Jump to content

User talk:Fowler&fowler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Heroicmernaids98 (talk | contribs) at 09:53, 1 August 2021 (East India Company: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 22 Archive 23


Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Unicorns

What, you don't believe it? Abductive (reasoning) 02:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsubstantiated speculation in Unicorn. The IVC was not antiquity, which is a vague phase of recorded history, as its script is as yet undeciphered; some people such as Michael Witzel do not think that the symbols on the Indus seals constitute a script. The unicorn is etymologically Anglo-Norman dating to the 16th century, and ultimately Latin, i.e. broadly Indo-European. The IVC was a pre-IE civilization. The OED defines a unicorn to be,

"The mythological animal, and related uses 1 a. A fabulous and legendary animal usually regarded as having the body of a horse with a single horn projecting from its forehead (cf. sense 3 note); the monoceros of the ancients. The unicorn has at various times been identified or confused with the rhinoceros, with various species of antelope, or with other animals having a horn (or horns) or horn-like projection from the head. According to Pliny ( Nat. Hist. viii. xxi. §31) it had a body resembling that of a horse, the head of a deer, the feet of an elephant, and the tail of a lion, with one black horn projecting ‘two cubits’ from the middle of the forehead. The horn of this animal was reputed to possess medicinal or magical properties, esp. as an antidote to or preventive of poison: see unicorn's horn n."

We are talking about a mythological animal, which was a part of Indo-European mythology or a mythologized-natural history of the Indo-European tradition. The domesticated horse, the defining animal of Indo-European expansion did not exist in South Asia at the time of IVC, i.e. during the Bronze age. The Indus seals may well have depicted the Greater one-horned rhinoceros, or a variety of antelope in profile, especially the Blackbuck of South Asia with its spiraling horns, even wild cattle in profile, but it had nothing to do with the mythology which primarily defines the term unicorn. The narwhal, another mammal with spiraling horns did not exist in South Asia. Ctesias, of first Greek mention ca 400 BCE, was talking about the Indian rhino, most likely. In other words, the fronting of IVC in the article on Unicorn is nothing but the nationalistic or cultural oneupmanship that is the bane of many WP articles and detracts from its value as an encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phooeey! The idea or possibility that the IVC "unicorn" (as archaeologists still call it) was the origin of later images and myth is a perfectly respectable one, mentioned by some very reputable figures. None of your usual irrelevant smokescreeen above has a bearing on this, nor really does the question of what the IVC seal-carvers thought they were representing. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was? You mean IVC had been excavated before 1922, a couple of millennia before to be sure by the emigrating Indo-Aryans? Or had the MittaniMitanni stumbled upon Melluha Meluhha seals in Babylon and gave a few to the Greeks? Please don't be silly Johnbod. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you are the silly one. The written unicorn myth goes back well into antiquity, is located in India, and seals have been found in various places outside India (mostly Mesopotamia). I'd drop the OR, and leave matters to the professionals. PS - You are wrong if you think unicorns appear in "Celtic mythology"'; afaik that is an entirely unicorn-free zone, though they may appear in Gothic tales given a Celtic flavour, as with the Matter of Britain. