Hi. We haven't crossed paths so far, but I've been watching your encounters with the notorious diruptor. He has tagged a number of images you uploaded for deletion out of malice. This is his mode of operation. He tried this trick with me regarding the History of Tamil Nadu article. I have reverted his tags. Parthi talk/ contribs 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your uncompromising dedication to the key Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V and your status as a valuable expert editor. Saravask 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC) |
I see you already have one of these, but thought you could use another one. You are much tougher than I have been in upholding the principles espoused by Jimbo in this e-mail. I hope more editors follow your example. Thank you. Saravask 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right I didn't know, my apologies. I will remove it now. SGGH speak! 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I could find 3 reverts, but not the 4th. Did his first edit today reverted to some old version? -- Ragib 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to adhere to a midpath and divided the official languages into Union and state(which you correctly made states).
So now that abundant knowledge about official languages is available to us let's try updating Official languages of India and Hindi(regarding its official status in India). -- Knowledge Hegemony 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, K-H, about your name, I must have been tired! Yes, the new infobox compromise is great! As for Abecedare's concerns about the official languages, I guess I am confused now. I thought the new infobox does not have the 8th schedule languages, but rather the official states languages. Oh, I see, it is the "others." Well, we could remove Sanskrit and "others," and then we would only have the official states languages (pending a check that the languages listed there are indeed the official states languages). As for the Official languages of India page, I think it is best (for me) to leave it to Lexmercatoria, since he is an expert and wants to present the page in all its nuances. I recently read the page, and realized that I don't have any problems with the main body (other than the lack of secondary references), but just with the lead, and I will convey the concerns to him. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from editing the Jinnah article. You can spread your disinformation shit somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia and it is a real shame you didn't bother to fix the article when someone vandalized it and Jinnah suddenly became a Sunni for I don't know how many weeks. Emбargo 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You still have not answered my message.
"what the heck is the matter with you? what is illogical other than you knee-jerk tendency to revert; don't you have anything better to do" is a personal attack. And you write such edit summaries far too often. Cease and desist. Sarvagnya 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you restore the Kipling link to the Lucknow article. It was not said that Kipling edited the pioneer at Lucknow. He was associated with The Pioneer which shifted overnight from Allahabad to Lucknow without missing a day's edition.
Kipling's association with UP is well known and it was put in as a value added info to the article.
Thanks and Regards, moon 07:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Professor, Since what is snow to leopard is also snow to ass, can you please have a look at here and offer a word or two? Wish Purandara also see this. 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.178 ( talk • contribs). at 04:12, 25 July 2007
Well, that question is a tricky one. For one, Indian language scripts (Devanagari, Perso-Arabic, ...) don't have capitals. That means that if your conjecture ("Indian penchant for initial cap as honorific" in English) is correct, it must be something of relatively recent vintage, since the tradition of Indians writing in English doesn't go back to much before the early 19th century. The question is muddled more by the tradition in English itself (now largely out of fashion) of capitalizing as a mark of respect. The tradition goes back at least to the 16th century and to the beginnings of modern English (and may itself have been acquired from Latin, which does capitalize). Here is the dedication by the translators of the King James' Version (KJV) of the Bible:
“ | Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many who wished not well unto our Sion, that, upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth, of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk, and that it should hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title; and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad. | ” |
That tradition of capitalizing not only honorifics, but other words, as a mark of respect (or sometimes just emphasis) was still going strong at the turn of the 20th century (and can be seen in many a book dedication or headstone epitaph). Here, for example, perhaps in ironic vein, is the last sentence of the author's note from Conrad's Nostromo (1917), "But this is the idlest of dreams, for I did understand perfectly well at the time that the moment the breath left the body of the Magnificent Capataz, the Man of the People, freed at last from the toils of love and wealth, there was nothing more for me to do in Sulaco." In the 19th century, Indians, as a subjugated people, attempting to master a foreign tongue (English), in contexts like (say) writing a letter to the District Commissioner, must have acutely felt the weight of this tradition. It may be that they chose to err on the side of caution ... Of course, once the idiom became their own, they may have brought to bear, in capitalization, other cultural prerogatives that were originally not part of the English tradition. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fowler&fowler,
I would like to get your opinion on the following suspicious sentences that were added to the
History of trigonometric functions article by
Jagged 85 this May,
Archaeological evidence suggests that trigonometry has been extensively used in ancient Sri Lanka in the constructions of reservoirs and other hydraulic structures as early as 6th century BC during the Anuradhapura kingdom. One such example is the vastly extensive irrigation system which used trigonometry to calculate the slope of the earth, canals were constructed to drop 6 inches every mile. Trigonometry also was used by the ancient Sinhalese in the invention of the valve tower and the valve pit (Biso Kotuwa) which were used to regulate water in the reservoirs.
The source for this information is the following website http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/ancient/history.htm , and it states the following:
The first extensive Sinhalese settlements were along rivers in the dry northern zone of the island. Because early agricultural activity-- primarily the cultivation of wet rice-- was dependent on unreliable monsoon rains, the Sinhalese constructed canals, channels, water-storage tanks, and reservoirs to provide an elaborate irrigation system to counter the risks posed by periodic drought. Such early attempts at engineering reveal the brilliant understanding these ancient people had of hydraulic principles and trigonometry. The discovery of the principle of the valve tower, or valve pit, for regulating the escape of water is credited to Sinhalese ingenuity more than 2,000 years ago. By the first century A.D, several large-scale irrigation works had been completed.
