User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

BNHS image

I plan to put up this image for deletion Image:BNHSimage national geographic.jpg. Its under fair use and I can visit the place and take a pic out myself, the pic is not essential for the article. PS I'm a member, and went for the 125th anniversary celebrations held today. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's funny because I first thought about asking you to take a picture (last year?), but then noticed that you hadn't logged in for a long time (it was around the time of your absence), and decided against it. If you could take a picture, that would be great! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PS If you are interested in BNHS stuff, check out some of the pages, Stanley Henry Prater, Walter Samuel Millard, Ethelbert Blatter, Herbert Musgrave Phipson and Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. My original goal was (and still is) to have pages for most of the BNHS naturalists and simultaneously expand the BNHS article itself. (I have access to all the journal volumes going back to 1886.) If you are interested in working on the BNHS article, we could work on it together. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'd like to get that up to featured status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Madras Presidency

Sir, how are you? :-) I need your help to fill the census statistics for the period 1911 to 1941 for this table. Thank you.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Will reply on the weekend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to get your opinion

Hello, you were most helpful when I left a message on the East India Company talk page concerning Robert Blackborne. I was wondering what you might know and what opinion you might have of the Prinsep family, who had many ties to India from the early days. In general, how were they regarded? Aside from making money, they do seem to have contributed to the life of the nation, along the lines of scholarship, archaeology and so on. In any case, I really appreciated your help on Blackborne, and wondered if you might have any random thoughts on the Prinseps. Many thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Will reply on the weekend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Thank you for your help. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case you seem to know a great deal more than I do, judging from your contributions to the page Prinsep. I did know of James Prinsep, of course, and I vaguely knew both of the first John Prinsep and Val Prinsep, but I didn't realize they were all related. I certainly didn't realize that they came from such a large family of achievement. James Prinsep is one of the big names in Indian epigraphy, having deciphered the Brahmi script. The Prinsep Ghat (a memorial along the banks of the Ganges River in Calcutta is named after him.) Here's a nice picture of the same. As for the family, I found a reference to it in a letter written by Maria Edgeworth to Elizabeth Gaskell. See here; so they clearly were well-known. Am in a bit of a rush right now, but I'm intrigued. Will later look at other sources, as and when I find time, to see what turns up. Thanks. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to look over the Prinsep page. I know a bit about them, but you obviously know far, far more about India than I, so I wanted get your take on things. I hope to write a bit at length about the Prinseps at some point when I can get around to it. And thank you again for responding to my earlier inquiry about Robert Blackbourne. Out of curiosity, is this your area of scholarship as a professor? Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: HEIC

Your version is perfectly fine to me. I'm sure I'll think of something to tweak later but for now its fine (Sorry for not getting back to you, somewhat swamped at uni) --Narson ~ Talk • 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on making Indies a disambig article

I've been waiting many months for someone to pipe up and support my position that Indies, as it currently stands, ought to be moved/renamed to East Indies and that the new Indies ought to become a disambig article directing readers to Caribbean or East Indies according to the context from which they came. Thanks. Now I might actually go ahead and do it myself. --arkuat (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

P. S. Moving/renaming an article into an existing article's name will require an admin's assistance, I think. I'm afraid that we're going to have to talk someone with admin priveleges into deleting the current redirect article East Indies, which as of now has no history to speak of, so that we can move the current Indies article, which has rather a lot of history, into that slot, and then recreate Indies as a new, unhistoried, disambig page. I don't know that you know any more en.wikipedia admins than I do, but if you do, please help. Thanks again. --arkuat (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: British India

Sure, I'll take a look at the page. I will weigh in as I do not think that all those forks are necessary. I need to think over this, and my immediate thoughts are the period between 1757 and 1857, for which I need to research on the extent and powers of the East India Company. I also do not think that period can be termed as "British rule in India" as there was a lot happening in the region. Do you have any material for me to look at for this period? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The page is at British India/Article during the second half of 2008 and the full history is found in the usual way. Here is the full history. Within the next 24 hours I am going to place that probably has no internet connection, I'll be there for about a week. I'll touch this message when I am back. --PBS (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Undivided India

