User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 17

Gee's golden langur

Hi Fowler&fowler, since you're on a wikibreak, I've incorporated the great work you did on the history of the golden langur and merged it into the article. Hope you don't mind! When you back it would be great if you could add some more information to the other sections as well. Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Penny illustrated 1874 famine.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Penny illustrated 1874 famine.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Hunting party mandalay1885.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Hunting party mandalay1885.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Chikkadevaraja.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chikkadevaraja.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

INCOTM

Hi, you are receiving this message because your name is listed at Wikipedia:INCOTM/Members, where people indicate their interest in the India Project Collaboration of the Month (INCOTM).

INCOTM is restarting and you are welcome to nominate articles for collaborative improvement during July 2013. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Rice Gazeteer map for Mysore city

Dear Fowler&Fowler: I just saw your reply to my earlier request for a scanned copy of the map of Mysore city in the 1800s from Rice's Gazeteer. My apologies for having missed your message (I just hadn't signed in for a while). What is the most convenient way for you to send me the map? Should I send you an email address? Ardhajya (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still on the road. Back in mid July. Please leave a note here then. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian Principalities

I notice you are on a mission to, and as you call it, 'remove puffery' with regards to Indian principalities across Wikipedia. It kind of borders on loathing and abolitionism. What is your deal? Just an example is how eager you were to remove all mention of Karan Singh of Kashmir's royal heritage. The fact that he was made Regent of Kashmir makes him royalty (even though in pretense after 1971) - and no, you cannot take a historical title away from him. In the same way you cannot take away the fact that King Constantine II of Greece is still considered the titular (in-pretense) king of Greece. Heritage, titles, coat of arms, etc are all historically relevant to a person's entry and therefore has a place in Wikipedia. A simple disclaimer that the principality has acceded or titles were abolished is enough to circumvent any confusion a layman may have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbsin (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry he is not a royal today, just an ordinary Indian octogenarian who miraculously still has black hair. Other ordinary Indian octogenarians usually have white hair or no hair, except of course for the occasional Indian-Scottish octogenarians who have orange hair. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope things are well

Hey Fowler. You're missed out here. The place is slowly falling apart. Spiff has gone. In your absence Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has been hagiographized (!) as Mahatma Gandhi. And nobody cares! You're needed out here! Hope things are going well in real life and that you can spare some time for Wikipedia soon. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The change of name there was long overdue. You managed to keep it Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi by sophisticated bullying. What do you propose next? That Burmese bandits police Wikipedia? Both of you are Mahatma Gandhi haters. Susesisa (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And who are you? That's quite some knowledge of the personalities involved for a newcomer. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I've just logged in after a long long time. I'm still on the road. It'll be mid July before I'm back home. Yeah, I noticed Gandhi is now Mahatma. Many people in any case think that's his name, and have for some time. The web page of a hospital in Pakistan says: "A marble plaque bears witness to the opening of the Hospital on 17th July 1934 by Mr. Mahatma Gandhi." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you're not planning to disappear for ever. Enjoy your travels! --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for contribution

Please see this article. It contains a lot of propaganda needing correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.242.202 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Scanned map of Mysore city from Rice

Dear F&F... just a reminder regarding my earlier request for a copy of the map of Mysore city from Rice. Thanks. Ardhajya (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shalwar kameez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK hook is too obscure

It was not the original hook, I changed it as I was told I was being sensationalist with the first one. I was looking for something interesting but not over sensationalist hence the new one. It is a bit crap I know. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No probs. Now I understand. Why don't you make it: DYK ... Anti-Muslim violence in India has rarely occurred in South India? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia has already been to AfD and failed there, despite my best efforts. It may work again because some of those involved in the last discussion are now persona non grata but, in any event, the CSD tag needs to be removed and I've done that thing. Good to see you back, btw. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush for fixing it. Glad to be back. Hope all is well with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• nytimes.com/2012/11/05/the-princelings-of-indias-congress-party}}</ref> Scindia was tasked by the [[Planning Commision (India)|Indian Planning Commission}} with preventing a repetition of the power grid collapse of July 2012, which according to Commision

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nijjar

Regarding this removal, I queried the credentials of Nijjar during your absence. There is a thread about it somewhere on WT:INB - I'll try to find a link later. I had always been suspicious of him and have no idea if I added that info to the article following the INB query, but he did seem to be a genuine academic. Which, of course, does not stop him from writing a poor book. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Atlantic Publishers, in Delhi, seem to either publish books whose copyright they think has expired (they simply make facsimile reprints of all pages except the copyright page, on which they write their own updated bogus stuff) or books by relatively obscure authors who are not subjected to any rigorous peer review. The Nijjar book uses expressions such as "Indo-Pak stock." That made me suspicious right away. The Scythian migration myth gets a lot of mileage in Rajasthan and Punjab, where many are still attracted to the idea of a Central Asian origin. Will look for more reliable stuff, but as far as I can tell from the modern historians (Andre Wink at UW-Madison is an expert), Jats are native to the lowlands of Sind and there is no mention of them in the sparse Indian historical record before the early medieval era (i.e. seventh century CE). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll do some more digging. I was having to take a lot of what was said first time round in good faith but I've managed to expand my technical horizons slightly since then via proxies to the US Gbooks etc. I did wonder a couple of days ago whether our recently blocked friend might in fact be the same person but it is much more probably a coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

BSN was apparently P.E.S.(I), M.A., Ph.D. (History), M.A., M.O.L. (Persian) M.A. (Punjabi), Addl. Director, Punjab State Archives, Patiala, Member of the Indian Historical Records Commission - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of notability

There seems to be something wrong with you definition of notability, of content that should be part of an article. I havn't been active recently much. So maybe there is some overall change in Wiki itself which i am not aware of. Since when have we started removing information of spouses and children from biographies? Since when have we started removing mentions of Presidentship of an association, which actually has a blue link? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