The mastery of hydraulic engineering and irrigated agriculture facilitated the concentration of large numbers of people in the northern dry zone, where early settlements appeared to be under the control of semi-independent rulers (see Land Use and Settlement Patterns , ch. 2). In time, the mechanisms for political control became more refined, and the city-state of Anuradhapura emerged and attempted to gain sovereignty over the entire island. The state-sponsored flowering of Buddhist art and architecture and the construction of complex and extensive hydraulic works exemplify what is known as Sri Lanka's classical age, which roughly parallels the period between the rise and fall of Anuradhapura (from ca. 200 B.C. to ca. A.D. 993).
It should first be noted that the article was not written by a historian of mathematics. Secondly, Jagged 85 somehow manages to get some of his facts wrong when (s)he states that the Anuradhapura kingdom existed in the "6th century BC" when the very article that he cited clearly states "nuradhapura (from ca. 200 B.C. to ca. A.D. 993)." Further, many of Jagged 85's claims, such as "calculate the slope of the earth, canals were constructed to drop 6 inches every mile" are entirely unsourced. Lastly, it seems to deviate from the main topic of the History of trigonometric functions.
I would like to delete the above text from the article for the reasons just mentioned. But, before I do the deletion, I would like to get your opinion on the matter. Thank you for your time. selfworm Talk) 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Re. Sarvagnya 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Professor, it is asking too much of you. Still, if you can spare a minute or two, can you have a very quick look here to see what is wrong with the Roman transliteration, and if the Urdu text is Oakay? You don't even have to touch it there. Just say here, why Roman transliteration is not displaying correctly. Regards. Mlalm 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Fowler&fowler, thank you for your post on my talk page. I feel that the image adds to the quality of the article as it displays the poem/song in Nasta`liq. Poems were usually written this way in order to show their elegance. Your fair use rationale also meets the required criteria. In light of these facts, I do not see any problem with keeping the image in the article. By the way, thanks for improving the Roman transliteration and adding the footnotes. Recently, you added the national anthems of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Might I ask your rationale for doing so? The song is strongly associated with India today and is little known in the other two counties ( source). In addition, if any Bangladeshis or Pakistanis did know the song, they might be hesitant to sing it because today the word Hindustan is usually associated with India (ROI). The reason why Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram appear under the See Also section is because they, along with Saare Jahan Se Achcha are the three most popular patriotic songs of India ( source 1, source 2). In light of these facts, I am removing those links from the See Also section. If you object to this removal, could you please explain why? Thanks again for all your work put into the article. I really admire and appreciate it! With regards, Anupam Talk 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply (I'm at my summer job during daytime :( ). Anyway, I am a bit unclear about the use of the fair use claim on the SJSA page. In any case, the image is replaceable with a free version (unlike rare images of persons which no one else can recreate). It might very well be possible to find a free version, or to get someone write it using the nice script. As a matter of fact, I think if someone draws the text on paper, and scans it, that will be a free version which we can use to replace the scan from the book. Thanks. --
Ragib
05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
isn't it? 59.91.253.250 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that you are working on the article Indian Mathematics. I recently got an email which had the folowing information. Maybe you must be quite aware and quipped with the info. I wonder how much of it is true? So, here I am copy-pasting the stuff-
last compiled in 1000 BC, believed to be handed down from 3000 BC by aid of complex mnemonic recital methods still known today.
compared to modern measurements of 7,926.7 miles.
Compared to modern measurements of 252,710 miles.
Thanks for uploading Image:Tarana-e-hindi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
F&F, Do you know if the Indian princely states like Hyderabad, were formally part of the "British India Empire" or just some sort of affiliates (say, like Puerto Rico)? If the latter, did they have their own passports, flags and Olympic representatives ? I know I can (and perhaps should) look this up on my own, but thought you may know the answer off-hand. Thanks. Abecedare 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
His birth centenary year. I expect that you will have some wonderful information to add there. Do we any longer have people who are experts in multiple disciplines? Lunarin 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Listen, you keep changing your argument (3 Times now), and I have given numerous arguments, and sourced from TIME magazine and Angus Maddison. You are adding nothing but trying gang up with user:Abecedare, and stop continuing to use these harassing techniques.
First debating the accuracy of the content, then repetitiveness (which you still haven't cited yet, and/or your unwillingness for reasoning), and now your claim that Dalrymple is not a historian. Well, according to his small Bio in the TIME magazine article it indicates that he is not only an "Historian", but an "award-winning" one. You've been caught in multiple lies and if your going to have to marginalizing attitude, we should get an independant arbitrator and settle this. Cosmos416 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
F&f, You are not alone. I have
been accused of the same bias, immaturity and supporting you in this conspiracy out of personal feelings. :-)
Abecedare
01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You guys have a long History with edit wars and get blocked, so pleas cut the banter. And Folwer, by the recent signs of you showing Retaliation against me by going through many of the past edits and starting adding misleading edits (forcing a Not Notable Source... as a Notable one. ) You refuse to show up proof these are Notable in other ways by showing mutliple sources and varying opinions.
