User talk:Fowler&fowler/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fowler&fowler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

Nonmetal

Nice to meet you via FAC talk. I hope my response there was not too over the top.

I hope you have enough time to consider my comments, further to your very welcome contribution.

Here are your comments and my observations and explanations.

1. If I pick up an old high school chemistry textbook, it tells me, "Nonemetals: these are usually poor conductors of heat and electricity. They cannot be hammered into sheets or drawn into wire because they are usually too brittle. Sulfur is an example of such a nonmetal. Some nonmetals such as iodine, carbon, and phosphorus are solid at room temperatures. Bromine is a liquid nonmetal. Others are gaseous, as oxygen, nitrogen, and chlorine." (I comprehend immediately.)

The textbook is erroneous. Carbon can exist in sheet form as exfoliated (expanded) graphite, and as metre-long carbon nanotube wire; white phosphorus is soft as wax, pliable and can be cut with a knife, at room temperature); sulfur is know as plastic sulfur; and selenium as selenium wires. That said, within its limitations, it is nicely put.

2. If I pick up the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, it tells me: "nonmetal An element that is not a *metal. Nonmetals can either be insulators or semiconductors. At low temperatures nonmetals are poor conductors of both electricity and heat as few free electrons move through the material. If the conduction band is near to the valence band (see ENERGY bands) it is possible for nonmetals to conduct electricity at high temperatures but, in contrast to metals, the conductivity increases with increasing temperature." (The text is coherent. I don't understand everything, but I want to find out.)

The line that a nonmetal is an element that is not a metal is circular "nonsense". No, nonmetals cannot just be insulators or semiconductors. For example, carbon is a semimetal. No, nonmetals are not necessarily poor conductors: carbon and arsenic e.g. are good conductors. No, it is not the case that, "in contrast to metals, the conductivity increases with increasing temperature." Plutonium increases its electrical conductivity when heated in the temperature range of around –175 to +125 °C.

This is a lacklustre effort by the ODC, as if the person/s who drafted it did now know well enough what they were talking about.

3. Yours text says: "In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that usually gains one or more electrons when reacting with a metal and forms an acid when combined with oxygen and hydrogen."

That is what a nonmetal is, based on properties consistently cited in the literature.

What is it that is not clear?

4. "In chemistry" ... "chemical element" (redundant?) "usually gains" ... "one or more" (redundant?) The reader is already getting distracted by having to muse about this.

I cannot simply say "element" as this presumes the general reader knows what an "element" is (an element of what?), in chemistry.

Yes, they usually gain one or more electrons, which is exactly the case. I'm sorry chemistry is a little bit complex.

5. "At room temperature about half are gases, one (bromine) is a liquid, and the rest are solids. Most solid nonmetals are shiny, whereas bromine is colored, and the remaining gaseous nonmetals are colored or colorless." Why the reverse order in the second sentence? Why can't shiny things be colored? Pearls are.

Having finished with "solids" the second sentence picks up where the first finished. Most solid nonmetals are shiny, period; they are not coloured. The sole exception is sulfur, which is not shiny, but is instead yellow. Pearls have nothing to do, per se, with nonmetal chemical elements in chemistry.

Your numerous questions suggest the lede has piqued your interest, which the lede is supposed to do.

6. "Most ... whereas" (Most=not all; the "whereas" is already present in the solids.) "Remaining gaseous nonmetals?" (but you didn't mention any gaseous nonmetals earlier for any to remain.)

Nice! I've added parentheses around "gaseous".

7. "The solids are either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly, and tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity and have no structural uses (as is the case for nonmetals generally)." Brittle is hard (i.e. hard that breaks easily); why not, "the solids snap or crumble easily?" The reader doesn't know anything about structural uses.

"Brittle" and "soft" are among key determinants for distinguishing between metals and nonmetals. The general reader, I presume, would at least appreciate that metals have a long-standing history in the development of civilisation via their structural uses. e.g. in tools, pipes, bridges, high-rise buildings, vehicles, many home appliances, and railroad tracks.

Still, it is dumb of me to say what something is not, so I've added "in contrast to most metals" to the mention of nonmetals having no structural uses. Thank you!

8. "There is no universal agreement on which elements are nonmetals; the numbers generally range from fourteen to twenty-three, depending on the criterion or criteria of interest." "There is no universal agreement .." Is this really needed after you have attempted to define it in such detail? "depending on the criterion or criteria of interest" What else could they depend on?

Yes, it is needed, since that is the state of the literature. As the Honing the concept section goes on to note:

"Johnson[51] noted that physical properties can best indicate the metallic or nonmetallic properties of an element, with the proviso that other properties will be needed in a number of ambiguous cases."

"Kneen at al.[67] added that:

"It is merely necessary to establish and apply a criterion of metallicity…many arbitrary classifications are possible, most of which, if chosen reasonably, would be similar, but not necessarily identical…the relevance of the criterion can only be judged by the usefulness of the related classification."

Once a basis for distinguishing between the "two great classes of elements"[68] is established, the nonmetals are found to be those lacking the properties of metals,[69] to greater or lesser degrees.[70]"

9. So you see, the text in the lead is a melange of academic jargon and things that don't cohere.

There is no academic jargon in the lede.

The first sentence concisely explains what a nonmetal is, noting it says "usually", implying there may be some exceptions.
The second sentence explains what their state is i.e. as gas, liquid or solid.
The third sentence explains what they look like.
The fourth sentence notes their comportment, conductivity and lack of structural uses.