How many presidents have there been of that association? What about secretaries? What about junior-under-secretaries? When does one stop mentioning the nonsense? One or even two references in today's non-stop kumbh mela of Indian newspaper stories do not constitute encyclopedicity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Would inclusion depend on the quantity of the former or later presidents? And why is it nonsense? Politics and cricket aren't unrelated in India. I will assume in good faith here that you aren't much aware of the link. For starters try this: Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association poll brings different fractions of Congress together. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry, I'm not taking content out, but rearranging it in descending order of importance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine! Strangely your first reply kinda confirmed my belief that you were deleting the content. Will wait till you finish your rearrangements. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nothing has been taken out. It it more balanced with both the good and the bad. Many more references have been added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Expect maybe the spouse and children. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Spouse and children not notable. Not a facebook page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC) PS I was wrong. Nonnotable wife and kids mentioned in Infobox. More than enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Unreadable

Hi. I notice you recent edits at Mahatma Gandhi article with umpteen tags has made the article completely unreadable.Please update the article or remove those tags. RouLong (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your irrelevant post at talk:Gandhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi

Sorry I did not notice the in use template. I tried to address a few of your tags by changing prose, and in some instances, by deletion of tagged sentences. Please follow up. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's all right. Something has come up, so I'm flat out of time for a couple of days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chambal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply back

At Talk:India. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring in Partition of India

Hi. I really appreciate your edits on articles related to the Indian subcontinent but I must say that you're undermining others' efforts by removing large portions of referenced text. You can add whatever you like, with proper citations and make changes related to images but please gain on consensus on the removal of large portions of well-referenced text, and not edit like a professor striking out undergraduate work. Thanks.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not only beholden to referenced text, also to relevant and accurate text. The text you have added is outside the scope of this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I only added a few sentences to the article. Most of the material on Delhi and minorities was already there. If you dislike Delhi or minorities, please turn a blind eye when you see those sections. I have absolutely no problem with your other edits (like image changes, rephrasing, corrections etc), but only with your removal of entire sections with substantial referenced material. I really wish to keep all your edits except for the removal of sections you performed but find it very difficult to do so. If you could do all other edits except the removal of significant volume of text, it will be perfectly fine and we can discuss why we need to remove the sections you dislike.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And no, I do not buy the argument that the partition of India has nothing to do with minorities because majority-minority concept is the whole idea behind it. Also, Delhi was the city that received the largest number of refugees and had its population double within a few years as a result, making it pertinent to the article.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mahatma Gandhi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Natal and Verulam

Company rule in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Bassein

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism in Pakistan

Hi. I was wondering if you could contribute something to the article on Buddhism in Pakistan. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Upinder Singh

You know the funniest/worst bit about mistaking Singh's gender? This edit, I made in April, 2009. I blame age-related cognitive decline!

That aside: would you know of a good source for the 60-70KYA arrival estimate; I could pull one up by googling, but if you know of a good source (ie, not merely RS), that would be preferable (no hurry though). Anyway, glad to see you still active on the project and the India page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I was about to post on your talk page. Welcome back! You've been away too long. Hope you'll stick around (even if with an occasional edit; yes, I find I have less and less time as well). You anticipated also what I've been up to in the last few minutes. I've been reading a good up to date source. Will post on Talk India soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahatma Gandhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muslim League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution of India

Go crazy. Abecedare (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I had compiled a similar list of references which, cited to a pro forma sentence, I slapped on a number of princely articles: Saif Ali Khan, Karan Singh, Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, but yours is much better. I don't know if mine are even there any more in those articles. Let me know when the page is ready. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

1. See edit summary. :)
2. You (and your page-watchers) are invited to edit the page. Once it is in half-decent state, we can move it to mainspace. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha. And you are worrying about age-related cognitive decline. The art of memory some wise man said is no less the art of forgetting that that of remembering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick Question

In your comment on the April Fools' Day talk page, you stated, "...cut and pasted in its entirety from a blocked eHow link to an article...". You're obviously 100% regarding the content issue, but I'm curious: what exactly did you mean by "blocked...link"? Did you simply mean eHow is considered "unreliable"? Thanks for any clarification! DKqwerty (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

When I tried to save my original post, which had the details of the eHow article, author, and url," in cite web format, I was surprised to read a message at the top of the page which said that the link to the article was a "blocked link" and could not be included, or words to that effect. You could try saving, {{cite web|url=http://www.ehow.com/info_8348471_origin-april-fool-jokes.html| author= Laura Jean Holton|title=What is the origin of April Fools' Jokes?|publisher=eHow|accessdate=14 September 2013}} and see if you get the same message. It is possible I made some other mistake. I must say I'm a little puzzled. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Butting in: I think the edit-notice appears because ehow.com is on this Spam Blacklist as a site that doesn't meet wikipedia's content policies and is often used to spam wikipedia. you can see the original 2008 discussion that led to being added to the list here. Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I tried adding the article as you cited to my Sandbox and the edit went through. However, in attempting to re-add it to the April Fools' Day article, it was indeed blocked, stating:

Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

• To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save.

• Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener, you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded.

• If you feel the link is needed, you can:

• Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you).
• Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia.

• The following link has triggered a protection filter: ehow.com

Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

Apparently the link has to be added to article space in order to trigger the filter. Neil2000 is adding the eHow content from mirror infoplease.com, which is how (s)he managed to get the ref into the article. Anyways, hopefully we're both clear on the "blocked link" issue now! DKqwerty (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare and DKqwerty, for clearing up my confusion! There's a lot going on behind the scenes on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to V. S. Naipaul may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2013|year=1993|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-864339-5}} Quote: ''vidiādhar'' ([[Hindi]] "possessed of learning," (p. 921) from ''vidyā'' ([[Sanskrit]] "knowledge, learning," p.
• learning," p. 921) + ''dhar'' ([[Sanskrit]] "holding, supporting," p. 524); ''sūrajprasād'' (form ''sūraj'' ([[Hindi]] "sun," p. 1036) + ''prasād'' ([[Sanskrit]] "gift, boon, blessing," p. 666)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Unencylopedic picture

Namaste, Fowler&fowler. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 19:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