You don't control wikipeida, but you act like you do. Because of your persistent Harassing' attitude, I'm launching a formal complaint against you in the incident notice boards later tonight or tomorrow, and will get someone to review your behavior (retaliation against me) and unwillingness (you won't negotiate, and have documented at least 3 times you changed your argument, and making misleading accusations)
Cosmos416 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you are sort of besieged. But I thought you wouldn't care a shit for that. Blnguyen's dirty act against Hornplease and his subsequent mulishness is of a degree that you can't pass without comments. Dab's silence over the whole thing is not good. I feel that you also haven't spoken enough in this regard, professor. I would like to remind you of your response to my earlier suggestion (as user Bypd, earlier in this page) which Dab and you spurned. I didn't understand the quote about the gypsy man in your reply about Kosambi earlier. Can you please tell me if the academic world attaches any value to Bernal's Science in History nowadays? Vigathathosha 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You have recently discussed the name of the British Raj article at Talk:British Raj and might be interested in a move request there. — AjaxSmack 07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Also on the topic of British India I noticed you swapped out my map awhile back. I found your comment that it was incorrect, with Kashmir being too big puzzling, especially since you replaced it with a map showing Kashmir the same size as mine did. I don't really care if my map is used in the article, but if it does have a mistake I'd like to correct it, I traced the borders from a period map. Kmusser 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you took an issue with my earlier edits win the India#History section regarding the last decade of the The Raj and the Indian independence movement. I think you may have come under impression that I making a PoV edit to promote Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army, which I will have to say I am not. I have indeed expanded a lot on the Indian National Army because I came accross a lot of good books on the article and its associated bits. But regarding your views that we shouldn't be taking a monolithic view, I have now provided referenced portion from the Encyclopaedia Britiannica entry on the INA that should convince you that it played a very prominent and indeed turbulent role in the last five, especially last two years of the Raj and as the article in Britannica itself says,
“ | the rebellious army proved a formidable force in the equally important struggle between the British colonial government and the pro-independence Indian leaders for the hearts and minds of the Indian population. | ” |
Before I edited the article, I came under the impression that anybody who read and didn't know anything would think that the movement started in 1920 with the arrival of Gandhi and then India got Independence in 1947 which is not only less than 1/10th of the picture, it is also wrong, because the movement started way back in 1880s and in fact had a number of notable events around the World War I time that had nothing to do with Gandhi and was in fact a lot more to do with what happened. It is neccessary I believe that it is brought out clearly that Gandhi and Congress's was the in the last two decades one of the strongest ones of many movements and the India article should not make a statement credting anybody with winning India independence because as you say, it was not a monolithic movement. Rueben lys 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe this discussion should be moved to Talk:India or the discussion started on Talk:India should be moved here. Knowledge Hegemony 07:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure that you are ok with this edit (see edit summary for the reason). Regards. Abecedare 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am highly displeased that many months ago you removed my edits, which were very NPOV and supported by verifiable references, about Kashmir's accession to India in Kashmir article. I have readded the edits, and I am not impressed by your idea that these edits should just belong to Jammu and Kashmir article and have no place in Kashmir. Cygnus_hansa 12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've been following that and have already weighed in: [2]. Hornplease 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bhadani, Since you are one of the most experienced Wikipedians, I thought it would be wise to get your opinion. In February 2007, we had an RfC on the Talk:India page concerning addition of new material (see here), and it was felt by a majority of the people commenting that stability of the article is important. Yesterday, out of the blue, Blnguyen, who has no history of editing on the India page, made a post on the page, that has created a lot of confusion. Could you take a look at this section of the Talk:India page? In particular, User:Sarvagnya, for example, has returned to his scheme for de-constructing the India page. (By way of background: Nichalp, who usually watched over the article is busy this summer; Ragib, who was subbing for Nichalp is busy too. Blnguyen seems to think that the page is in bad shape and is about to be de-FA'd. He feels that it needs many more citations (and their lack) is reason enough for it to fail an FAR. Nichalp, when he was active, discouraged over-crowding the text with too many citations (especially when the text was composed in the summary-style, as India is). I think Blnguyen has some valid points: the page needs more (and certainly better) citations and the prose (especially of some new sections that were created by other people) needs revamping, but I think you might be in a good position to assess Blnguyen's idea of expanding the article to twice its size.) Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to stop mentioning my name in the course of your misleading rants on multiple talk pages. You can appeal to spite("...Sarvagnya is back!..."), tradition (Nichalp, nichalp, nichalp), fear('Urgent:!', 'deconstructing the article'(sic)) and whatever else you want, but I cant see how that is going to help you on the bonafide discussion that is going on there (where again, you seem to be trying your best to divert attention). In any case, I request (nay, expect) that you stop taking my name and misrepresenting my stance. I usually put in writing what I 'feel/think' and it is out there for everyone to read and understand. I am sure they dont need you to write 500 word editorials about my stance.