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say, "Celtic?" As for writing. What do you consider to be the first writing in India? Was a mention of the unicorn there even in the orally transmitted tradition later transcribed in the Brahmi-derived scripts? If so, I'd like to see a mention in the Rigveda, or other vedic literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit summary, about an hour ago! That there was no continuing tradition in India (if that is the case) is not the point. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I did. I may have been attempting to avoid repeating IE, or finding a substitute for Western IE. But maybe I was thinking about the various references to the unicorn in Boston area history, the State House, etc where it prominently appears. Hold on. Let me look for some sources. 16:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
PS It is believed the unicorn was a Christian adaptation of the Celtic White Stag (Penguin) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PPS Carw uncorn, The unicorn in Peredur, Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium Vol. 36 (2016) is another. I don't want to go off track. The Celtic bit is not my main argument; that IVC is pre-IE and pre-horse is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peredur son of Efrawg is exactly an Arthurian "Gothic tale given a Celtic flavour", adapted from the French, evenis it happens to be in Middle Welsh. It's not "Celtic mythology". Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is viewed as incorrect by scholars, the topic needs to be addressed in the unicorn article and mentioned in the Indus Valley Civilization article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD please take it to the talk page and tell me how you will be presenting the scholarly consensus. Thus far all I have seen is simple sentences, without nuance, usually fronted in prominent places, e.g. in the lead of unicorn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS As for misinterpretations by early IVC archaeologists, there are many, the Pashupati seal being the prized doozy. The WP article on Pashupati seems to think the association with the various manifestations of Shiva is unsubstantiated. Rudra the Rigvedic precursor of the Shiva has no mention of seals; Shiva does have a section but most modern IVC archaeologists think the association is unwarranted, that even proto-Shiva is farfetched. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's overstating what most say - "unsubstantiated" certainly, but tenuous but possible, rather than far-fetched (though it is that in a literal sense). Rudra is the Rigvedic precursor of Shiva, but he has very different characteristics, which is rather the point. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are going off-track again, I think. I was making the point that there are several traditions of Siva (Vedic, ascetic in a forest, Lord of the Beasts (Pasu + Pati), or the Himalayas (Ish (god) Isaan (northeast)), erotic, god of the Hindu trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh), an essential figure of the Hindu creation myth, the symbol of Death, of the end of time (Mahakaal), deliverer of the Ganges, ...) on which various Hinduism scholars, Wendy O'Flaherty/Doniger, Gavin Flood, and others have written volumes. In the 1920s, the literature was less sophisticated. The name "Pashupati seal" has stuck, but most scholars whether of archaeology or history of religion today would name it something else if they had to do it all over again. Unicorns and IVC aresimilar. The disconnect there is even greater. The term "unicorn" is provocative, catchy, or careless, used mainly by colonial archaeologists for an audience back home. There is no Indus mythology of the unicorn; there is no post-Indus South Asian mythology of the unicorn. Kipling who was wiser, and more Indian than these archaeologists, has written somewhere for his Anglo-Indian and Indian readers, "... for ye know what the jest is worth." They forgot to. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauryan empire