STOP BULLYING and disruption

F&F, Not sure what your agenda is on the WP pages. You have been acting nothing short of bullying people into following your line of thought . You have been following me into topics you never had remote interest only with an intention of causing disruption. However you get off, Please stop this nonsense. STOP treating WP as your personal blog. You have been the most UNCIVIL editor people have encountered on WP.Neil2000 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Your edit on April Fools' Day is a clear WP:COPYVIO. You have copied and pasted the text in its entirety from an eHow article on April Fools' Day. Wikipedia takes all cases of copyright violation and plagiarism seriously. Please file an WP:ANI notice against me if you think my reversal your edit was uncivil or if I have acted uncivilly to you elsewhere on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• NOTE to Neil2000 — His reverts were very much in keeping with Wikipedia's copyright policies, and were neither disruptive nor bullying. DKqwerty (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How about now creative qwerty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil2000 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO sites

Any particular reason you consider Nizamuddin and Qutb complex to be under ND? They were both outside Lutyens' plan and are currently also outside the NDMC territory. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Have already removed.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see that I jumped the gun, the article was in a real mess and I'd not have noticed it if not for the questions posed on the talk page by an editor who came by to copy edit the eyesore. BTW, there's also Lutyens' Delhi which in its current form I think just needs to be merged to the history section, but I'm not aware of the literature surrounding it so perhaps it could be significantly expanded? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Listing of schools by age

Actually, a lot of lists make it so you can sort by multiple traits of the institution. So there is no rule that the order of the list needs to be sourced to anything, only that its contents need to be sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying (and very clearly too!) Good to have that information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi

Hi, I see you've been working on the Gandhi article and "rereading his biography". Would you be interested in helping get it up to GA status?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I thought it already was a GA. Hmm. I think I might not be able to get around to working on Gandhi for a while yet. I'm also working on V. S. Naipaul and, as usual, I keep getting distracted by this and that! I should probably post on the Gandhi talk page. Let me mull it over, and I'll soon post there. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, I see it is, I was using Cologne Blue that's why.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

An FA push for Gandhi is a good idea. If I recall correctly, fowler was on one of his many vacations :) when it came up for FA review a few years ago and though I did try to save it, I'm no fowler! --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha. First, thanks for the compliment. As for vacations, I do go away for a few months every year, but often my vacations are ordered or self-enforced, taken either because the boss (and I have only one boss, the one in the house) has told me to lay off Wikipedia or because I find myself dropping the ball in RL. I came close yesterday to taking another vacation: I was working on some WP-related thing and forgot that our feistiest cat had a vet's appointment. I ran to the garage to get the cat carrier, but she in the meantime, having divined that something unpleasant was amiss, ran way upstairs and parked herself in the loft. After I couldn't dislodge her, I had to call in the boss, who in one sweep of her hand not only grabbed the snarling kitty by the scruff, but also dumped her into the carrier. I then got a hollering for being both tardy and wussy. (The boss, btw, has higher standards of un-wussiness: she once smacked with her open palm a hawk who had swooped down to grab a rabbit in our front yard; it was a big hawk too and all this happened before the rest of us could figure out what the noise was all about.) Anyway, back to the topic, both Gandhi, the Mahatma, and Netaji Bose are problematic articles, with legions of POV-pushers coming through. On Bose, I think we have finally managed to establish that he is dead (and not aged 116, living in Manchuria preparing for his final march on Delhi). Maybe the best thing is to edit in bits and pieces, fits and starts, here and there, unobtrusively. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

F.P. Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Trinity College, Home Guard, Thomas Dekker and Bedford College

V. S. Naipaul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Viva voce

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Partition of India

Hi, Fowler&fowler. Here you said "take to talk page if you like", so here are two questions. First, the file Divisions of India and Pakistan, 1950.jpg (which seems to me badly named) shows "The Part A, Part B, and Part C States of India, as confirmed in the Constitution of India (1950)". So far as I am aware it does not show "India and Pakistan as envisaged in the Partition Plan 1947" – we need only look at what it shows for Kashmir. The map was not created to show anything to do with a partition plan, so should we not agree on removing it, rather than disagreeing about the caption? On the boundary between India and Pakistan what it shows is simply what would be shown by any map of India from the 1950s or later. On another point, we have an article called Violence against women during the partition of India, while Rape during the partition of India is a redirect to it. You have reverted my change to display the word "Rape" rather than "Violence", and I do not have a terribly strong view on it, but I should have thought linking to the actual page title is the most neutral approach? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the 1950 map is not the best, but it is better than any other public domain maps I have been able to find. It at least shows East and West Pakistan. Modern maps show, Bangladesh, which are likely to confuse a new reader. I did consider the UN South Asia map, File:South Asia UN.png, may have even stuck it in there for a few days, but it has too much information. I'm not sure I understand your remarks about Kashmir, because the map explicitly leaves it out of both India and Pakistan, but I agree that this map is India-centered. To be honest, although I had originally uploaded it from my book, it was deleted because it wasn't in the public domain, having been made by the well-known map makers in Edinburgh, whose name I'm forgetting. But someone, it seems photoshopped it and put it back. I doubt it will survive renewed scrutiny, but I have put it there until I can find the time to trace it, using software I have, into a more neutral map. Meanwhile, give me a day or two, I'm going to look at some old papers, with maps, which might have now entered the public domain in South Asia, which they hadn't when I first worked on the articles. As the violence or rape stuff, if I changed it, it was likely inadvertently. I don't believe the article should contain too much of that, because each side has its own story of woes, and if you allow one story you have before long a million. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha, didn't take long. I found a map from 1947, which is much better. I'll have to figure out to finagle the public domain part. Even if I can't manage the PD issue, I'll be able to trace it; it provides more and more accurate information. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is no alternative to it, you may prefer to put together a Fair Use justification and upload it to en.wikipedia instead of Commons? I confess that I have never seen a contemporary map showing a "partition plan". The whole topic was an explosive one, of course, and so far as the states were concerned the British could push but they could not compel. And things moved so fast that showing the actual outcome was more useful for most purposes. Ishtiaq Ahmed notes (State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia (1998), p. 99) that "On 15 August 1947 India achieved independence... The several hundred princely states which came within Indian territory could in principle remain independent but were advised by both the British government and the Congress Party to join India." In my humble opinion, the point is worth including in the intro of the Partition page, but I am not inclined to say any more about it for now. Moonraker (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Side comment: Fowler, I just read the lede of the Partition of India article, and while it is factual and arguably necessary content for the article, it does not summarize the article as one would hope. At present it is closer to a "Scope" or "Definitions" section of a paper, rather than the "Abstract" or "Introduction". Next time you work on the article, can you look into remedying that ? Abecedare (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Moonraker, Yup, I did just that. Here, for your viewing pleasure is File:Partition-of-India-Spate-Jan-1948.jpg. I've added it to the Partition of India page. Spate the author, was an adviser to some Muslim princely states, which joined Pakistan (I believe Bahawalpur was one). So he is pretty fair with the maps etc. As for the business about who advised whom to join what, I'd rather stay away from it. It is a can of worms. There are 500 pretenders waiting in India, whom the wide-eyed wonder-struck Indians reporters assigned on the ex-royalty beat, insist on calling His Highness Hurree Jamset Ram Singh the Nabob of Bhanipur, all 4 square miles of it. Go look at Priyadarshini Raje Scindia etc etc Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Abecedare I can do that, but I'm flat out of time right now. Would you like to do it? I know you to be a fair editor with long experience of working on fine articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I can give it a try but it may be some time before I get to it (You well know how we all tend to over-commit and wear ourselves thin across multiple articles... and then there are all those off-wiki distractions). Thankfully this is a presentation, rather than a content concern, so the reader is not being short-changed too much in the meantime. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fowler&fowler. I'm just about to begin some real work but will go back to it another time. By the way, I see that that File:Partition-of-India-Spate-Jan-1948.jpg is indeed dated January 1948, but some of the princely states shown within Pakistan had not gone so far as to accede to it by that date! Perhaps the words "adhering to" were carefully chosen by the map-maker to finesse the point. The dates are given in my new page on the princely states of Pakistan. Best wishes, Moonraker (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The Sultanate of Bengal