And just so you know, Blnguyen has been a leading editor on WP:INDIA articles. So if he comments on the India talk page, there's nothing 'out of the blue' about it. Sarvagnya 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your edits to the India page says we need to discuss this in talk page. I have put an RfC there, please have a look. Rueben lys 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Fowler&Fowler, I've not gone into any detail of what the RfC on Talk:India is about, but it appears that as long as there is a discussion going on, and some editors feel there's something wrong about the material in the article, there's every justification for a tag on the relevant portion of the article informing readers about the issue. My suggestion, for whatever it is worth, is that your credibility as an editor will greatly improve from its already high level if you don't keep removing such tags that are accompanied by relevant discussion on talk pages unless you have a convincing reason. deeptrivia ( talk) 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I was away travelling and noticed your messages only today. Will pitch in with my comments soon. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, I am guessing the RfC is about to close, and while I am still to be convinced that my grounds are unfounded, I will congratulate you for making a good effort (again, even if I dont agree with the direction your argument took). Nevertheless, I will assume from the evidence that you are a well read and evidently knowledgable person. I hope we can work in the future in collaboration and not in confrontation as no doubt you will accept happened here. Good luck with your edits. Rueben lys 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I too personally support your depictions with Gandhi as the pivotal leader. Rest can have their rightful share on this page. Knowledge Hegemony 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
May you continue, Sir.
Just one more thing from personal experience - "Please be patient with newbies"(No need to add the last line to your award shelf.
Knowledge Hegemony 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. I've been a bit busy with "real life". Looks like it's late in the game now. If you still need help, let me know and I'll try to put in my two cents. Ciao. Tombseye 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So did you have something specific in mind for modifying/improving those maps? I think just converting them to color would make them more readable. Also I was thinking of using the 1909 map as a base since the historical district boundaries are easier to make out there. Do you know if there were significant changes between 1909 and 1949 that would mess that up? Also for the 3rd map, does the original source give a table with numbers as well? I'll have trouble re-creating that one otherwise. Kmusser 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Folwler&fowler, thank you for inviting me to make comments on the current discussion. I apologize for not replying earlier but I have been extremely busy. As of now, would my potential comments still be beneficial? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam Talk 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, It looks like the article has changed much since you worked on it last. For example, this passage. "In mathematics, Brahmagupta is considered the father of arithmetic, algebra, and numerical analysis. The modern arithmetic used today spread from India to Arabia and then to Europe. Initially, it was known as Al Hind in Arabic and De Numero Indorum in Latin. De Numero Indorum means "method of the Indians" and has become our arithmetic and algebra replacing the earlier Roman numerals and abacus-based methods." Can you please review the changes? Regards, 59.91.253.97 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The collapsible lists are useless if they are set [show]
by default. Can we do something about it.
Knowledge
Hegemony
15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My comment:
When starting a new section its wise to inform other editors so they they can also chip and and contribute their ideas. That's what I feel.
was in response to Reuben's comment:
The last thing I dont understand is why I have to ask for permission if I wish to add an additional section on S&T, or Education, or tourism or whatever?
I guess I was misunderstood because my comment was not in the right place.
Thanks for uploading Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose1930sa.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose 1930sa.jpg. The copy called Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose 1930sa.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hellow Fowler. I noticed you reverted an earlier edit I had made in the Gandhi page with regards to the sentence "strongest driving philosophies". You would've seen from the edit was changed by me coupla months ago. I think you will see why I may say have explain that I think "leading India to Independence" might seem like a less appropriate sentence as compared to say "one of the strongest driving philosophies" (or even the strongest driving philosophies would be more appropriate than "led India to independence" in my view). Rueben lys 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize it was a sub-page. Meanwhile, I was curious if you could provide me with the exact text of the following at your convenience: # ^ (Spear 1990, p. 176), (Stein 2001, p. 291), (Ludden 2002, p. 193) - I have to say that I will be doing my own digging to not only gather sources that refute terrorist label for Indian freedom fighters but also in a more general context to using the word terrorism. We are going to have a lengthy discussion on this regard :) -- Blacksun 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fowler, yes, I think archiving that bit would be a good idea. Incidentally, I would still point out that the short version of IIM you are writing (good work, I would say), in my opinion, should put the mutinies after the INA trials, since that was the context in which it happened, and also, the trials began in 1945 and not 1946 (correct if I misread it). Also you might want to mention that it did become a galvanising point (insert your own well-judged word-substitute there) and not just an event in the whole movement. But otherwise, very good effort, I will say in appreciation.Regards Rueben lys 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fowler, I just had a look at the short version as it currently stands at the moment. I can see you've put in a lot of work into this and I appreciate that, but I will say I can see quite afew grounds on which it might just fall short or disputed. The figures in the Jallianwallah bagh massacre is a start. The lack of mention of allied leadership, in particular, Nehru and Bose during the first Non-coop movement, is a second (re:Copland, 2001, Bose and Jalal, 2003...). There is also (majorly) the lack of Lal-Bal-Pal swadeshi triumvirate (feel free to point out if I overlooked this) which I believe was one of the first major shifts in Congress policies. There is also no mention of the Ghadarite movement, and the section towards the end on mutinies and INA trials does not either put the two in chronoligical and mutually corresponding context, nor explain how the trials and the mutinies shifted the ground situation (I mean how they affected the movement, as well as Atlee's policies, which were logical after-effects. re: Ghosh 1969, James 1993, Fay 1993, Bose and Jala 2003, Hyam 2007...). I do not wish to belittle your efforts here. But as you will see, these are the grounds on which the edits may and will get scrutinised and challenged. Regards Rueben lys 01:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 10:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. We haven't crossed paths so far, but I've been watching your encounters with the notorious diruptor. He has tagged a number of images you uploaded for deletion out of malice. This is his mode of operation. He tried this trick with me regarding the History of Tamil Nadu article. I have reverted his tags. Parthi talk/ contribs 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your uncompromising dedication to the key Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V and your status as a valuable expert editor. Saravask 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC) |
I see you already have one of these, but thought you could use another one. You are much tougher than I have been in upholding the principles espoused by Jimbo in this e-mail. I hope more editors follow your example. Thank you. Saravask 23:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right I didn't know, my apologies. I will remove it now. SGGH speak! 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I could find 3 reverts, but not the 4th. Did his first edit today reverted to some old version? -- Ragib 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to adhere to a midpath and divided the official languages into Union and state(which you correctly made states).