The second paragraph elaborates on the "usually" in the first sentence i.e. that there is no universal agreement.

Thanks again, Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)

I agree about (1) and (2).

Why not draft (3)/(4) as: In chemistry, a nonmetal is a ~~chemical~~ [redundant to chemistry; any average reader is expected to know the meaning of element or click on its wikilink] element that usually gains ~~one or more~~ [redundant to gain] electron(s) when reacting with a metal and forms an acid when combined with oxygen and hydrogen?.

In (5)/(6), you are comparing (by use of whereas) two fundamentally different properties - color and shine. You need to reframe the sentence. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @TrangaBellam:. Nice to hear from you.

I've removed the "chemical" from chemical element and replaced it with element. I can't say usually gains "electrons"; an appreciable number of elements gain just one "electron". I have added an "either" so that it now reads:

"…that usually gains either one or more electrons…"

For (5)/(6) the relevant passage now reads:

"Most solid nonmetals are silvery-gray, whereas bromine is dark red, and the remaining (gaseous) nonmetals are pale yellow to green, or colorless."

That's better. Just leaves (7), (8) and (9).

Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello, I'm Omer123hussain. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your aggressive reverts to India have been restored because they are reliable cited and you do not discussed on talk page before revert. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please note: You cannot be selective in reverting particular cited work. All editors are equal on WP; so you cannot assume to take liberty to revert others constructive work without discussion and consensus on talkpage.

If it is 17 years old FA, it doesn’t mean that the article should have 2 decades old content, dynamics have changed and that is what i am trying to update, otherwise the articles FA status will be stripped down. So please cooperate and let us constructively contribute to maintain/replace statistics and dynamics. Hope you will collaborate. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Points to note:

Please use talk page before reverting reliably cited content;
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you keep engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Taking the matter to admins.

I disagree with your views and your conduct. You aren't giving me any other reason other than consensus. I don't know why you are adamant about the wordy lead. I am taking this matter to admins.Akshaypatill (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:I have opened a content dispute resolution - [[1]]Akshaypatill (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Subhas Chandra Bose. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. As you stated on the talk page of the article, you are reverting my edits in the leads of the page because, you want to rewrite and shorten the lead. Please don't assume the role of maintainer of the page. We all are here to make Wiki a better and reliable source. Please note edit-warring is not the solution. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverts on Shivaji

You recently reverted my edits on the page questioning the reliability of the sources. Have a search on Google, Sir Jadunath Sarkar CIE was a prominent Indian historian and a specialist on the Mughal dynasty. You are insulting the works of these legends. I ain't glorifying Shivaji. You could have changed the content you have a problem with, rather than reverting all the edits. Akshaypatill (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also take a look at WP:Reliable_sources#Age_matters.Akshaypatill (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Third edit warning notice of the month

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Subhas Chandra Bose. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please note edit-warring is not the solution. Per WP:BRD you need to discuss your edits on the article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose and establish a consensus for them there. This is your third edit warring notice of the month.Akshaypatill (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose

I wish to move an RFC like this one?

Should the introduction be updated from the current (a) to (b)? If not (b), then should it be left as it is?

(a) Subhas Chandra Bose was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.

(b) Subhas Chandra Bose was an Indian nationalist who sought to free India of the British Raj with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during the Second World War. —

I actually did one. But then I realised that there have been two RFCs before. So I rolled back. Since you have been an habitual editor of the page, I wished to consult you. The problem with the current lead is it is a copy paste wording from https://www.amazon.in/dp/1636699650/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apan_glt_fabc_JGYWW5MN3JG1WXRSGW2D which doesn't look like an actual scholarship since the author is a nobody. I've never seen extravagant adjectives like "defiant patriotism" "hero" "troubled legacy" in any long-standing article. In this proposed (b) I've not restructured information back and forth, instead I've just neutralised the word usage. I hope you find this constructive. Appu (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@APPU:, that source is copied from this article. I suggest with respect that you not embark on this RfC. You do not know enough about the topic. I have repeatedly urged you in the discussion threads above to work on short overlooked articles and develop your writing and sourcing skills, but you take no heed. You made brave promises that you would work on the climate articles for the different states of India but have done nothing as far as I can tell. You are skirting with eventually getting penalized. Don't say I did not warn you. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@APPU: Just as an FYI, our text predates the book. Clearly, and sadly, the book is plagiarizing Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia copy pasting from the book!--RegentsPark (comment) 15:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:You're correct. I know not much about the subject. I think I better leave Bose here. As far climate articles is considered, I conceded that I realised a little letter that they are too heavy for me. So I've been refraining from editing lead of important biographies except for too minor an edit. Also I'm seeing to create articles of some important books I know. User:APPU#To be created. Meanwhile I want to know if Heart disease in India, Jnanpith Award and Kannada and Death of Lal Bahadur Shastri would be some good additions to the platform? Appu (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @APPU: On the other hand, in the lead sentence itself:

"whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India" has been cited to:

"His romantic saga, coupled with his defiant nationalism, has made Bose a near-mythic figure, not only in his native Bengal, but across India." (Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
"Bose's heroic endeavor still fires the imagination of many of his countrymen. But like a meteor which enters the earth's atmosphere, he burned brightly on the horizon for a brief moment only." (From Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund's History of India 6th edition, Routledge, 2016.
"Subhas Bose might have been a renegade leader who had challenged the authority of the Congress leadership and their principles. But in death he was a martyred patriot whose memory could be an ideal tool for political mobilization." (From Sekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa's From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, Orient Longmans, 2004.