Why did you remove the maximum extent of mauryan empire from the info box

You don't have any credible source to prove it wrong. This is straight up vandalism Most of the sources depict the maximum extent to be correct it should have been left there for reference purposes. Arjuna randi (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong editor; removal was explained in edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our recent discussion

Hi Fowler&Fowler. I'm glad we were able to reach a workable resolution to the content dispute at Talk:Great_Famine_of_1876–1878#Added_image. Now that we've done so, and it's been a couple of days, I'd like to talk about your behavior during our discussion. As you mentioned, you are an experienced editor, so I was surprised at how rude you were. You showed strong ownership behavior over the article. However, I don't take that personally, as I suspect you would have reacted similarly to any other editor who took the same actions I did. It's still a problem, though. On the other hand, you insulted me, implicitly threatened me, attempted to test my credentials in a way that no editor is entitled to do, and accused me of setting a trap for you. All that, I do find personally discomfiting.

You said: "You are in a long long line of drive-by editors (with no previous experience of writing anything on India-related topics, let alone Indian famine related topics) who want to stuff their favorite famine image in the article. I'm sorry you have done nothing but stuff an image, in the best traditions of WP:Lead fixation and offered no defense, only asked me, "Why?" "Why?" ... ad infinitum, ad nauseum... I am a busy editor who has created most famine-related content in British India"
You said: "I do know a few things about India. I am the main author of the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article, soon to be 17 years old as an FA. See my million viewer award on my user page. I won't ping admins yet, but if you continue in this fashion, attempting to facilely play Wikilawyer with an experienced editor, I soon will."
You said: "Of the 12 famines listed there, I've created and written 10 (all except the first and last). I've never seen you edit any of these articles. Your history gives no clue to showing an interest in any famine topics. Yet you feel completely entitled to changing the main image in an old article and are arguing with me about your right to do so."
You said: "This is not an old enough dispute between two content editors, only a talk page campaign by a drive-by who is bristling that their edit of adding yet another image of starving victims (there are already five in the article), but this time to the lead has been reverted, and wants redemption to salve their bruised ego."
You said: "More facile Wikilawyering. If you have knowledge of the topic and want to collaborate, please tell me what the the Indian Famine Commission had to do with this famine, where it discussed a version of entitlements later publicized by Amartya Sen in his Nobel-prize-winning work, or what the ancestors of V. S. Naipaul, another Nobel-laureate, for example, had to do with the famine."
You said: "PPS Ganesha811 please also don't play the Wikipedia wiseguy game of putting my words in quotes as if they were somehow nonstandard... PPPS This is beginning to look more and more like the game I'm used to seeing on this page. An entirely new editor, unknown to me, unknown to the broad topic of the page, appears on the page and changes an image. I revert the change. The drive-by editor begins to quote WP chapter and verse, all very politely, but with never any mention of any specifics, none at all. This goes on until I begin to lose my cool, and they then threaten to take me to ANI, or their encounter with me becomes fodder for those who do so later. The whole exercise is a trap, a bait. I'm making note of this here as a typical example."

So yeah, consider my ego bruised. Consider me a typical example. I don't think how you acted is good behavior for a long-standing Wikipedian. Fundamentally, you failed to assume good faith on my part, over and over again. Believe me when I tell you I did not intend to set a trap for you - indeed I had no idea you existed until you reverted my original edit and we started interacting. I say all of this in the hopes that you will read it with the genuine assumption that I am acting in good faith, as I know you are, with the intent that this message might improve your interactions with other editors. You are clearly dedicated to creating high-quality, well-sourced articles, and I respect that. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been in your place, I would have begun a discussion on the article's talk page first. I do that as a common courtesy in any article, let alone longstanding ones. I consider WP:BOLD to be a form of male aggression that WP has been infected with since its very origin. There is a good reason that women stay away from WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for having hurt your feelings. Part of the problem is that I'm strapped for time and people come at me from all directions, not all with noble motives or in good faith. Another thing is that a famine article exists as a famine article because of a reliably sourced text. Images are always secondary. Had you objected to something in the text and pointed out a reference, I would have been more supportive of your edit. You appeared to me to be making an all-or-nothing issue over one image. There was already a surfeit of images of victims of the famine in the article. I apologize again for having hurt your feelings, but I had the sense that you never really offered any reason for why that new image and its details, was more representative of the famine than any other already in the article, including the map. Anyway, why don't you add the Hooper image to a later section and also paraphrase the relevant text from reference I had mentioned (Britain's Barbed Wire Camps? or somesuch)? For my part, I will be keep your message about behavior very much in mind. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, thank you for your apology. I disagree on WP:BOLD, but live and let live. I appreciate you taking seriously what I wrote, and hope we can collaborate more fruitfully on some other article in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2021 India flood" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 India flood. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#2021 India flood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weighed in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Kashmir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir#/media/File:Kashmir_Region_November_2019.jpg

I loved the image on this map, well done. Which software did use to make this map? I wanted to enlarge it and print a glossy map version. Did the original 2004 CIA version have an editable version you used? Hopefully 1500 by 1500 pixels, the resolution is good enough for the final MAP print.

Also, the authenticity of the boundaries between J&K and Ladakh, which source did you refer to?

Thank you for the compliment. Unfortunately, I am on vacation without access to my usual resources. You will have to dredge through the article's history as well as related-histories yourself. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East India Company

Hi, I have seen that my edits to the subsections Education and Social Reform have been rejected multiple times on the page. This is my first time editing so I am not really sure what I have done wrong as I have put all of the information into my own words, referenced the journal article from which I got the information from and generally feel as though I have contributed more genuinely helpful information about the topics from a reputable scholarly source. I am very new to editing so I am sure I am probably doing something wrong but I need my edits to eventually be approved as this work is for a University project. Please can you give me any advice or more specific reasons as to why my edits keep getting rejected as I am genuinely trying to make a positive contribution to the page.

Thanks

Heroicmernaids98 (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]