So now that abundant knowledge about official languages is available to us let's try updating Official languages of India and Hindi(regarding its official status in India). -- Knowledge Hegemony 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, K-H, about your name, I must have been tired! Yes, the new infobox compromise is great! As for Abecedare's concerns about the official languages, I guess I am confused now. I thought the new infobox does not have the 8th schedule languages, but rather the official states languages. Oh, I see, it is the "others." Well, we could remove Sanskrit and "others," and then we would only have the official states languages (pending a check that the languages listed there are indeed the official states languages). As for the Official languages of India page, I think it is best (for me) to leave it to Lexmercatoria, since he is an expert and wants to present the page in all its nuances. I recently read the page, and realized that I don't have any problems with the main body (other than the lack of secondary references), but just with the lead, and I will convey the concerns to him. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from editing the Jinnah article. You can spread your disinformation shit somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia and it is a real shame you didn't bother to fix the article when someone vandalized it and Jinnah suddenly became a Sunni for I don't know how many weeks. Emбargo 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You still have not answered my message.
"what the heck is the matter with you? what is illogical other than you knee-jerk tendency to revert; don't you have anything better to do" is a personal attack. And you write such edit summaries far too often. Cease and desist. Sarvagnya 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you restore the Kipling link to the Lucknow article. It was not said that Kipling edited the pioneer at Lucknow. He was associated with The Pioneer which shifted overnight from Allahabad to Lucknow without missing a day's edition.
Kipling's association with UP is well known and it was put in as a value added info to the article.
Thanks and Regards, moon 07:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Professor, Since what is snow to leopard is also snow to ass, can you please have a look at here and offer a word or two? Wish Purandara also see this. 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.91.253.178 ( talk • contribs). at 04:12, 25 July 2007
Well, that question is a tricky one. For one, Indian language scripts (Devanagari, Perso-Arabic, ...) don't have capitals. That means that if your conjecture ("Indian penchant for initial cap as honorific" in English) is correct, it must be something of relatively recent vintage, since the tradition of Indians writing in English doesn't go back to much before the early 19th century. The question is muddled more by the tradition in English itself (now largely out of fashion) of capitalizing as a mark of respect. The tradition goes back at least to the 16th century and to the beginnings of modern English (and may itself have been acquired from Latin, which does capitalize). Here is the dedication by the translators of the King James' Version (KJV) of the Bible:
“ | Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many who wished not well unto our Sion, that, upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth, of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk, and that it should hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title; and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad. | ” |
That tradition of capitalizing not only honorifics, but other words, as a mark of respect (or sometimes just emphasis) was still going strong at the turn of the 20th century (and can be seen in many a book dedication or headstone epitaph). Here, for example, perhaps in ironic vein, is the last sentence of the author's note from Conrad's Nostromo (1917), "But this is the idlest of dreams, for I did understand perfectly well at the time that the moment the breath left the body of the Magnificent Capataz, the Man of the People, freed at last from the toils of love and wealth, there was nothing more for me to do in Sulaco." In the 19th century, Indians, as a subjugated people, attempting to master a foreign tongue (English), in contexts like (say) writing a letter to the District Commissioner, must have acutely felt the weight of this tradition. It may be that they chose to err on the side of caution ... Of course, once the idiom became their own, they may have brought to bear, in capitalization, other cultural prerogatives that were originally not part of the English tradition. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fowler&fowler,
I would like to get your opinion on the following suspicious sentences that were added to the
History of trigonometric functions article by
Jagged 85 this May,
Archaeological evidence suggests that trigonometry has been extensively used in ancient Sri Lanka in the constructions of reservoirs and other hydraulic structures as early as 6th century BC during the Anuradhapura kingdom. One such example is the vastly extensive irrigation system which used trigonometry to calculate the slope of the earth, canals were constructed to drop 6 inches every mile. Trigonometry also was used by the ancient Sinhalese in the invention of the valve tower and the valve pit (Biso Kotuwa) which were used to regulate water in the reservoirs.
The source for this information is the following website http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/ancient/history.htm , and it states the following:
The first extensive Sinhalese settlements were along rivers in the dry northern zone of the island. Because early agricultural activity-- primarily the cultivation of wet rice-- was dependent on unreliable monsoon rains, the Sinhalese constructed canals, channels, water-storage tanks, and reservoirs to provide an elaborate irrigation system to counter the risks posed by periodic drought. Such early attempts at engineering reveal the brilliant understanding these ancient people had of hydraulic principles and trigonometry. The discovery of the principle of the valve tower, or valve pit, for regulating the escape of water is credited to Sinhalese ingenuity more than 2,000 years ago. By the first century A.D, several large-scale irrigation works had been completed.