I don't mind whether the article is merged with British Raj or British India. But I strongly feel that "Undivided India" is not a term that is in worldwide usage and that the article should not stay alone. I am also against the merger of the article with one on the Indian subcontinent or Greater India due to reasons I've expressed in the talk page. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Fowler&fowler. You have new messages at Kirrages's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My comments

I have added my comments to NickP's suggestion. Thanks for asking me to do so. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

INA move to British Raj

Good move. It did occur to me, after I posted the response, that it would be a distraction from the main issue. Thanks! --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

comments

I've replied to your questions on British India and raised some more on the page. I got your picture on the BNHS headquarters on the 4th of Oct, but yet to transfer to my PC as my USB drive is not working. :( PS could you archive your page, it takes some time for the entire page to load, and this is unnecessary bandwidth consumed for both WP and me. And on a related note, you might want to remove/update the notice on this page... Oct 25 has just gone by. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Just archived. Will await your BNHS picture when PC problem is fixed. Thanks for replying on Talk:British India; will look now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India#Discussion of change

Hi - I request your feedback on this debate, as User:Gppande and I are grid-locked. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I have requested Nichalp to weigh in. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question

No, that's not acceptable at all - it's perfectly reasonable to remove information if it is believed to violate one or both of those policies, and mention that in the edit summary, but the manner in which it was done here is a personal attack. That it doesn't appear Sarvagnya even attempted to discuss it with you doesn't help at all. I'll leave a note on their talk page to knock it off, but in the meantime, as always, do try to review what you're adding to make sure it's accurate. Personal attacks aside, a policy was cited in the removal. I don't know enough about this subject to judge on the validity of the content you added. If there are any more problems with this sort of thing, do let me know, or you could also consider posting a notice at WP:WQA. Thanks for the heads-up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Madras Presidency (2)

Hi! How are you? Could please help me in filling the population statistics for the districts of Madras Presidency between 1911 and 1941 or suggest some online source where I might find them or recommend someone who could help with this. My agenda is to improve this to FA level. This being the case, the presence of such large blank spaces would be to my disadvantage. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 09:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's a great article! I didn't realize such a change had taken place. Will look at it more carefully soon, and will look for more data. Part of the problem is that by the 1930s, the British (I feel sometimes) had subliminally seen the writing on the wall and seem to have lost the stamina for the kind of effort seen in the Imperial Gazetteer (but other times, it doesn't appear so). By the way, if you need a picture (say in the land section), feel free to borrow the 1880s (ryotwari) photograph from the Company rule in India page or the Fort St. George picture for some other section. Regards (and congrats), Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Well, among the provinces of British India, the case of Madras Presidency is quite unique. There were regular elections from 1920 onwards and not from 1935 as in the case of most other provinces of British India. By the way, a featured article for taskforces Wikipedia:WikiProject Orissa and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakshadweep would also add entries to currently empty FA categories of these wikiprojects-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. Will look for the additional data. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 10:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to share this article with you-[1]. Though my views differ significantly with that of the author's, I do find it interesting :-)-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

philisophical

"everyone is a foreigner, no one is a foreigner": philosophical but certainly true. I did not understand the final part though. What language? Unfortunate the user it was directed at hasnt cleary got it... Docku:“what up?” 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's just an old French expression, meaning, "That's life (or Such is life), it is too bad." (I meant I tried but he (KM) didn't get it. That's life, it's too bad.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

got it. :) Docku:“what up?” 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much, sir, for the barnstar :-) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Afd vs. prod

When you place a prod, the article gets deleted after five days if no one removes the prod. An afd, on the other hand, is listed under articles for deletion at Wikipedia:AFD#Current_discussions and other edits can comment on it. I must admit I was flummoxed by Mastan Malli. On the one hand, seven highest peaks in seven (?) continents seems notable. But, there seems to be absolutely no independent verification that he actually climbed all the peaks beyond the list on this page, and the Everest News article that I removed seems to imply that he did not actually climb to the top - although his name (spelled differently) is on the team roster. The list itself is troublesome as it does not say that the stats are verified in any reasonable way. Now you say that the 186th climber out of 229 is not notable anyway.