"but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy." has been cited to:

"The most troubling aspect of Bose's presence in Nazi Germany is not military or political but rather ethical. His alliance with the most genocidal regime in history poses serious dilemmas precisely because of his popularity and his having made a lifelong career of fighting the 'good cause'. How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership. The most disturbing issue, all too often ignored, is that in the many articles, minutes, memorandums, telegrams, letters, plans, and broadcasts Bose left behind in Germany, he did not express the slightest concern or sympathy for the millions who died in the concentration camps. Not one of his Berlin wartime associates or colleagues ever quotes him expressing any indignation. Not even when the horrors of Auschwitz and its satellite camps were exposed to the world upon being liberated by Soviet troops in early 1945, revealing publicly for the first time the genocidal nature of the Nazi regime, did Bose react." (From Rudolph Hayes's, Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany, Springer, 2011.
"To many (Congress leaders), Bose's programme resembled that of the Japanese fascists, who were in the process of losing their gamble to achieve Asian ascendancy through war. Nevertheless, the success of his soldiers in Burma had stirred as much patriotic sentiment among Indians as the sacrifices of imprisoned Congress leaders. (From Burton Stein's History of India, Wiley, 2011
"Marginalized within Congress and a target for British surveillance, Bose chose to embrace the fascist powers as allies against the British and fled India, first to Hitler's Germany, then, on a German submarine, to a Japanese-occupied Singapore. The force that he put together ... known as the Indian National Army (INA) and thus claiming to represent free India, saw action against the British in Burma but accomplished little toward the goal of a march on Delhi. ... Bose himself died in an aeroplane crash trying to reach Japanese-occupied territory in the last months of the war. ... It is this heroic, martial myth that is today remembered, rather than Bose's wartime vision of a free India under the authoritarian rule of someone like himself." (From Metcalf and Metcalf above).

Elsewhere the late Christopher Bayly is much cited. These are among the foremost historians of modern India, especially of the British period. Will reply to your questions a little later. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't know if this is the done thing at all (and please let me know if I'm breaking a guideline/etiquette. I am pretty new to WP, out of my depth, and absolutely didn't intend to start that whole process). I just wanted to say thanks for your lovely comment this morning. I'm finding the discussion about language really hard going because much of it is so personal, and it cheered me up no end. Persicifolia (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no guideline on Wikipedia that prohibits thanking someone for admiring sensitive writing. So, you are welcome. I have to say I hadn't anticipated the young Libertarians making their last stand at a "wheelchair-bound" discussion. I was unaware they read fiction. I was especially unaware they frequented the plays of Aimé Césaire. What strange bedfellows an internet search engine will throw up. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I didn't know if there were rules about discussions outside of that space while the RFC is going on. It is odd isn't it? I probably shouldn't be surprised. We are people 'done to' in the public imagination, not people with voices. I wonder if disabled people are the last group considered fair game, so those who've already reluctantly conceded on language involving race, gender etc will fight hard for the right to describe us in any way they please - offensive or not. Persicifolia (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me at the RFC re a possible compromise, it feels very impolite not to have responded. I just don't think I can - at least in that space, at the moment.

I admire your attempt to compromise and of course it's a great shame for all that energy to go to waste, but in this case... My personal feeling is that as this is a battle already won everywhere else, if WP wants to set itself apart then I wonder if that's just what has to happen, for now? Rather than an unsatisfactory compromise. Persicifolia (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Above actually wasn't in reference to the very recent discussion I've just seen has been happening over the past hour, which I've only just spotted. Persicifolia (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And I said some things in the last few minutes on WT:MOS that are very similar to your thoughts. I think. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No problems about not responding at the RfC. I figured you had had enough, and so have I now. I hardly ever pay attention to MOS. I'm still not sure how I ended up at that discussion, but the extent of the opposition has shocked me. Live and learn. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, gruelling. Not sure I really needed to see up close how people like me are perceived here honestly, but there you go. I've only been here since the summer and most of my edits hadn't been disability related. I really didn't expect all this. I didn't even know that page existed till whenever this started - I absolutely never intended to get involved in WP policy. I guess you have to be prepared to field accusations and offensive remarks to contribute at MOS, and realistically I am not.

I'm not sure what to think about where it's all ended up. I think that when everywhere else specifies that the terminology is considered offensive by the group it’s being applied to - and that is the primary reason for avoiding it - that seems like pretty important information. Writing about the terms while omitting that feels off to me. But I don't think there's anything I can do about it at this point. I'm sorry you got caught up in it all. I hope you have some off wiki time to look forward to. My children are in bed and there's a burger on its way here... Persicifolia (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Children in bed and a burger on the way are both the leaven of real life that takes the mind away. The children are no longer around here, and we had salmon for dinner. While my plate was briefly resting on the kitchen table so I could grab a drink, one of our cats managed to appear out of nowhere, jump up and grab a mouthful. Acute observers of human behavior they are. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Template

Hey, I just created a new template, on the model of Template:Translation. I have used the template in Ram Guha for experimental purposes. I wanted to know if we could hyperlink né to Birth_name. Appu (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

née is the maiden name of a woman i.e. the surname or last name before marriage. né, the corresponding version for men, is less commonly used; I almost never see it in English. I don't know if I'd use it as a synonym for the birth name necessarily. Original name or real name might be more appropriate. The OED has this example of attested use: 2000 Church Times 27 Oct. 10/3 The weather in Madras might be baking, but John (né Sidiq) will tut at the rainclouds gathering over New Falls, Wisconsin. I don't know much about templates and don't know if your edits are needed, what his birth name is, or even that he is called "Ram.". Pinging @RegentsPark, TrangaBellam, and Kautilya3: who might have a better idea. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove citations from Mahatma Gandhi's lead