The mastery of hydraulic engineering and irrigated agriculture facilitated the concentration of large numbers of people in the northern dry zone, where early settlements appeared to be under the control of semi-independent rulers (see Land Use and Settlement Patterns , ch. 2). In time, the mechanisms for political control became more refined, and the city-state of Anuradhapura emerged and attempted to gain sovereignty over the entire island. The state-sponsored flowering of Buddhist art and architecture and the construction of complex and extensive hydraulic works exemplify what is known as Sri Lanka's classical age, which roughly parallels the period between the rise and fall of Anuradhapura (from ca. 200 B.C. to ca. A.D. 993).
It should first be noted that the article was not written by a historian of mathematics. Secondly, Jagged 85 somehow manages to get some of his facts wrong when (s)he states that the Anuradhapura kingdom existed in the "6th century BC" when the very article that he cited clearly states "nuradhapura (from ca. 200 B.C. to ca. A.D. 993)." Further, many of Jagged 85's claims, such as "calculate the slope of the earth, canals were constructed to drop 6 inches every mile" are entirely unsourced. Lastly, it seems to deviate from the main topic of the History of trigonometric functions.
I would like to delete the above text from the article for the reasons just mentioned. But, before I do the deletion, I would like to get your opinion on the matter. Thank you for your time. selfworm Talk) 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Re. Sarvagnya 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Professor, it is asking too much of you. Still, if you can spare a minute or two, can you have a very quick look here to see what is wrong with the Roman transliteration, and if the Urdu text is Oakay? You don't even have to touch it there. Just say here, why Roman transliteration is not displaying correctly. Regards. Mlalm 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Fowler&fowler, thank you for your post on my talk page. I feel that the image adds to the quality of the article as it displays the poem/song in Nasta`liq. Poems were usually written this way in order to show their elegance. Your fair use rationale also meets the required criteria. In light of these facts, I do not see any problem with keeping the image in the article. By the way, thanks for improving the Roman transliteration and adding the footnotes. Recently, you added the national anthems of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Might I ask your rationale for doing so? The song is strongly associated with India today and is little known in the other two counties ( source). In addition, if any Bangladeshis or Pakistanis did know the song, they might be hesitant to sing it because today the word Hindustan is usually associated with India (ROI). The reason why Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram appear under the See Also section is because they, along with Saare Jahan Se Achcha are the three most popular patriotic songs of India ( source 1, source 2). In light of these facts, I am removing those links from the See Also section. If you object to this removal, could you please explain why? Thanks again for all your work put into the article. I really admire and appreciate it! With regards, Anupam Talk 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply (I'm at my summer job during daytime :( ). Anyway, I am a bit unclear about the use of the fair use claim on the SJSA page. In any case, the image is replaceable with a free version (unlike rare images of persons which no one else can recreate). It might very well be possible to find a free version, or to get someone write it using the nice script. As a matter of fact, I think if someone draws the text on paper, and scans it, that will be a free version which we can use to replace the scan from the book. Thanks. --
Ragib
05:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
isn't it? 59.91.253.250 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that you are working on the article Indian Mathematics. I recently got an email which had the folowing information. Maybe you must be quite aware and quipped with the info. I wonder how much of it is true? So, here I am copy-pasting the stuff-
last compiled in 1000 BC, believed to be handed down from 3000 BC by aid of complex mnemonic recital methods still known today.
compared to modern measurements of 7,926.7 miles.
Compared to modern measurements of 252,710 miles.
Thanks for uploading Image:Tarana-e-hindi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
F&F, Do you know if the Indian princely states like Hyderabad, were formally part of the "British India Empire" or just some sort of affiliates (say, like Puerto Rico)? If the latter, did they have their own passports, flags and Olympic representatives ? I know I can (and perhaps should) look this up on my own, but thought you may know the answer off-hand. Thanks. Abecedare 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
His birth centenary year. I expect that you will have some wonderful information to add there. Do we any longer have people who are experts in multiple disciplines? Lunarin 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Listen, you keep changing your argument (3 Times now), and I have given numerous arguments, and sourced from TIME magazine and Angus Maddison. You are adding nothing but trying gang up with user:Abecedare, and stop continuing to use these harassing techniques.
First debating the accuracy of the content, then repetitiveness (which you still haven't cited yet, and/or your unwillingness for reasoning), and now your claim that Dalrymple is not a historian. Well, according to his small Bio in the TIME magazine article it indicates that he is not only an "Historian", but an "award-winning" one. You've been caught in multiple lies and if your going to have to marginalizing attitude, we should get an independant arbitrator and settle this. Cosmos416 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
F&f, You are not alone. I have
been accused of the same bias, immaturity and supporting you in this conspiracy out of personal feelings. :-)
Abecedare
01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You guys have a long History with edit wars and get blocked, so pleas cut the banter. And Folwer, by the recent signs of you showing Retaliation against me by going through many of the past edits and starting adding misleading edits (forcing a Not Notable Source... as a Notable one. ) You refuse to show up proof these are Notable in other ways by showing mutliple sources and varying opinions.
