreciate your network-model map, and this is an effort to make it even more accessible and understandable. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
As you are one of the only or if not the only editors (right now in the argument), whos supporting the hole map.
I would like to know what sources you have based it on, it would be good if you could link ALL sources mentioning this.
Now I don't want vague sources ("Mauryan empire was a loose knit empire), I want coherent sources exciplity mentioning the areas with holes and maybe some maps by scholars.
I've said what I had to on the article's talk page. The map of the loose-knit empire, with large autonomous regions, based on major introductory textbooks, see WP:TERTIARY for their role in due weight. It is Wikpedia policy. All of them, the same ones that are used in Wikipedia's oldest country featured article, support that map. They are listed in the map caption's footnote. The realistic map has been in the Maurya Empire article for going on four years. This is all I am going to say here, and for the last time. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Because as per Romila, the "autonomous regions" 's resources were still exploited by the Mauryans. - Romila Early India
I've added them. The Arthasastra was discovered in the early 20th century. Nationalist historians of the time, treated it as gospel truth about the conditions prevailing in the Maurya realm. It is now considered to be prescriptive work (rather than objective history), composed some five centuries after the Mauryas. The last sentence of the first lead paragraph lays it bare. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
The extensive notes in the first sentence of the lead (on sources) say just that. There is no reason to explicitly state it in the lead; the notes, which anyone can read are adequate in my view. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi F&f. I'm going through the references & notes you added. When you copied back the sentence on the sources for the Mauryan Empire to the lead, you also duplicated the extensive references. Since they are named, the name of the reference suffices; I have removed the quotes from the lead, but don't worry, they show up, because they are also in the History#Sources-subsection. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Also working on Seleucid–Mauryan War; the interpretation of the ancient sources on the ceded territories is quite ambiguous; it seems to me, reading several sources, that Gedrosia refers only to a part of Gedrosia; and probably only the South Asian part just west of the Indus. I'm fine-tuning and expanding the info on that, including a note; when it's finished, I'll also copy it to the Mauryan Empire, as it nuances the 'Iranian territories' considerably. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!12:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Tarn (1922), The Greeks In Bactria And India, p.100, refering to Eratosthenes, who states (in Tarn words) that :
Alexander [...] took away from Iran the parts of these three satrapies which lay along the Indus and made of them separate [...] governments or province; it was these which Seleucus ceded, being districts predominantly Indian in blood. In Gedrosia the boundary is known: the country ceded was that between the Median Hydaspes (probably the Purali) and the Indus.
Smith (1914): "The satrapy of Gedrosia (or Gadrosia) extended far to the west, and probably only the eastern part of it was annexed by Chandragupta. The Malin range of mountains,[c] which Alexander experienced such difficulty in crossing, would have furnished a natural boundary."
Malin mountain range is Malan mountain range, next to the Hingol river, mentioned in sevarl books describing Alexander's retreat from India. Tarn's Purali is the Porali river, a tributary of the Hingol. That's two sources who provide an explanation, and agree on the Malan mountain range/Porali river, just west of Karachi. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I tend to agree with you. There is corroboration for your thesis in Joppen's very first map, which I'm attaching here:
Alexander's empire (from Charles Joppen SJ, Historical Atlas of India: For the use of High Schools, Colleges, and Private Students, London: Longman, Green & Co., 1907 As you know, both the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush ranges were uplifted by the Indian tectonic plate underthrusting Eurasia. Two river, the Indus and the Brahmaputra, which are old Eurasian rivers, had to change their respective courses, to accommodate the rising Himalayas (we are talking tens of millions YBP), the Indus to the west and the Brahmaputra to the east. You can locate the western end of the Himalayas by examining where the where the course of the Indus changes from northwest to southwest, approx 36N, 75E. This is the region of the western anchor of the Himalayas, the Nanga Parbat in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Although the peak itself is not marked in Joppen's map, to its west lie the Hindu Kush, the parallel ranges running northeast to southwest until 70E. Some sources we looked at said, "below the Hindu Kush" Well, the 70E longitude line is more or less the western extent of the Mauryan empire, jibing I think with what you are saying. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Though this is not entirely relevant to the matter at hand, late this past winter, i.e. Feb 2024, I was flying from HK to Paris, sitting in a right window seat. I fell asleep at first, but when I woke up, I saw a wide but completely dry river bed below. I asked the stewardess, and she said, "We normally fly over southern Iran, but because of the war, the flight's course has changed. Soon the Nanga Parbat appeared, a distant but spectacular peak, rising far above its neighbors, and thereafter the Hindu Kush, beautiful but lower. I took pictures. Later I learned from the news that the dry river bed was the Ravi river's, or Hydraotes of Joppen's map. There were rumors that the Indians had stopped the water in the river by diverting it via a new dam in Indian-administered Kashmir.
I don't know if it is true, but if so, it would be a spectacular example of national arrogance—i.e., forget the humans, you destroyed a riverine ecosystem, that had survived millennia of South Asian history, not least of which was Alexander or before him the type site of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The Indians claimed they had the water rights, ... but even so, (as Isa's famous haiku written at the death of his toddler son, said.) Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Two videos 1. Indus and Nanga Parbat, 2 Hindu Kush mountain range
And here are two videos from late February 2024 from our flight (from Hong Kong to Paris) diverted because of the Middle East war, and instead flying due NW in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The first is of the Indus River and way behind it, towering above the cloud layer, Nanga Parbat, the western anchor of the Himalayas. The plane from my iphone data seemed to have been above the historic village of Sawal Dher, which is a 2-hour drive due NW from the Maurya stronghold of Taxila. The second is of the eastern Hindu Kush mountain range taken from approximately above the Lowari Pass, connecting Chitral and Upper Dir District in the border area of Pakistan with Afghanistan.
Eastern Hindu Kush range from approximately above Lowari Pass. As the plane was flying due NW, you can see that the Hindu Kush run NE to SW, as in Joppen's map. It was through passes in the Hindu Kush that the Indo-Aryans, their horses, and Vedic Sanskrit arrived in South Asia ca. 1500–1200 BCE. I'll eventually add the videos to the appropriate WP galleries. Unfortunately, when we were flying above the dried up Ravi river (see section above) I was only half awake and didn't think of taking out my phone, but that sight is seared in memory. Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Indus in Hindi
Hi Fowler. You reverted my edit in Indus river. The source I provided is a Hindi Shabdsagar dictionary entry for “Sindh”, with Indus river as one of the meanings. It seems you misinterpreted the entry as “Sindhu”. Foreverknowledge (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
But Sindh is not a meaning in any of the languages that are relevant to the river. Indus does not flow through India for India's official language (Hindi) to apply. It flows through China, Kashmir (a disputed territory in Wikipedia's articles) and Pakistan. The Urdu name Darya-e-Sindh is already acknowledged as are the Tibetan and Sanskrit names ("Sindhu"). Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that—I get defensive when I shouldn't, naturally. The images are more than fine, and I realized that the longer I looked at it. Remsense ‥ 论13:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
No worries. I do too, and after calming down wonder "What came over me." You on the other hand did it with grace.
I've been meaning to revise the article, but the sources have grown exponentially since 2007; they especially did during COVID-19 when many people, who were all sitting at home, had nothing else to do. Fowler&fowler«Talk»13:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
21:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version.
Please stop. If you continue to make inappropriate or abusive edit summaries or comments, you may be blocked from editing. What on Earth were you thinking when you put 
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
CTOP is a pain. As I say on my UP: 
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