Listing it on Afd is no guarantee that the article will be deleted because the notability is borderline and it depends on how the discussion proceeds. So we may be left with having to keep the article with its murky notability. On the other hand, sometimes the process works very well and new evidence of notability emerges (for example, references for the claim that the speed with which he climbed is notable). Worth exploring, I think. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. Why don't you go ahead and file (if that's the word) for AfD and I'll do my bit. Sadly these "achievements" have got commercialized now. Semi-sedentary people in their 60s (if not their 70s) are now going up to the top of Everest. I expect a Coke/Macdonald's franchise there any day. I'm exaggerating a little, but you know what I mean ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Afd debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mastan Malli‎

Help

Just to be brief - I was wondering if you would be able to answer some of my questions regarding the British Raj to aid the book I am writing. It is fictional and set in the Raj just prior to and during WW-2. If you agree and can spare a little time, I could hold a discussion on skype or gtalk. Do let me know. Thanks. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Much as I'd like to help, my family has put me on a tight leash as far as my Wikipedia-related activities are concerned. This "oversight" began when, over a year ago, I neglected to perform some of my duties towards certain feline members of the household. I have since then routinely refused all forms of interaction (internet, email, phone, gtalk etc.) beyond the routine ones on Wikipedia user talk. Sorry! All the best on your book. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks though. TheBlueKnight (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

British Empire page - Indian Famines

Your input would be greatly appreciated Here --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I love this!!!

expected. :) My prediction is that India will accord the classical status to all languages in a few years by loosening the criteria including literary antiquity to as less as 100 years. I am going to start Classical language scam in India article. :) Docku: What up?

F&F. I agree with your edits and arguments. I am afraid that I see a lot of passion in Talk:Languages of India and see less room for reasoning. I guess we should leave it there until more responsible people get involved. What do u say? Docku: What up? 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Agreed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the decision hasn't been implemented...the implementation of the recommendation may take a while as a Chennai-based advocate has filed a public interest litigation in the Madras High Court questioning the expertise of the committee members. The PIL has requested the court to quash the decision and ask the Government to set up a new committee headed by a retired judge of the high court or the Supreme Court --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The conditions laid by GoI [2]

Some reports say Prakrit and Pali have also been granted classical language status. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't know what to do with these editors. One has to be vigilant that they don't create grossly slanted histories, but one can only spend so much time on issues for which they apparently have a great deal more appetite than anyone else. This article, although slightly dated, is still a good description of the sub-nationalism you see on the India-related pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

^^^Hey, hey, hey assume good faith! And this aint the way! That's all I want to say... --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Not directed at anyone specifically. Opinion:I wonder if it is ok to call a spade a spade sometimes. Let us not forget History revisionism is a widespread phenomena in wikipedia. Docku: What up? 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But sometimes not calling a spade a spade works too. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of semi-protection

Hi - based on your advice and that of Nichalp's, I have initiated a discussion on the semi-protection issue at the village pump. Your opinion, now over the broader topic and not just India, will be most valuable. Shiva (Visnu) 09:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Another question

Hello again. I wondered if I might trouble you for some advice about another British colonial company that I am having trouble trying to run down. On wikipedia, for instance, querying 'New England Company' steers one to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the successor company to those holding the charters for early New England settlement. But it turns out there was an entirely different 'New England Company.' I came across this while looking into the Lord Mayor of London in 1699, who was a partner in it, and at which time it was apparently still active -- not in 'New England,' per se, but in Canada, the West Indies, Africa and perhaps other places as well. I was wondering if you'd heard of this early company, and what their mandate was? They certainly had an unusual 'mission statement,' but I suppose that that was a reflection of the times. Here's a query I posted to the Massachusetts Bay Colony talk page.[Talk:Massachusetts Bay Colony] To be honest, I don't think I'll hear much there. I think my luck is better with folks such as yourself who are experts in the various early British companies. Thanks again for your help. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Will look into it. I do know that there were many companies, some with the same names. Meanwhile please check out Image:Prinsep new writerEICservice1822.jpg. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What an extraordinary image. Thank you for alerting me to this. Wonderful. Thanks also for looking into the New England Company. As you say, there seemed to be lots of companies with the same names. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I do not understand what is meant by "source information", as the media rationale already specifies that the image's source is a book published in 1954 entitled Nine Man-eaters and One Rogue.