You don't control wikipeida, but you act like you do. Because of your persistent Harassing' attitude, I'm launching a formal complaint against you in the incident notice boards later tonight or tomorrow, and will get someone to review your behavior (retaliation against me) and unwillingness (you won't negotiate, and have documented at least 3 times you changed your argument, and making misleading accusations)
Cosmos416 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you are sort of besieged. But I thought you wouldn't care a shit for that. Blnguyen's dirty act against Hornplease and his subsequent mulishness is of a degree that you can't pass without comments. Dab's silence over the whole thing is not good. I feel that you also haven't spoken enough in this regard, professor. I would like to remind you of your response to my earlier suggestion (as user Bypd, earlier in this page) which Dab and you spurned. I didn't understand the quote about the gypsy man in your reply about Kosambi earlier. Can you please tell me if the academic world attaches any value to Bernal's Science in History nowadays? Vigathathosha 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You have recently discussed the name of the British Raj article at Talk:British Raj and might be interested in a move request there. — AjaxSmack 07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Also on the topic of British India I noticed you swapped out my map awhile back. I found your comment that it was incorrect, with Kashmir being too big puzzling, especially since you replaced it with a map showing Kashmir the same size as mine did. I don't really care if my map is used in the article, but if it does have a mistake I'd like to correct it, I traced the borders from a period map. Kmusser 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you took an issue with my earlier edits win the India#History section regarding the last decade of the The Raj and the Indian independence movement. I think you may have come under impression that I making a PoV edit to promote Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army, which I will have to say I am not. I have indeed expanded a lot on the Indian National Army because I came accross a lot of good books on the article and its associated bits. But regarding your views that we shouldn't be taking a monolithic view, I have now provided referenced portion from the Encyclopaedia Britiannica entry on the INA that should convince you that it played a very prominent and indeed turbulent role in the last five, especially last two years of the Raj and as the article in Britannica itself says,
“ | the rebellious army proved a formidable force in the equally important struggle between the British colonial government and the pro-independence Indian leaders for the hearts and minds of the Indian population. | ” |
Before I edited the article, I came under the impression that anybody who read and didn't know anything would think that the movement started in 1920 with the arrival of Gandhi and then India got Independence in 1947 which is not only less than 1/10th of the picture, it is also wrong, because the movement started way back in 1880s and in fact had a number of notable events around the World War I time that had nothing to do with Gandhi and was in fact a lot more to do with what happened. It is neccessary I believe that it is brought out clearly that Gandhi and Congress's was the in the last two decades one of the strongest ones of many movements and the India article should not make a statement credting anybody with winning India independence because as you say, it was not a monolithic movement. Rueben lys 00:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe this discussion should be moved to Talk:India or the discussion started on Talk:India should be moved here. Knowledge Hegemony 07:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure that you are ok with this edit (see edit summary for the reason). Regards. Abecedare 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am highly displeased that many months ago you removed my edits, which were very NPOV and supported by verifiable references, about Kashmir's accession to India in Kashmir article. I have readded the edits, and I am not impressed by your idea that these edits should just belong to Jammu and Kashmir article and have no place in Kashmir. Cygnus_hansa 12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've been following that and have already weighed in: [2]. Hornplease 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bhadani, Since you are one of the most experienced Wikipedians, I thought it would be wise to get your opinion. In February 2007, we had an RfC on the Talk:India page concerning addition of new material (see here), and it was felt by a majority of the people commenting that stability of the article is important. Yesterday, out of the blue, Blnguyen, who has no history of editing on the India page, made a post on the page, that has created a lot of confusion. Could you take a look at this section of the Talk:India page? In particular, User:Sarvagnya, for example, has returned to his scheme for de-constructing the India page. (By way of background: Nichalp, who usually watched over the article is busy this summer; Ragib, who was subbing for Nichalp is busy too. Blnguyen seems to think that the page is in bad shape and is about to be de-FA'd. He feels that it needs many more citations (and their lack) is reason enough for it to fail an FAR. Nichalp, when he was active, discouraged over-crowding the text with too many citations (especially when the text was composed in the summary-style, as India is). I think Blnguyen has some valid points: the page needs more (and certainly better) citations and the prose (especially of some new sections that were created by other people) needs revamping, but I think you might be in a good position to assess Blnguyen's idea of expanding the article to twice its size.) Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to stop mentioning my name in the course of your misleading rants on multiple talk pages. You can appeal to spite("...Sarvagnya is back!..."), tradition (Nichalp, nichalp, nichalp), fear('Urgent:!', 'deconstructing the article'(sic)) and whatever else you want, but I cant see how that is going to help you on the bonafide discussion that is going on there (where again, you seem to be trying your best to divert attention). In any case, I request (nay, expect) that you stop taking my name and misrepresenting my stance. I usually put in writing what I 'feel/think' and it is out there for everyone to read and understand. I am sure they dont need you to write 500 word editorials about my stance.