Hey I noticed that Biden and Nehru's articles do not have citations in the lead. And I read MOS:CITELEAD, and I think we should move ahead as per it. Has this been ever brought ahead before? Appu (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Gandhi receives 22,300 page views a day; Nahru receives 7,400, or a third. Gandhi is disputed more if the respective talk pages are a clue. MOS:LEADCITE says, "information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." Gandhi is not non-controversial; its sentences, especially those that are in the lead, are challenged more; they will be challenged even more if the citations are not there. The citations are needed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Ganga

A/RES/76/L.22/Rev.1 Rights of indigenous peoples (10 November 2021) Kindly refrain from violating International consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitter Writer (talk • contribs) 09:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Listen..

Listen..

A/RES/76/L.22/Rev.1 Rights of indigenous peoples (10 November 2021)

Kindly refrain from violating International consensus. If the indigenous of India term it Ganga, its Ganga for you and me. Historically speaking, it became Ganges only foo convenience to pronounce for British, that doesn't cause official name change. Official use can be found in india.gov.in, nmcg.nic.in, mppcb.in further more in wwf.org.UK and thethirdpole.net Bitter Writer (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Text in Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable secondary sources. Sometimes reliable WP:TERTIARY sources are needed to establish due weight. A government's websites are of little value in establishing reliability. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"Government's websites are of little value in establishing reliability." Do you hear yourself? How biased and stern you are to declare that as a statement for your "feelings" over the indigenous name? India's worst enemies are truly Indians. You wont even take time to ponder and introspect over this fairly due to your own hypocrisy. And i've taken beyond Govt sources, plus a point u raised much before was Ganges is common use, Ganga isnt. Factually proven wrong by another user- if you are unbiased, fair editor, show it now. Plus, if there's a slang name to any formal name today (hypothetically speaking) that's made popular that isnt a basis to change it on Wiki Eg: What liberals & conservatives are termed in India- if it becomes world reknown as new nicknames, it wont affect their Wiki pages. This is what Ganges is to British. Child, read veil of ignorance and game theory. Finally, from your words, Ganges being official isnt cited appropriately on the Wikipage- citation [5] reads (a) recommendation (b) FOR USE OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT, but to you Govt isnt reliable- Self Defeating prophecy nor is this for World use, citation [6] hyperlink has clearly stated it is used as such through LCSH rule which the Wikipage doesnt follow and this is used only to INDICATE topics of the actual library resources and not officially change names Eg: Italy -> Mathematical models indicates what one can find in the library offline/online when they search vice versa there is Government policy -> Italy which you understand. Finally, US Library of Congress (which means for serving the US Congress) is only for Official Use and NOT National Library of USA, Wiki will distinguish official vs national for you Eg: Indian official languages. LOC themselves state their "collections" which havent included many natural terms are for Congress use. They also state the library welcomes scholars from across the country to freely use its services (in this case Topic name). However, India does seem to have a national library who's national repository only recognises Ganga and not once for Ganges. As you stated, Govt source somehow isnt reliable, both citation 5 and 6 are from Govt sources- 5 from British, 6 from Legislative branch of USA. As you seem to support rational thinking, I assume you abide by this and follow "Ganga" now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitter Writer (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being harsh, kindly ignore above and refer my talk page or new change in Ganga talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitter Writer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Fowler&fowler. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 10:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC).

A new draft

Draft:Religious_affiliations_of_prime_minister_of_India any suggestions? Modelled on this Religious_affiliations_of_presidents_of_the_United_States Appu (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Huindutva

Seasons' Greetings & Namaste.

I am encouraged to engage you in a discussion. You are a prolific editor here and I am honoured.

This pertains to your removal of one of my edits on the Hindutva page. The sole point of contention is: 1) Furnishing a context: My only submission relates to furnishing the context of the British Colonial Rule during which Hindutva as a political idealogy is deemed to have been formulated. Please note that this is consistent with the Idealogy sub-section of the History section of the wiki. Therefore, its inclusion is suggested as an edit.

I do appreciate you considering engaging me in a talk.

Best, wirefree101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirefree101 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wirefree101 has posted at ANI. I’ve advised them that they’re in the wrong place. Acroterion (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thanks. I don't remember this to something over which there was any significant back and forth between them and me. I didn't see this user talk page post by them either. Not sure why. Will examine the page of the disputed edit now. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

'Compound C2' in Talk:British Raj header

Hi, Fowler&fowler, I'm mystified by the string Compound C2 in the {{Backwards copy}} advice at Talk:British Raj. It sounds vaguely like an escapee from an article about plastic explosives. Just to make sure I wasn't missing some obscure abbreviation used by the OED, I clicked through to the OED entry, but nothing was evident. Can you revisit the wording in that banner, and adjust as needed? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

:) I've fixed it some. It was meant to reference the second variety of compounds formed with the adjective "British." (in OED lingo: adj, Compounds, C2." I made a typo, spelling compounds in the singular! Let me know if it is a little better. But I do need to leave some version of the OED nomenclature in there in case someone clicks on the link in the Talk:British Raj banner, is subsequently sent to the OED, and is then bewildered by the very long exposition there. At least, this way they'd know to scroll down to Compounds and then to C2. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

REGARDING EDITS ON SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE

Sir, I saw your reason for reverting my edits on this page. But the fact can't be disputed is that he was born in "Bengali Kayastha" community. Thus, it turns out to be his " Identity". Why there is a question of bringing " due weight" aspect in it? I have various sources to prove that he indeed was a 'Bengali Kayastha'.LALAJI1234 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

K. P. Poornachandra Tejaswi

Hi, I just without consensus moved Poornachandra Tejaswi to K. P. Poornachandra Tejaswi, I want you to undo it. I moved it as a preventive measure against any novice editor doing so; and since the Kannada Wikipedia community is virtually non existent, at least on English Wikipedia, the move would be go unnoticed for a long time.