Hi!

Given your interest in South Asian history, I wondered if you would be interested in improving the Bengal Sultanate article. It's an important page I believe, since the eastern India during the middle ages was very much dominated, or at least overshadowed, by this state.--Bazaan (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

POV in Partition of India

Hi, Fowler&fowler. Your edits present a point-of-view characteristic of Pakistani Muslim nationalists. For instance, you are repeatedly removing all references to Two-nation theory and calling Direct Action Day a day hoped by Muslim League to be peaceful when it is a well-established fact that it was designed to be a violent and in Jinnah's words "unconstitutional" "war". Margaret Bourke-White was a witness to Jinnah's speeches and she, along with hundreds of other writers, does not take that "peaceful" demonstration. --Bookishness (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Bourke-White was a photographer, not a historian. Best not to characterize my edits in the way you have, and best also not to stuff nonsense into the article. I have long experience with editing India-related articles; you don't. Please also don't presume to remove information under the pretext of fixing grammar. The grammar is just fine. That is another thing I don't need help with (see here and here) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jainism

Hi, I moved your message from WT:FTN to WP:FTN; I presume you meant the latter. vzaak (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually didn't know what I was doing, having hastily read a post somewhere! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo authenticity

F&f (and page-watchers), Any thoughts on whether these two photographs showing Gandhi being assassinated and post-assassination are authentic? Their provenance is essentially unknown, and an online search finds them used only on some fringey blogs, so I am suspicious... but not certain. I can imagine some Indian publishers avoiding them out of concern for "politeness" or fear of public reaction, but it would be impossible for them to be genuine and not discussed anywhere in scholarly literature. So, have you come across them before in reliable sources? Abecedare (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

:) Gandhi was leaning on his grandnieces, where are they? Also it was a raised garden where he was going to address his prayer meeting, he had just climbed up the steps, where are they? See File:MKGandhi assassination spot.jpg, in which the stylized footprints begin a the top of the steps. Besides, how did Godse turn into a 1960s vanilla American TV actor? He was long dead by then. The first is photoshopped; the second is not Gandhi, probably someone killed in the partition violence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On second though, the laughable posing of the "newspaper photograph" should have been evidence enough, and I was being too cautious perhaps. Thanks for the confirmation! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good lord! The last time I saw the assassination page was around the time that Bal Thackeray's death page was created here. Since then the second image has been added there. Well, I've removed it and sent it to deletion at Commons. As for the first image, it's a very artistically developed and aged rendition :) —SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the first one is a screencap from Nine hours to Rama and Godse was played by Horsst Buchholz (File:Gandhi in newspaper.jpg). —SpacemanSpiff 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good find. Missed that in my image search, and we were giving the conspiracy theorists/propagandists too much credit for their photoshop skills. Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the editor who posted it on the talk page tagged it for copyvio, I only thought of it after that. It appears that he was also initially taken in by the newspapery feel like we were, and then did some research. —SpacemanSpiff 19:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a Wikipedia page on Old Hollywood portrayals of Asians (or something similar). If there isn't there should be one, which should have Warner Oland playing Charlie Chan, Sam Jaffe playing Gunga Din, Alec Guiness playing Professor Godbole "A Passage to India, etc etc ... and Horsst Buchholz playing a Chitapavan Brahmin from Poona. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is one on Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood, which I found by looking for a page on I.Y. Yunioshi. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Wikipedia has everything! Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course it has! We have 43 subcategories (and likely about 500 articles, I can't bother checking) for Category:Transformers characters. I had no clue about how [in]famous it was until I started seeing this stuff repeatedly at ANI and AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Abecedare:, @SpacemanSpiff: As for Yunioshi, Mickey Rooney, who as a teenager was one of the great acting talents of all time (not just according to me, but also Cary Grant), unfortunately, did make the cut in the leading man category. So, the most popular star of Hollywood of the late 30s was left with only B-movie roles in the 1950s. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Here he is from 17 to 93, apparently still kicking. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Colonial India