The image was taken by an employee (government hunter) of the British Indian government, and released in the public domain before 1957.Mariomassone (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The photographer is not mentioned, whilst the publisher of the books is E.P DUTTON & CO., INC. Mariomassone (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The copyright is to the Berne Convention. Do as you see fit.Mariomassone (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility. Your assistance is much appreciated!Mariomassone (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Famine edit on British Empire

Hi there Fowler. Would you, or perhaps fowler, be able to reword the two sentences on famine to be more balanced, whilst maintaining brevity, and not rely on a clearly biased reference? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Will come up with something tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright pictures

Hello there, My picture of "Stud 327 with blesbuck kill" is taken from save china's tigers' homepage at www.savechinastigers.org . I am a volunteer of Save China's Tigers, in fact if you visit the site, you will be able to see my name in the SCT team, i am responsible for helping them edit information and upload pictures for the project, i have mentioned that to another Wiki Administrator in the past. So, i do have the copyright over all the pictures i have uploaded, so please do not delete them, thanks.

My name is Heng Siang Wei and can be found on the Save China's Tigers webpage's sctteam: http://english.savechinastigers.org/sctteam

China's Tiger (talk)

Thanks for replying. I took a look at the website. It is not clear who the photographer is. Did you take these pictures? If not, who is the photographer? (I'm guessing that all the images in "Arrival of Tiger 324" are taken by the same photographer.) Also, the picture on the Tiger page is captioned with "... his blesbuck kill." However, since this is a breeding and rewilding center, and the Tiger had just arrived, it is more likely that the buck was shot (it has a tag) and then presented to the Tiger; in which case, it wouldn't be a "kill." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, well, I am not the actual photographer of the photos as taking photographs isn't part of my job, another Staff member in our team is responsible for that, it isn't convenient to cite his name because he has resigned from his position end of last year.

Yes, i understand that it isn't an actual "kill", but i felt that it was a suitable word compared to "food" or "prey". If you know of another much more suitable word, please feel free to change the 'kill' word to any other word.

China's Tiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Hey again, would you mind removing that "copyright infrigment" tag from my picture of "Stud Tiger 327 with Blesbuck.jpg"? And also, please help me place the picture back into those articles which had the picture removed due to "copyright infrigment". Thank you. China's Tiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

Can you?

User:Ravichandar84 has left a message on his userpage saying he is quitting. Can you stop him? Your words may have an effect! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support and encouragement. :-) I have given my answers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Madras Presidency images issue. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I will check the noticeboard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Geography of India

Hi - I am working (with Nichalp) on re-attaining FA status for this article and I request you to please have a look at it when you have some time, so I may learn what more needs to be done. In particular, I request that you place {{cite}} tags on the facts that you feel need to be cited. Major changes include: (1) integration of "Climate" and "Natural disasters" information into the pertinent subsections, i.e. discussing climate and earthquakes in the Himalayas subsection, because both those sections had a lot of information (like cyclones, seasons, winds, etc.) that was not pertinent to geography, but more to Climate of India. Nichalp was in favor of removing climate and making the article compact. (2) formatting of all present references. (3) I've added details on the borders and disputes of India as it relates to political geography. Shiva (Visnu) 22:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See [3] and [4] for the discussion I had with Nichalp. Shiva (Visnu) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

classical

I am happy to be over with the "classical" chaos. In the meantime, u have amassed a great deal of information in User:Fowler&fowler/Classical languages of India. I wonder if all these information can be incorporated in an article such as Classical languages of India. We could think about it sometime when the dust settles down. Docku: What up? 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Sure, that sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Dravidian Barnstar
		for your ignorance and racial behavior towards Dravidian culture 59.92.147.225 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that the beginnings of literature in Kannada and Telugu were influenced by Sanskrit models, is not Anti-Dravidian. It only makes the point that they are not classical, in the way Tamil (Dravidian) and Sanskrit here. Here is Kamil Zvelebil:

From: Zvelebil, Kamil (1997), The Smile of Murugan: On Tamil Literature of South India, BRILL Academic Publishers. Pp. 378., ISBN 9004035915.