I assumed from my little experience that if you perform a move and undo it, it will take only a consensus to redo it again. But now I discovered that I am not being to undo it. I am posting this message on different seasoned editors I know, so don't be surprised if somebody else it before you. Thanks Appu (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Raksha Bhandan edits

I am not surprise you reverted my edit of the date of Raksha Bandhan in the infobox. So I have my Explanation ready. Firstly, the date entry as it stood did not use the terms masa, paksha and tithi. These are three Hindu calendric elements (technical terms) which are used to specify all lunar dates. By avoiding these term, the entry became less than satisfactory. Secondly, introducing these terms provides an opportunity to include wikilinks that lead the reader to additional material that clarifies theses terms, if she/he is inclined to learn further. Learning is, I believe, the main purpose of wikipedia.

As for the explanatory note (template) on Hindu calendar dates, it is collapsed by default, and hence most certainly does not clutter the page. It is your opinion that it clutters the page.

You seem to be a seasoned editor and seem to be genuinely interested in making wikipedia better. I expect you to do the right thing here.

Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kishorekumar 62: Looking through your contributions I see you've created this template and added it all over the place. Just a suggestion but, if you're doing something this big, you might consider discussing it at WT:IN first. Using talk pages to get consensus is generally a good idea on Wikipedia. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. Thanks for the suggestion.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Sari

I was in the process of copy editing the article bit by bit (for contradictory statements, repetition and language) when you reverted to the last "clean version" from months ago. The version you reverted to restored some of the issues I consider that I improved. Could you let me know your definition of "clean" in this context, and perhaps we can merge yours and my efforts? Dhalamh (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

History of English grammars

Thank you, Fowler&fowler. What you say makes sense. You ought to know, having started and contributed the most to this article. I can hardly believe it's been over eleven years since we last interacted here. Glad to see you're still at it. So many fine Wikipedians have dropped by the wayside. Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, time sure has flown, @Alan W:. Reminds me of a poem I had memorized in middle school, "Time you old gypsy man, Will you not stay?" Thanks for noticing the error and correcting it with finesse. That bit was added later, I think, and they very likely just forgot to mention the "first female." There are sources that attest, and I'll add one of those very soon. Yes, many friends of my youth here are no longer around. A pity it is. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm no spring chicken myself, and it's starting to happen. I lost two of my friends last year. That's not what I meant, though. Too many of the best Wikipedians (and yes, some have, sadly, died) have just thrown up their hands in disgust and walked away, being unable to stand the ignorance, power plays, P.O.V.-pushing, and so on that are unfortunately part of the Wikipedia editing experience. Others are still around but have radically cut back their time. For my part, I try to steer clear of anything controversial.

Thanks for the kind words about the way I made that correction. Certainly it would be great if you could come up with some citation to support that assertion. Regards, Alan W (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense

Please be more specific about what you mean about Shyamala Gopalan

You have restored the unsourced claim about her having American citizenship, I see.

I provided reliable sourcing that she became a permanent resident in 1968. Why did you remove that FOIA source?

You have not provided any sourcing (reliable or otherwise) about her subsequently achieving American citizenship in 1973+ so why have you inserted the unsourced claim that she became a citizen? WakandaQT (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Medina. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The line

Hi F&f. One has to draw the line somewhere, and templating you with a DS notification is way on the other side of the line I've drawn :) --RegentsPark (comment) 22:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

:) Thanks. But if there is a danger in the future of my crossing any lines, please don't hesitate. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ealdgyth:, the long arc of this pandemic must have drained me, for I haven't sent any Wikipedia cards yet. Thanks for the reminder that some things stand above worldly calamities. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I kinda have to get mine out early - with Saturnalia starting the 17th of December... it's just the Solstice, you still got four days before the big red guy comes... Ealdgyth (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hi (or ho!) F&f, best wishes for the holidays and for a spectacular 2022! --RegentsPark (comment) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, any page watchers

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Fowler&fowler: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's greetings

Beautiful picture! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. I'm afraid I haven't got a seasonal picture for you but all the best to you and those you care about. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas and New Year wishes! I hope that your holidays are filled with joy and celebration. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 14:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Holidays

	Nollaig shona duit
	Wising you and yours the very best for the holiday season and new year. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC))

Thank you Ceoil! Beautiful art! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Sarkar's book and his language