The list of schools is really good and you should formalize it. Perhaps organizing it along the lines of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. But, that leaves us with the same question. What do we call it? it. The entity that now consists of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was "India" before 1947. But, I suppose, a List of schools in India pre-1947 would be misunderstood by the average reader who likely doesn't know that these three countries were all a part of something that was called "India" though that India was not a nation state. One option is to break the list into three separate lists, one each for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (my preferred option). Another option is to just go with the list of schools in India pre-1947 and let the reader figure out that that 'past' India is not the same as the 'now' India. A third option is the 'British India' tag but that carries too much baggage (Burma? Princely states)? Or we could stick to the "colonial" tag but that drags French and Portuguese territories into the picture and I'm not sure I like that identification anyway. What do you think? --regentspark (comment) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the part I'm not trying to worry about too much, for now that is. Not only are there the issues you point out, but people will justifiably ask, why stop at 1900? I first thought I'd go until 1919 or 1920, those, respectively, being the years of the Montague-Chelmsford reforms (after which I get the sense the British in their heart of hearts gave up on India) and Gandhi's non-cooperation movement (which saw an sudden increase in "nationalist schools"). But I soon realized there were just too many schools! I'm hoping that the Company years 1765–1857 alone might turn up enough schools that they'd make a separate list: ie. there will need to be multiple lists (if they are to be intelligible to a person with the high IQ of an average Wikipedia reader). Certainly "List of schools in India under Company rule" should work. Anyway, my bigger problem in the immediate future will be verifying the accuracy of the claims etc. But here I discovered a neat little trick of primary source research. Q: How do you find more schools from the period, say, 1800 to 1857 (unlisted as yet on WP) and how do you check the claims of those already listed? A: Examine the results of the Calcutta university "Entrance exams" from 1869! I also have those of Madras and Bombay universities which will yield another crop of school names. (Check out, btw, the Entrance exam questions: they make a strong case that the standards are falling ...) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How about using using "Indian subcontinent" in the title ? As with all related terms, the exact boundaries are a bit nebulous, but at least it is more easily seen as a geographic entity rather than a political or cultural one. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Indian subcontinent, with dates, would take care of most issues. --regentspark (comment) 18:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to Wiki but if you are digging through ancient results lists etc then keep an eye for people called Bainbridge. Don't go out of your way but please do let me know if you happen upon any. Archive.org cannot easily be searched - the ocr mechanism is not great - but I'm struggling to find my ancestors, some of whom were born in Bangalore but were Brits. I've tried some of the India Lists but I'm not even sure that I caught all of those when I looked. And, hey, my lot are pretty exotic: the other limb travels back to German Moravian missionaries who were slave-owners in the West Indies. It is a shocking past that I have and my life will not be long enough to atone for all that my colonial forebears did. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What years for Bainbridge? I see various Bainbridges including one who married in Bangalore: "May 20, 1865: At Bangalore, Capt. Bainbridge, 21st Fusliers, eldest son of Edward Thomas Bainbridge, esq., Sussex-place, Regent's-park, to Elizabeth Amy, only child of the late Chas. Searle, esq., Madras Army, and stepdau. of Lieut.-Colonel Falls, R.H.A. Bellary." And what years and islands in the WIs? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Last bit first. John Nicholas Ganson is recorded in the 1817 Barbados slave register. He was b. 29 Jul 1744 in Gross Ottersleben, near Magdeburg but although there is a headstone for him just up the road from me in England, it seems possible that he died 5 March 1820 in Qom (that is some trip to make at ca. 73, from Barbados to Persia, but the Moravians did attempt missionary work there also, along with Greenland, the US etc). His son, John Emmanuel, was born in 1801 in Antigua. JNG is also recorded as Johann Niklas/Niklaus/Nikolaus Ganson and there are a few snippets of his letters in print (eg: [1] and [2]). I'm reading up a lot about the Moravians at present and will be taking a stab at improving our various articles concerning them.

I'll get back to you about Bainbridge - the info is on my fileserver and I'm doing some maintenance on that at the mo. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm reminded of "From Greenland's icy mountains, From India's coral strand, ... (not so popular now). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of unrelated things, here is something else I noticed in 1867 Calcutta University Entrance Exam Results. It is often said (and I believe I have been even told this by friends from West Bengal) that the modern-day Bengali names: Bannerjee, Bose, Chatterjee, Chowdhry, Chuckerbutty (rarely used now), Mukherjee, Mullick, Roy/Ray were adopted by Indians as a response to some kind of pressure, direct or indirect from the British, even that it was akin to a sort of Ellis Island conversion (eg Johann Fraulich Fröhlich --> John Gay). But notice the names in the list: they are all rendered in their Bengali/Sanskritic form: Bandyopádhyáy, Basu, Chattopádhyáy, Chaudhuri, Chakravarti, Mukopádhyáy, Mallik (even distinguishing it from the Muslim "Málik") and Ráy (where, á is the a in "father") The anglicized renderings are nowhere to be found. Also, the first names are spelled in the fashion they are in Sanskrit,, as one name (e.g. Kártikchandra) not two (Kartik Chandra, or even Kartik Chunder). I guess, I'm puzzed: if in 1867, after 110 years of English presence in Bengal, the British, on paper at least, were not using them, rather taking pains to add accent marks for pronunciation, how and when did it start and who was responsible for it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it is still the case but, until recently, Calcutta University would use the literary name regardless of what a person's actual name was. Anil Chatterjee's diploma would be in the name of Anil Chattopadhyay even if his passport said "Chatterjee". Causes on end of trouble! Dwai or Tito can probably tell us what the current state of things is (I'm sure they lurk here - if they don't, they should!) --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, will await their input. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right RP. See here, where in the same publication, the names are all anglicized. Perhaps, the literary names of the scholars was remnant of some British custom (say, of having Latin names in formal lists) akin to American degrees in which the full name: first middle and last are included. I learned something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't restricted to Calcutta University, I think other universities in the area follow it too (Presidency, Jadhavpur et al) and the practice has followed at least as recent as the 1990s. I know of a Mukherjee brother-sister pair who went to U of C and JU and ended up becoming Mukhopadhaya and Mukhopadhyay despite their birth certificates carrying the anglicized version. Their passports (issued after undergrad) carry the two different literary spellings as they just found it easier to have their passport and degree certificate in one name for visa purposes. —SpacemanSpiff 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. It's true that the British had the most well-established presence in Bengal. They were in Madras earlier, though not really in any extensive way until the 1780s. Still, why did so many more Bangali names get anglicized than, say, Tamil? Many of British India's famous Indian civil servants were from the South. Why did they not change their names? (Well, a few did to Sami or Sammy, and there was Chandrasekhara Venkataraman ---> CV Raman, but still ... it didn't seem as drastic as Thakur ---> Tagore, or Thakur ---> Thacker) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The next time I want to start a flame war between pragmatic/compliant Bengalis and rigid/principled Tamils, I know what question to ask. :) Abecedare (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