“ But in Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam, the beginnings of written literatures are beyond any doubt so intimately connected with the Sanskrit models that the first literary output in these languages is, strictly speaking, imitative and derived, ... the first literary works in these languages being no doubt adaptations an/or straight translations of Sanskrit models. The beginnings of Kannada literature are, thus, anchored firmly in traditions which were originally alien to non-Aryan South India. Quite the same is true of Telugu literature. ... In Malayalam, too, the beginnings of literature are essentially and intrinsically connected with high Sanskrit literature ... An entirely different situation prevails in Tamil literature. The earliest literature in Tamil is a model unto itself—it is absolutely unique in the sense that, in subject-matter, thought-content, language and form, it is entirely and fully indigenous, that is, Tamil, or, if we want, ..., Dravidian. And not only that: it is only the Tamil culture that has produced—uniquely so in India—an independent, indigenous literary theory of a very high standard, including metrics and prosody, poetics and rhetoric. ”

Why is that Anti-Dravidian? It is pro-Dravidian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

proto-dravidian, perhaps? (What's with this whole pyjama thing?) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Not sure what to make of it. Every now and then you get editors who have boned up on what is allowed under Wikipedia policy, but pay no attention to responsibilities, consensus, or expertise (i.e. secondary sources). They're so sure that their instincts about the issue are the correct ones that they don't bother with edit summaries. If you revert them, they get very hot under the collar, and apparently think that a revert with explanation is a much bigger crime than explaining their edits in the first place and providing sources for them. They prefer the page to look like a mess with various templates, than for them to voluntarily revert the edits and go find the sources first and build consensus. It could really have happened on any page. In some cases, I've even taken them to mediation; usually, they disappear the minute I complete my statement in the mediation, leaving me and the mediator high and dry. If nothing changes in a couple of days, I'll get admin help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It did seem weird for someone to go in with a bulldozer on the article as if no one else has put any thought into it. This is very instructive! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AN

FYI, there is a complaint about you filed by Kalarimaster here. Docku: What up?

India=Union

Yes, India=Union makes sense in some contexts. But in the case of the infobox we should make the difference between why we are mentioning Hindi and English, and the other languages separately clear. Hindi and English are the official langauges of the Union (whatever that may mean), why cant this be made clear in the infobox ? Btw, I am not a new editor. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Official languages of India

Actually, the bits you're objecting to - the distinction between the Union and the States, and their official languages - is entirely plagiarised from a working paper I circulated for comment in early 2006. I have no idea how it got out and made its way here. I noticed the plagiarism late last year, but it wasn't anything I could do much about, especially because it's plagiarism and not a copyvio. Anyway, I agree that it's totally OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia (in fact, I *know* it's totally OR because it's *my* original research). -- Arvind (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! All those edits were made by one user, Lexmercatoria (talk · contribs), who appeared on Wikipedia one day, seemingly with this single-purpose goal. A few months later, when his project had run into the sands, he suddenly disappeared, but not before giving me an award, which I have long suspected was partly tongue in cheek. Anyway, if it is still a matter of concern to you, you could check his history and attempt to guess his identity.

However, if you have time (and you certainly have the expertise) would you still like to re-write the article in an OR-free manner? An objectively written (and referenced) article will certainly help enormously, if only to deter the myriad POV-warriors who have used it to vent their discontents. The many editors who would like to see that article improve could certainly attend to the background noise, and leave you to focus on the more important things, during the re-write. Let me know what you think. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I remember L. said in one of his posts that he had grown up Hindi-speaking (to the extent you can) in suburban Bombay, although this could be a false lead. I should add that he was pleasant to interact with; he was also, in a welcome change from the usual, very concerned that the fine distinctions not be swept under the rug. I sort of miss him now.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, it all makes much more sense now. Lexmercatoria's contributions have "freshly minted graduate student" stamped all over them (I'm thinking of the way he (she?) tries hard to use a basic level of subject expertise, and gives up in annoyed frustration when he's asked to produce sources that meet Wikipedia's rules). I guess it's just a case of one of the people who got the paper passing it on to a graduate student with a "Here's something you might find interesting", and s/he then using it on Wikipedia without thinking. Oh, well.