Hi, Merry Christmas to you. Regarding Sarkar's views, I believe it was his opinions which are rather random and harsh but on facts and raw history, I think Sarkar rarely betrayed truth. Regarding his book which was not published till late, that was nothing to do with his material or language but rather due to Jaipur Maharaja's fear that it showed Jaipur Kingdom in bad light. I didn't read the review by D Smith but I am sure this thing he must have said about his views and opinions and not facts which he always laboured to collect and present. PS: I don't have any objection with the removal of the material from Amber Fort which I too removed earlier.Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was suppressed by the Jaipur Royal House. But Smith's point is that he is not reliable for the pre-Mughal material. That is all I have removed. That is a general problem with the Rajputs. Their pre-Mughal histories are legendary. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay I read the review, which was quite short. Smith pointed out that it says in book's editor's note, its not Smith's opinion. Editor's note was written by another historian Raghubir Sinh and his exact wording in the note is "However, the material made available to Sir Jadunath Sarkar with respect to the origin and early history of Kachhwahas was limited to lean fragments of vamsavalis based on bardic genealogies. As a result earlier chapters needed to be updated ....". And regarding Pre Mughal History of Rajputs, there are multiple clans of Rajputs with different time period and different influence, clubbing all into one and saying pre mughal history of them is legendary is not right in my opinion. Many dynasties' heydays were during pre mughal period, during mughal period they lost quite an influence and territories. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Also do see history section of Amber, India and Dhundhar, if we have to maintain consistency then we have to remove the same material from these two pages as well. Sajaypal007 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor's notes suggest that Sarkar was not much more reliable than Tod. More generally, Sarkar was born in 1870. He belonged to a generation of "historians" who were generalists, who had little training in history (his own early degrees were in English literature), and who wrote what would today be called trade histories. Those of a generation later, e.g. R. C. Majumdar, an early historian of the nationalist school, in contrast, did have training in history. Sarkar is not reliable today. He was talented no doubt, but citing him today would be like citing Mandell Creighton for papal history. The consistency bit, I'll let you handle. I did what I did in response to a ping. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he born in 19th century but he keep editing his books with new findings. Yes, his book series on Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb has been used by right wingers to further their own propaganda but they ignore his praises for mughal empire as whole and forget that Sarkar criticised the powers that replaced mughals like Marathas too harshly which they won't show. As I mentioned above his views and opinions were controversial to say the least but not his research, anyway since there is no use of discussing this as I too agree with removal of content. So let's agree to disagree. And by the way both Amber, India and Dhundhar pages are regularly been edited with suspected socks, I filed SPI but no significant progress, let's see if admins do something about them because I can't go on reverting these edits every now and then. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Deccani and Gujri

Hello Fowler. First of all, I want to wish you a belated Merry Christmas, a happy holiday season and a Happy New Year! Since you have extensive knowledge of Hindi/Urdu, I want to get your thoughts about Deccani and Gujri. Currently we have no Wikipedia article about the Gujri variety of Hindi/Hindustani/Urdu, which was a prominent literary idiom in Gujarat during the Muslim rule. Do you think it is worth creating a Wikipedia article about Gujri or would it be better to include information about Gujri in the Deccani article instead? Are Gujri and Deccani basically the same dialect (in grammar and archaic features) other than the use of Gujarati words in Gujri versus Dravidian words in Deccani? Cheers! Foreverknowledge (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Foreverknowledge: Thanks for your post, your holiday wishes (and the same to you), and your kind words. Your edits and posts in Urdu-related articles are always a breath of fresh air.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about Gujri, so I'm unable to help you with your questions. Speaking generally, though, if you think they are related but that Deccani has the bigger footprint in the sources, a way forward would be to expand a Gujri section within the Deccani article and see how far you get. At that point, you'll be better prepared to judge whether a Gujri spin-off is warranted. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Read your message

I read your message on my talk page, I will not edit Akshay Kumar article now, I was trying to update it but if you don't like it, I will not. I will add in that article's talk page and if you think it is appropriate to include,you can.Holland Tok (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Holland Tok: for this considerate reply. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy new era

Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

That is a delightful card, user:Bishonen! Thank you and the same to you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fowler&fowler!

Happy New Year!

Fowler&fowler,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, user:Abishe and the same to you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

From me as well, F&f :) — DaxServer (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you user:DaxServer and the same to you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Fowler&fowler,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Thank you user:CAPTAIN RAJU and the same to you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Kautilya3 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you user:Kautilya3 and the same to you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2022 F&F File:"Wishing You a Prosperous and Happy New Year.".jpg Best wishes & Hope you become more Broad minded in the New year. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you user:Jhy.rjwk and the same to you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Fowler,

I really like your contributions to articles related to Indian history. Do you hold a PhD in Indian history or India studies? Your detailed interest in this subject is fascinating. Keep up the great work!

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Fowler&fowler,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Thank you user:7&6=thirteen and the same to you! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the holiday wishes

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		In the midst of the snowy season, sending you some cheer with the sounds of nature I enjoy in my garden when the Indigo bunting return with the warmer weather. May you and yours have a healthful, happy and productive 2022! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you SandyG. What a pretty card! "The sea is high again today with a thrilling flush of wind. In the midst of winter you can feel the inventions of spring." Lawrence Durrell, The Alexandria Quartet. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Fowler&fowler,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! LearnIndology (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Trivial

I searched about this on Google and on Quora but nowhere did I find a satistfying answer. Do historians read everything alone? I estimate that to produce a 1000-page book, one may have to go through materials of at least 20,000 pages(?) If this estimation is true, how is that humanly possible anyway?