:) I'm glad this is not 2007. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd probably wager that the reason for this is the names of the groups joining the services of the Company / British -- e.g. in Madras it was primarily people with names Aiyyar (which probably got anglicized to Iyer), Ayyangar (Iyengar), Pillai -- all of them short enough and easy enough unlike the Bengali names which were far more difficult. —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I checked the list of successful candidates for its entrance exams (1858). Not too many Aiyer etc. But here are some names: S. Annasawmy, Authemoolum, C Balajee Row, C. Cundaswmy, C. Etherajooloo, T. Gopaul Row, V. Rajahgopaul, W.T. Satthianathan Pillay, G. P. Savundranayagum, T. Shreenevassa Charry, C. Sivasunkeran, N. Soobramanyan, S. Soomasoondrum, etc. Strangely, not a single Aiyer, Aiyengar. Although some names sound anglicized, they are not really; the spelling is just an artifact of the pre-Hunterian transliteration of Indian languages. It is phonetically no more problematic than the current official (Hunterian transliteration). As for C and K, I've never understood what the difference is (other than the occasional confusion of C as in "Cecil," but then K has its "know") and why it is preferred these days. Why did they choose "Kolkota" and not "Colcota." Phonetically, "Cohlcohtah" might be most accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Of all the names you have up there very few have their last names -- Row (Rao) and Pillay (Pillai) are the only ones I see -- Tamil/Telugu/Kannada/Malayalam names typically follow the pattern of [Place of origin]_[Patronymic]_[Given name]_[Caste name / Caste title]. In many cases people dropped the caste name/title in the 19th century -- I know that two of my four great grandfathers didn't carry it, so their given name ended up being the last name, but then it didn't continue as the family last name as it became the patronymic for one of my grandfathers and the patronymic for one of my grandmothers; as far as I've been able to figure out, those lines of the family dropped the caste title at least two generations earlier; the evolution of names in the south did not stop there -- the next generation started dropping the place name from the head of their name and the next generation decided to use their given name as their given name rather than as their last name e.g. if you see the ancestry of Anirudha Srikkanth you'll notice this evolution. Based on your list and the fact that there wasn't a propensity to use their last names in the south (in the list you provided above I can count at least two Iyers and two Iyengars and probably a couple of Mudaliars and Naidus) they seldom got modified to an extent as great as in the Bengal Presidency. (Of course all this is hobbyist OR and does not belong in an encyclopaedia, but hey, this is a user talk page). BTW, were there really that many variations for the spelling of even something as short as "swamy" in those records? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As you will see here, producing a credible, and reliably sourced, school list for India will not be easy! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• The issue was partially touched here (first issue). I asked a question, I want to learn its answer. What I feel, and until the question is answered, India was always India, from the time when Greeks named the country India (I provided few refs there), "British India" or "Indian subcontinent" are not required. BTW, can you provide few example articles you are talking about? --Tito☸Dutta 16:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean the British India part; that term is fairly clearly defined in the page British India-->Presidencies and provinces of British India. I agree with you that the British Indian Empire (British India + Princely States) was commonly just called "India." (See lead of British Raj.) In fact, the "India" that was a founding member of the UN in 1945 was not the "Republic of India," (which didn't exist), but the India that was (ROI+Pakistan+Bangladesh). Yes, the editors who work on Pakistan- or Bangladesh-related pages are understandably sensitive to the use of "India" (since it is usually mistaken for present-day India). Conversely, not so much now, but certainly a few years ago, editors working on India-related pages tended to remove "Pakistan" if the page was related to anything before 1947. For example Mehrgarh a neolithic site in Pakistan, which was discovered in 1974 by a team of French archaeologists, and dated to 7000 BC is "a neolithic site in Pakistan," not a neolithic site in "what today is Pakistan" or "present-day Pakistan." In 7000 BC there was no India either. So you certainly can say it "was a neolithic village in India," which some India editors wanted to put in. Actually, here your input was wanted about the Bengali names and why in Calcutta University they were appearing in their Sanskritized form. (See middle of discussion upstairs, "Speaking of unrelated things ...." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, who told Chattopadhyay, Bandyopadhyaya, Mukopadhyay etc are Bengali/Sanskritic form and not Chatterjee, Banerjee, Mukherjee? All these surnames origin from Upadhyay i.e. Mukh+Upadhyay=Mukhopadhyay etc (note Upadhyay at the end of every surname)? These surnames have alternative/shorter forms Chatterjee, Banerjee, Mukherjee. Compare it with English name William and Bill or Jennifer and Jenny. I do not know about any British pressure, but Kotha hote ashiachho, Bengali book, does not mention anything about these. "Pressure" is a wrong word, if you say "influence of European culture", that might be. --Tito☸Dutta 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• And, the surnames Bandopadhyay, Mukhopadhyay etc are considered more formal an traditional and used in official works. Note, Paran Banerjee and Paran Bandopadhyay both are acceptable names and widely used, but, I created article with the tile Paran Bandopadhyay. Tito☸Dutta 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. That was very helpful. So, I'm guessing you are saying that the shorter form in Bengali was first "Chatto-jee" or "Mukho-jee or "Bandho-jee," and the spellings got anglicized at some point. By the way, the British were notorious for changing many "ah" or "oh" sounds to "er" (as in the old joke Siraj-ud-daula --> Sir Roger Dowler). Yes, "pressure" is not the best word. What I was trying to get at was that sometimes there is subtle influence in the form of other people mispronouncing or changing a name. Here in the US, I can think of a Russian immigrant, whose name was "Vladimir," pronounced beautifully with stress on the second syllable. But his colleagues at work, who had difficulty pronouncing it in the way he did, began to call him Vlad. After a few years his name became Vlad. I'm one of the few people who still call him by his old name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, most probably the suffix "arji/arjee" was the key here. There are some fine books on this subject, unfortunately there is not anything online or in my collection. The book Kotha hote aashiyachho, the book I just referred means "From where you have come?", a classic book, though not very popular (who reads books on these subjects?). The European influence (specially the British influence) was undeniably present in Bengal. For example the surname of Rabindranath Tagore, the original surname is Thakur, and we call him Rabindranath Thakur. Bangladeshi writer Muhammed Zafar Iqbal told a wonderful point, generally proper nouns are not translated or changed, Shakespeare is Shakespeare every where, so how does Thakur becomes Tagore? Tito☸Dutta 18:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's unfortunately what a dominant culture does. It has been happening for a long time. The English themselves changed names. The Old English, "Grontabricc," the "bridge of the Gronta," became Cambridge after the Norman invasion ca. 11th century. Old English, itself was imposed on the Celtic people after the Anglo-Saxon or Germanic invasion ca. 6th century. "Gronta" was the Celtic river name. It is happening in India today. Hindi has imposed the new dominant linguistic culture. Anyway, thanks for your replies. I'll ask some linguist friends of mine. Will keep you posted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hence, Granta. I had a chuckle at your comment regarding the Brits being "notorious" for changing many sounds. If that were all that my countrymen were notorious for in India then I'd be a happy man! - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not read all the comments really. I don't have any idea how the short forms (Chatterjee, Mukherjee etc) came into being. I really doubt they were present before Colonial rule. Most likely they were changed due to the need of the day during British rule. But I have no reading in this aspect. Calcutta University used to stick to the longer forms even 7 years ago, don't know if they have changed the policy now. --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Partition of India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lord Kitchener and North West Frontier Province