I tend not to edit Wikipedia in areas on which I work academically, so I hardly ever contribute to articles about law. Official languages of India is a particularly tricky one - as you've pointed out, the Constitution simply says "Hindi", and the Official Languages Act (despite the use of the plural) doesn't really change that, as Mallikarjun subtly points out. There is, however, a huge gap between the de jure and de facto positions. It seems to me that the article should principally get into the history of the Hindi movement, its success in the constituent assembly, and the reasons for the dilution of the constitutional commitement to Hindi. There's a wealth of information on this, so a well-referenced article should be doable (Incidentally, I was recently pointed to the articles by Prof. Annie Montaut of INALCO on the language question in India - there's some fascinating material in there). The rest of the article should be shunted off to List of Official languages of States and territories of India, or some such thing. The difficulty will be getting people to agree to this, though. Having a long list of official languages is a lot more satisfying if you're a non-Hindi speaker. -- Arvind (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Arvind. Yes, I agree with the plan you have laid out. Will look at the articles list. Or perhaps point them out to the brave editor who volunteers to take on this article. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I thought you might be interested in knowing that I tracked down Lexmercatoria. The bit about his being from south Bombay, having done a Ph.D. and the quote on his former userpage were fairly good giveaways. It turns out I actually know him - our paths crossed briefly at a university where I used to teach and where he was a Ph.D. student, which also explains how he got hold of the ideas that were in my paper. -- Arvind (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

POV edits at India. Please stop pushing your view in the article. The constitution prescribes both categories of languages. Not just the Union languages. --Kalarimaster (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Your edits at Talk:India are considered to be WP:harassment. Please don't do that again. Thanks. --Kalarimaster (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster, dont you think that you are overreacting a bit? Docku: What up? 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-Constitution of India

Hello, Fowler&fowler. You have new messages at Docku's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Languages of India

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

funny

I was reading the old archive and happened to read this, couldnt help but laugh. I am not sure, if you could take it lightly at that time, but u happened to have handled the situtation well though. Docku: What up? 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was funny. Its good to be reminded, every now and then, of the flip side of modern technology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kurta and jeans

Hi, yes it has been a while. I still don't have the time to seriously contribute to Wikipedia unfortunately. Real-life always takes precedence since we are only volunteers here. Well, I suppose it may not suit my sense of fashion but Kurta/i jean combinations do exist as shown by the Google News results! It must obviously be a modern trend but would sound quite dubious to someone only familiar with India's "traditional" culture, so I suggest a citation be found for the statement if you have the time. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my feelings exactly. One reason why I didn't get more American or British newspapers was that these garments are called "embroidered T-shirts" or "embroidered Indian shirts" in the west. I agree these fashions keep changing, and I certainly didn't put the jeans in there; it was User:Zora who revise what I had written. Anyway, I will look for the references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kalarimaster

Him of course. I wonder why the seniors haven't blocked him... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:India feels like a storm has just passed by. :) Docku: What up? 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The second guy is definitely him. How the first guy shows up as being over 1000km away in another country, I'll never understand. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Been away...

Hi! I had been away from Wikipedia for the past 5-6 days. I can't understand the Official languages of India fiasco (rewrite needed??)). Also couldn't get a grip over the Arvind and user:Lexmercatoria plagiarism issue?!

I must say, I always unsure about the importance and significance of the eighth schedule. Is it really a big deal concerning to India as a whole? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just realized I forgot to reply to your post(s). Many apologies! Will do so later today. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. Take your time sir. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can answer now! :P --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki question

A friend asked me today...if you call India secular then why does it subsidise Haj pilgrimage? Why did Saint Alphonsa's canonisation at Vatican have the backing of a government delegation? I was caught off guard! What's your say on this? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 16:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Now to finally answer your questions! (Many apologies for the delay.) I guess before I answer the questions, I would like more information. Specifically, I would ask:

• In what way, and to the tune of what amount, does the Government of India subsidize the Haj pilgrimage?
• Similarly, what exactly did the Government of India say and do when it nominated the saint for canonization?