I know this may not be worth your time and be antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia but I am doing this as a last resort. I didn't get a clear answer anywhere else online. Appu (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:) Well, people don't really write 1000-page books. They are more like between 250 and 350. Authors in any field do have to read a lot. But they don't necessarily read every word; they skim until they find something of relevance, and zero in. Don't forget they've been doing this for years (college, graduate school, and post-doctoral work... (that alone is ten years or more) so they have some practice both in quick efficient reading and efficient precis writing. Some authors use index cards to make their marginal notes; others do it in the margins of books. They might have started out attempting to read and write compulsively, i.e. on everything, but they soon learn to note the notable things, the relevant ones, sometimes only the ones relevant to their particular argument of the moment. It's an art, not a science. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I felt like some huge burden on my head is lifted off. Cliché warning: now I can die peacefully. Appu (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

:) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding deciding the nature of the lead paragraph. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus".The discussion is about the topic Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No interest. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Royal Indian Air Force

Can you please review the article on Royal Indian Air Force for any errors. Cookersweet (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Size of the lead

I am thinking of rewriting the lead of this article Kapil Sibal. Considering the importance of the subject, how long a lead do you want me to make it? I think 10 full lines of desktop is optimum. Is that right? Appu (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know too much about him, so am unable to advise. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Academic books

1. Should I assume that a book is WP:RS if it is published by press of a university whose name I have often heard; such as Oxford, Cambridge,Yale etc.?

2. Significant number of your citations are ultra-academic that is to access them via commercial means, I have noticed, is impossible. I estimate that they must be found almost exclusively in respective university libraries and (I know you are an academic but) I am almost sure that you don't roam libraries across continents just to cite them. No, I have no penchant to do your work myself; I just want to die peacefully knowing how you do it. You can choose to not answer the second question. Appu (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

1. is generally true.

2. This is a tricky one. Even academics don't have online access to all books; many books don't have digitized versions. Google books is probably the best place to search. Books that don't have digitized versions are sometimes available on it in snippet-view form. GB still allows you to search a keyword for occurrence in the book though not necessarily for viewing, i.e. they give you a page number and a sentence or two around the keyword. Some Wikipedians used to go to libraries say once a week on the weekend; they noted down the reference and page numbers they needed during the week. There is also "The Wikipedia Library" that allows you to access books and journals of many scholarly publishers, but you have to apply and there might be a wait. But they do usually oblige after a time, and it helps that they see you are being a busy productive editor. archives.org is also a good place for older well-known books. Amazon used to be good, but they now allow you to search only the introductions. There is also a Wikipedia helpdesk for sources (whose name I don't remember) but they are usually very good and punctual. Someone or other who has access to a source will usually oblige. But it is for journals (usually a few pages), not hefty books. So that's the way the cookie crumbles (I mean in a good way). It is always good to remember that even well-known authors make errors in scholarly books. And you don't get a good feel for that unless you've seen a lot of sources. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The resources I would point to are WP:RX and WP:TWL. The Wikipedia library gives you access to a good many academic books; and resource exchange will often let you contact those who can access the rest. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Vanamonde93:! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop the slander

I can understand disliking someone, but what you are doing with Netaji's article is completely unacceptable. Adding "anti-semitism" and "authoritarian" was misleading enough, but the part where you add "military incompetence" is opinionated slander at this point. I kindly request that you cease and desist all heavily slanderous edits in the article which go against Wikipedia's goal of being neutral and reliable. Pranath vir (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have seen this. Thanks for your post. I will add some more sources, and if necessary amend the description. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, you are objecting to "military incompetence." I apologize, I added citations for "anti-Semitism." I will now look for more citations for his military incompetence (as well as the INA's), but those are many. Wikipedia unfortunately is beholden to sources. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You are objecting to anti-Semitism as well, so disregard my previous post. After looking at the sources, I think that description is accurate. I could change it to "overlooking anti-Semitism," but that would not be accurate, as Bose was a more active anti-Semite than someone who simply condones it. I could change it to "generalized anti-Semitism," but "vex" already speaks to that. See: "vex: Of a question, problem, subject, etc.: to present with difficulties with regard to resolution or understanding; to perplex, confound. (OED)" Please read the citations I have added. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources for Bose's military incompetence. I feel they are adequate for the description. Daniel Marston, Srinath Raghavan, and Kaushik Roy, among others, are military historians. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Fowler, anti-semitism seems well supported but I'm a little uneasy with the "military incompetence" tag. Marston, for example, says the INA had a "negligible impact" on the war but doesn't say that this was because of incompetence. Kaushik describes what appears to be "mini-facism" in the INA but, at least in the included source, doesn't appear to mention competence. Several of the sources are referring to the Japanese view of Bose (sometimes colored by a bias against Indians in general) rather than a modern historian-based view of military incompetence. The sources use phrases like "total fiasco", "busted flush", "paper tiger" but all these could be ascribed to reasons other than Bose's incompetence (one source appears to ascribe this to dithering on the part of the Japanese commander). Clearly, the INA was a bust militarily but it is not clear that this was because Bose was an incompetent commander or that this is a significant enough view amongst historians to be included in the lead. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that "militarily a failure" is perhaps the more apt description. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well that was my original phrasing, but like the previous "vexes" I was looking for a WP link to use. "a military incompetent" is what Gordon (his definitive biographer) uses (in describing the Japanese view, even Fujiwara's) in the first source. I was also looking for a noun to use and a WP link. The link Military incompetence has a more general meaning than personal incompetence. It is: "refers to incompetencies and failures of military organisations, whether through incompetent individuals or through a flawed institutional culture." Let me look at this more closely. It could be changed to "an effort of military incompetence" or it could be changed to "vexed with authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, and military failure." with the last piped to Military incompetence. The thing is that in more recent writings what is at issue is also the voluntary description of the INA, i.e. they were browbeaten when not actually beaten to join, mostly before Bose, but some were also propagandized after him. Through "Military incompetence" in the meaning of "flawed institutional culture" I wanted to hint at that. Let me think about this some more. Thanks, as usual, for the wisdom. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