Copying pencil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Natal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Map of India

Fowler, is there somewhere a map of India that shows political and administrative divisions in 1947 before the country was partitioned? The 13th August view, so to speak.--regentspark (comment) 13:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Page 234 my 2008 print copy of Stein has what you seem to be looking for, though I don't know if it's a PD map used by him or one created by him. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I probably have a better map than Stein's (which is not in color), but it might need fair-use permission. The book was published in 1950, but the map was made by map makers in the UK. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Stein's map is most likely from The Historical Atlast of South Asia by Schwartzberg et al, since he worked with them. See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That explains it, the map is copyrighted to UMN and dates to a little after Stein joining forces with them so clearly not PD. —SpacemanSpiff 17:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone can find a pd version, a detailed political and administrative map would be useful in the partition of india and british raj articles. I, for one, am perpetually confused over what was what at that time. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I just uploaded a fair-use historic image (nonfree) version which can be used in Partition of India. File:India at end of British period 1947.jpg As for British Raj, it is probably better to show it at its largest extent, 1909. But this image could be used in one more article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting map. It appears to show Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim as a part of India. Are all the 'yellow' areas princely states? --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. I think they might have all been shown in yellow, because all theoretically had the option of independence before they signed the accession documents, that's why they say, "Indian states." I've written a statement to that effect in the Partition of India figure caption; Sikkim, of course, was shown as a princely state in most maps. It's the same map makers John Bartholomew and Sons, Edinburgh, that made other maps of Britsh India I've uploaded. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit comment could have been more civil.

Hi,

Please explain me what does do you mean by the following ["please stop with the Tamil nonsense"]. Pearll's Sun^TALK 07:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)'

I mean that he doesn't self-identify as a "Tamil" or coming from a "Tamil family." So, we can't do that for him, just because we think we can tell that from his name, or because a newspaper report says so, or because we actually know him or for any of the myriad reasons people are keen to attempt ethnic or caste or racial branding on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, my query was why would anyone use the word "Tamil nonsense" in the first place. Well, lets come to the topic, please check the following links ,. Pearll's Sun^TALK 10:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think speaking a language - even one that is claimed to be "native" - amounts to sufficient identification. For example, people of the US are not necessarily British but the vast majority of them speak English. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this one clearly states that "Tamil"is his family language http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/a-conversation-with-chief-economic-adviser-raghuram-g-rajan/?_r=0. Pearll's Sun^TALK 10:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

To expand on what Sitush says, Ethnic branding violates longstanding Wikipedia BLP principles, and when people do it repeatedly, it becomes nonsense. The Mumbai Mirror story is just a rehash of the NY Times one. I've read that NY Times interview. He does not self-identify as Tamil, although the NY Times reporter, V. Bajaj makes a lame attempt to do so. Rajan in fact spends most of his answer talking about his acumen in Hindi. Again, no ethnic branding on Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons (unless they self identify and even then unless it is relevant to their notability. The Indian census does not recognize "Tamil people," only people whose mother tongue is Tamil. Again Rajan has to self-identify and further it needs to be relevant to his notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Scanned Mysore city map from RIce

Dear F&F, just another reminder regarding the scanned map of Mysore city from RIce. Thanks for your help. Regards, Ardhajya (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the reminder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ardhajya: Hello there. I did the best I could. The map is too big to be scanned at least on the machine I have. I had to take a photograph. I took several and have uploaded the best. The 116 year old paper is brittle and tears very easily (I managed to tear the Bangalore map! :) ) I think at some point I'll have to cut the big maps out of the book and get them framed professionally. Here it is: File:Plan of Mysore City Rice's Gazetteer 1897.jpg. It is the best I could do. Thanks for posting. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Kapoor again

Did we figure out whether he was a Punjabi Hindu, Pathan, or whether his ethnicity was indeterminate per reliable sources? Someone just added "Punjabi Hindu" to the article. --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeterminate until such time there is a scholarly book on him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

We already say he was born in a village not far from Lyallpur and his father was working in Peshawar. People can draw their own conclusions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Jainism

Hi,

Currently there exists four authoritative textbooks on Jainism

• Glasenapp, Helmuth Von (1999). Jainism. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-1376-2.
• Schubring, Walther (2000). The Doctrine of the Jainas: Described After the Old Sources. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0933-8.
• Jaini, Padmanabh S. (1998). The Jaina Path of Purification. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-1578-0.
• Dundas, Paul (2002). The Jains. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-26606-2.