Part of the problem with your friends questions is that the word "secular" itself has many meanings, and those meanings have kept changing (even in recent usage). For example, I noticed a few years ago, that the New York Times began to use "secular" in describing the governing of India. In my memory, in the past, "secular" was used for more avowedly "anti-God" countries like the Soviet Union or China that didn't allow the practice of any religion. Even today, a country like Turkey, which is also "secular," for example, does not allow women in Government service or attending Government schools or colleges to wear the head covering or scarf (which is considered Islamic and has been banned since the days of Kamal Ataturk). However, India, on the other hand is more relaxed about it: for example, it is not unusual for a Government official to be at an opening ceremony in which obvious symbols of Hinduism (such as lighting a "prayer" lamp or applying "tikka" to the forehead) are plainly evident.

Another thing that I would keep in mind is that in every country there are some (historically) privileged groups. Often these groups (or their "admirer" groups) react strongly to instances of even small favors granted to the un-privileged groups. However, they often take for granted the societal "favors" that constitute their own good luck. So, for example, in the US, up until recently, some historically privileged groups, such as the so-called Boston Brahmins, could get into Harvard or Princeton or other Ivy League colleges on the basis of "connections" that were never even mentioned. All it took was an old college alum to mention so-and-so's name during a squash game in the club ... and so forth. However, also up until recently, if a person from a traditionally underprivileged community, say a woman or an African American, was seen in a traditionally "privileged" position, say in a major law-firm, they often elicited raised eyebrows, not necessarily from the Boston Brahmins themselves (who often tended to be liberal), but from society at large.

Similarly, many people are surprised, even in India, when they discover that Hindu Brahmins comprise a very small percentage (I believe less than 5) of the country's Hindu population. They have been taught that Brahmins are 25%, Kshatriya's 25% and so forth. Obviously, from a very early time, certainly from the time of Company rule in India, Hindu Brahmins have held a much larger proportion of Government jobs, larger than their proportion in the population would indicate. From what we know about modern biology, cognition, and learning theory, it would be hard to maintain that their privileged positions were entirely due to their own efforts. True, many male Brahmin scholars in the 18th century, say, spent many many years in the religious schools working hard on learning the sacred texts. However, that privilege was not granted to their women or poor untouchable contemporaries, so we can't say that the latter groups would not have demonstrated a similar capability of hard scholarly work.

So, I guess I would want to get more information about these two examples you mention, and then compare them with the historically un-secular, and sometimes taken-for-granted, privilege enjoyed by other groups, and then see where the chips fall. The latter taken-for-granted privilege might not be actively promoted by the government, but it might not be actively intervened with either. None of this of course means that what the Government of India did was correct in these instances. Politicians everywhere use different ethnic and religious groups cynically for their own benefits, offering them superficial "bonuses," while the major institutionalized forms of discrimination remain unchecked. So, that my two cents (and five paragraphs). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PS The Wikipedia Brahmin page seems to suggest that the 1931 Census of India was the last time different caste groups in India were counted. Then Brahmins apparently constituted 4.32 per cent of the country's population. I don't have my sources with me right now, but I will look at them later to see how correct this estimate is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the wait was worth it! Thanks a lot... By secular my friend probably meant (detachment from any religion)...and coincidently my friend happens to be a Brahmin! I got your point about "taken-for-granted" privilege which is so often overlooked. On this point I also realized how often people use so grossly equate the terms Indian and Hindu and use them interchangeably...

Probably all my friend was trying to imply was a "secular" government should detach itself from every thing remotely related to religion. The question I should have asked him back --- "Name one country where religion and politics never cross(ed) paths?" --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 13:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial context-setting

"Let $X\$ be a $4k\$ dimensional compact Riemannian manifold." is a really bad opening sentence for a Wikipedia article. The lay reader can read through that whole sentence without ever finding out that mathematics is what the article is about. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. I notice you have fixed it. Thanks. Will keep in mind next time on math articles. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:1857_flag_staff_tower2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1857_flag_staff_tower2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)