And just so you know, Blnguyen has been a leading editor on WP:INDIA articles. So if he comments on the India talk page, there's nothing 'out of the blue' about it. Sarvagnya 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your edits to the India page says we need to discuss this in talk page. I have put an RfC there, please have a look. Rueben lys 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Fowler&Fowler, I've not gone into any detail of what the RfC on Talk:India is about, but it appears that as long as there is a discussion going on, and some editors feel there's something wrong about the material in the article, there's every justification for a tag on the relevant portion of the article informing readers about the issue. My suggestion, for whatever it is worth, is that your credibility as an editor will greatly improve from its already high level if you don't keep removing such tags that are accompanied by relevant discussion on talk pages unless you have a convincing reason. deeptrivia ( talk) 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I was away travelling and noticed your messages only today. Will pitch in with my comments soon. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Fowler, I am guessing the RfC is about to close, and while I am still to be convinced that my grounds are unfounded, I will congratulate you for making a good effort (again, even if I dont agree with the direction your argument took). Nevertheless, I will assume from the evidence that you are a well read and evidently knowledgable person. I hope we can work in the future in collaboration and not in confrontation as no doubt you will accept happened here. Good luck with your edits. Rueben lys 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I too personally support your depictions with Gandhi as the pivotal leader. Rest can have their rightful share on this page. Knowledge Hegemony 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
May you continue, Sir.
Just one more thing from personal experience - "Please be patient with newbies"(No need to add the last line to your award shelf.
Knowledge Hegemony 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. I've been a bit busy with "real life". Looks like it's late in the game now. If you still need help, let me know and I'll try to put in my two cents. Ciao. Tombseye 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So did you have something specific in mind for modifying/improving those maps? I think just converting them to color would make them more readable. Also I was thinking of using the 1909 map as a base since the historical district boundaries are easier to make out there. Do you know if there were significant changes between 1909 and 1949 that would mess that up? Also for the 3rd map, does the original source give a table with numbers as well? I'll have trouble re-creating that one otherwise. Kmusser 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Folwler&fowler, thank you for inviting me to make comments on the current discussion. I apologize for not replying earlier but I have been extremely busy. As of now, would my potential comments still be beneficial? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam Talk 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, It looks like the article has changed much since you worked on it last. For example, this passage. "In mathematics, Brahmagupta is considered the father of arithmetic, algebra, and numerical analysis. The modern arithmetic used today spread from India to Arabia and then to Europe. Initially, it was known as Al Hind in Arabic and De Numero Indorum in Latin. De Numero Indorum means "method of the Indians" and has become our arithmetic and algebra replacing the earlier Roman numerals and abacus-based methods." Can you please review the changes? Regards, 59.91.253.97 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The collapsible lists are useless if they are set [show]
by default. Can we do something about it.
Knowledge
Hegemony
15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My comment:
When starting a new section its wise to inform other editors so they they can also chip and and contribute their ideas. That's what I feel.
was in response to Reuben's comment:
The last thing I dont understand is why I have to ask for permission if I wish to add an additional section on S&T, or Education, or tourism or whatever?
I guess I was misunderstood because my comment was not in the right place.
Thanks for uploading Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose1930sa.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose 1930sa.jpg. The copy called Image:Azad bajaj kripalani patel bose 1930sa.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hellow Fowler. I noticed you reverted an earlier edit I had made in the Gandhi page with regards to the sentence "strongest driving philosophies". You would've seen from the edit was changed by me coupla months ago. I think you will see why I may say have explain that I think "leading India to Independence" might seem like a less appropriate sentence as compared to say "one of the strongest driving philosophies" (or even the strongest driving philosophies would be more appropriate than "led India to independence" in my view). Rueben lys 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize it was a sub-page. Meanwhile, I was curious if you could provide me with the exact text of the following at your convenience: # ^ (Spear 1990, p. 176), (Stein 2001, p. 291), (Ludden 2002, p. 193) - I have to say that I will be doing my own digging to not only gather sources that refute terrorist label for Indian freedom fighters but also in a more general context to using the word terrorism. We are going to have a lengthy discussion on this regard :) -- Blacksun 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fowler, yes, I think archiving that bit would be a good idea. Incidentally, I would still point out that the short version of IIM you are writing (good work, I would say), in my opinion, should put the mutinies after the INA trials, since that was the context in which it happened, and also, the trials began in 1945 and not 1946 (correct if I misread it). Also you might want to mention that it did become a galvanising point (insert your own well-judged word-substitute there) and not just an event in the whole movement. But otherwise, very good effort, I will say in appreciation.Regards Rueben lys 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Fowler, I just had a look at the short version as it currently stands at the moment. I can see you've put in a lot of work into this and I appreciate that, but I will say I can see quite afew grounds on which it might just fall short or disputed. The figures in the Jallianwallah bagh massacre is a start. The lack of mention of allied leadership, in particular, Nehru and Bose during the first Non-coop movement, is a second (re:Copland, 2001, Bose and Jalal, 2003...). There is also (majorly) the lack of Lal-Bal-Pal swadeshi triumvirate (feel free to point out if I overlooked this) which I believe was one of the first major shifts in Congress policies. There is also no mention of the Ghadarite movement, and the section towards the end on mutinies and INA trials does not either put the two in chronoligical and mutually corresponding context, nor explain how the trials and the mutinies shifted the ground situation (I mean how they affected the movement, as well as Atlee's policies, which were logical after-effects. re: Ghosh 1969, James 1993, Fay 1993, Bose and Jala 2003, Hyam 2007...). I do not wish to belittle your efforts here. But as you will see, these are the grounds on which the edits may and will get scrutinised and challenged. Regards Rueben lys 01:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 10:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)