Three of those textbooks clearly say that the roots of Jainism is in the teachings of Parsva who might have lived in 8th or 9th century BCE. Even Paul Dundas seems to be of the same opinion, though he places the date of Parsva near 7th century BCE (in that Britannica article you pointed at Talk:India). Rahul Jain (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Raghuram Rajan

Hi Fowler&fowler. Thanks for the message. I added details (and not unnecessary details) about his father's and brother's profession, who were/are of great repute in their respective fields. I corrected a small error, his father was not a diplomat but an IPS officer. The article already mentioned he spent his early life overseas, I named the three countries. His brother being an advisor to one of the top Indian conglomerates (Tata) should qualify as encyclopaedic info as he is RBI governor. It may, at some point of time, be counted as a conflict of interest. If you mean to say that we need deliberately avoid anything which doesn't directly relate to his current profession, I guess all the biographies at wikipedia will need a massive revision. Please give it a thought again, compare the revisions, as I still don't think my edit was not relevant to the notability of the person. I am relatively new to editing and am trying/learning to make good edits. Thanks. Manas. Msec109 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If they were/are of such repute they should have their own Wikipedia pages, and you can attempt creating them. But on the Raghuram Rajan page they matter only to the extent of relating to his notability. Whether there is conflict of interest or not, is not Wikipiedia's job to note. That is for the Indian press or other agencies to determine if it exists. Similarly whether the father was in "IPS" is not relevant, he spent some years abroad working for his government in an embassy (so he's a diplomat, and cited, btw, to the NY Times). The fine points of what he did are again not important. I don't see anything you have added that is relevant. Whether other Wikipedia pages need revising or not is a separate story, to be taken up elsewhere. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

IPS means police, and its a completely different thing, in Indian bureaucracy, diplomats are people who join the foreign services i.e. IFS. I cited that, with a much credible source, which means the NYT citation is incorrect. I guess you understand this difference. Msec109 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I reread all the links. None show that his few years spent abroad had anything to do with his career choice, career path, or notability. So, I've removed that sentence. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Barun De

Dear Fowler & Fowler,

Many thanks for the most recent edits on Barun De's page. Allow me to introduce myself to establish my role in the maintenance of this page. I am Bikramjit De, Barun De's son, who started this page in 2007, under the old ID B_de2002. The changes you made are all sensible. It it indeed looking much better and tidier now. There are a few additions that should be made to the page, such as:

[1.] He was the General President of the Indian History Congress [Dharwad Session], 1988. Mention of the place where the Congress was held is important since that is how the proceedings volumes of the Congress are published. The name and date of the session is important. Thus the mention.

[2.] He was the Chairman of the West Bengal Heritage Commission, 2008-2011.

These are well known facts that most people of the history profession as well as those interested in public affairs should know in India, especially in Calcutta. I should feel very happy if you could kindly include these details which would bring up the page very well indeed. Whether the first letters of his various designations should be in caps or not should naturally be the discretion of the editors. About the mention of the birth and the death dates, naturally you would be following your stated policy in this regard, but may I suggest that the same information need not be mentioned twice. The birth and the death dates have found mention at more than one places.

I would like to repeat that it would indeed be satisfying to see a page written up on my father on the wikipedia which would meet the requirements of all concerned, the editorial team as well as members of his family for whom his reputation is a matter of great personal concern.

Regards,

Bikramjit De — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikramjit De (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks like the changes have been made. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Fowler & fowler: Two of the awards that my father, Barun De, got, the Curzon Prize and Banga Samman, have been removed from his page on the grounds that they are not referenced. I appreciate the concern of the editor who has deleted them. But his Doctor of Letters from North Bengal University has not been touched, even though that is also not referenced. Why is that? The Curzon Prize and the Banga Samman are certainly eminent awards. Other Wikipedia pages, of instance of Tapan Raychaudhuri, have mention of similar awards which are also not referenced. I don't see any attempt to remove any of these unsourced informations. While Raychaudhuri is indeed said to be a major historian, should there be a difference in the editing of the pages of different historians, who have lived in different parts of the world?170.140.181.199 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC) This post was posted by me. I forgot to log in. Thus the absence of my signature.Bikramjit De (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bikramjit, I don't mean to be rude but you need to do start doing some of the work yourself. If you add unsourced information to an article, it is likely to get deleted. The way out is not to post on the talk page of other users or to draw comparisons with other articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) but to do some of the leg work yourself. A simple search of the form "Barun De Curzon Prize" throws up a suitable reference ([3]) and you can just as easily use google and find that reference as fowler or I or Sitush can. I suggest you look for sources before you add information and, if you do that, we'll all be making better use of our time. --regentspark (comment) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fowler & fowler: Thanks for your comments. It's just that I found the distinction drawn between North Bengal University and the Curzon Prize, or the relatively less known Banga Samman interesting. Comparisons can be trivial, but sometimes they do come in. But, again, that is entirely subjective. Sorry to take up so much of your time.Bikramjit De (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad State sources

Do you know what would be good sources for this article's sections on After Indian Independence and Communal Violence (which obviously should be merged)? Guha's India after Gandhi has some material and this book, while not by an established academic, seems reasonable, but the rest of the sources used in those sections are pretty iffy. Context: there was recent edit-war on the page over inclusion of clearly POV text, but that has been settled for the moment with the editor blocked. In any case, it would be a good occasion to review and improve those sections. Abecedare (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The best source is Talbot and Singh, CUP, 2009, which is cited in the history section and listed in the references. I have the book, as I do a bunch of others, including Yasmin Khan's The Great Partition. Are you able to get hold of the book easily? I could try to make some time to add something ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the Partition of India! Hmm. I'll have to think about Hyderabad a little more. T&S might actually have something on that too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

T&S cover the topic very briefly (pp 54-55). Don't have immediate access to Khan's book. Let me know if you you think of some other relevant publication, but I don't mean to distract you too much with this, esp. since Guha and Benichou should have enough material for wikipedia's purposes, which I'll try to incorporate sometime over the coming days. Of course, your input and edits are always welcome! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)