From Leonard A. Gordon, author of Bose's definitive biography: "even those like Fujiwara, who were devoted to the Indian cause, saw Bose as a military incompetent as well as an unrealistic and stubborn man who saw only his own needs and problems and could not see the larger picture of the war as the Japanese had to." (Fujiwara was the founder of the INA, whose idea it was). Fujiwara thought Mohan Singh who was eventually replaced by Bose, was the true revolutionary. Markovits says about the German legion Bose "commanded:" "As a fighting force, however, the legion proved singularly ineffective. First stationed in the Netherlands, it was moved in 1943 to south-west France, where it did garrison duties along the ‘Mur de l’Atlantique’, not a very onerous task. Following the Allied landing in June 1944, it was incorporated into the Waffen SS and followed the German army in its gradual retreat from France, occasionally engaging in skirmishes with the French Résistance. There was a breakdown of discipline, some men took to looting and raping, and twenty-nine ‘légionnaires’ captured by the Résistance were publicly executed on Poitiers’ main square in September 1944." and so forth. There are other sources that speak to his leaving his German "Free India Legion" dangling when he left for Japan. There are of course many more that speak to the INA's military failure. Not wedded to one version yet. I mean the problem generally is that of a charismatic and driven man who is able to sell an idea, or a goal, to people (like all charismatic people are), but the problems had already begun by the time of the conclusion of his German sojourn. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: What do you think of "a flawed military effort" piped to Military incompetence, or even less Easter-eggishly, "an incompetent military effort?" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. There appear to be plenty of sources that backup the claim that, militarily, Bose's efforts were a failure. More of a success politically, and as a thorn in the side of the British. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I cannot find any sources which point a link between "Bose" and his apparent refusal to condemn "Kristallnacht" aside from a tweet of the grandson of an INA veteran who even admitted that he never asked his grandfather about it. Please send me the plain source(s) which prove that Bose was anti-semitic in nature. I will only believe it if the source is genuine with their claim and not just throwing it out there from assumption. From Bose's already existing track record, he was never one to condone their ideology. In your first response you say that "he" is not a reliable source as per Wikipedia rules and conventions, however, these evidences I will be citing come from both his own words and the interactions of people who knew him.

“I am opposed to Hitlerism whether in India within the Congress or any other country but it appears to me that socialism is the only alternative to Hitlerism.”

10/12/1928 speech in Delhi Source: Foward bloc website | Communist off-shot of Netaji's Forward Bloc.

If the above quote does not seem credible enough, I offer more content which has been previously cited on Wikipedia and can still be found on the page Political Views of Subhas Chandra Bose.

His views about Nazi Germany before the war:

"When I first visited Germany in 1933 I had hopes that the new German nation which had risen to consciousness of its national strength & self-respect would instinctively feel a deep sympathy for other nations struggling in the same direction. Today I regret that I have to return to India with the conviction that the new nationalism in Germany is not only narrow and selfish, but arrogant… The new racial philosophy which has a very weak scientific foundation stands for the glorification of the white races in general, and the German race in particular."

This was not a public speech of any kind, this was him relaying his views personally in a letter to Dr. Thierfelder in 1936. The citation is available on Political Views of Subhas Chandra Bose. Full source: The Essential Writings of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Edited by Sisir K. Bose & Sugata Bose (Delhi: Oxford University Press) 1997 p. 155

He published criticism of Japan for their attacks and imperialism in China. At first it may seem like praise of a sympathetic revolutionary, but the praise quickly turns to criticism.

"Japan's Role in the Far East" (originally published in the Modern Review in October 1937): "Japan has done great things for herself and for Asia. Her reawakening at the dawn of the present century sent a thrill throughout our Continent. Japan has shattered the white man's prestige in the Far East and has put all the Western imperialist powers on the defensive—not only in the military but also in the economic sphere. She is extremely sensitive—and rightly so—about her self-respect as an Asiatic race. She is determined to drive out the Western powers from the Far East. But could not all this have been achieved without Imperialism, without dismembering the Chinese Republic, without humiliating another proud, cultured and ancient race? No, with all our admiration for Japan, where such admiration is due, our whole heart goes out to China in her hour of trial"

Sourced from The Essential Writings of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Edited by Sisir K. Bose & Sugata Bose (Delhi: Oxford University Press) 1997 p. 190

When Subhas was in Berlin, he built a friendship with a Jewish couple named Kitty Kurti and Alex Kurti who later became Americans. The friendship may have been short-lasting, but Kitty wrote an entire book detailing the type of man she knew Subhas to be. She even writes how he did not try to hide his deep content for the Nazis, and she recalls him expressing that the Jewish are an old and gifted race who have been unfairly mistreated through the centuries. His alliance with the Nazis was "dreadful... but it must be done. India must get her independence". You may even get a copy of the book here

It is a known fact that many Jews were fleeing to America in the 1930s and were denied entry. It is also acknowledged by international scholars that most of the world was largely unaware on what was happening to Jews in Europe, and they had 0 awareness on what was going on in the concentration camps up until after the war. You cannot blame Bose for his alliance, even if he knew that the Nazi regime was anti-Semitic. The Wikipedia articles which state this and are fully cited are listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_of_the_Holocaust_in_Nazi_Germany_and_German-occupied_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Holocaust#Public_awareness

"That sounds reasonable. There appear to be plenty of sources that backup the claim that, militarily, Bose's efforts were a failure. More of a success politically, and as a thorn in the side of the British."

Subhas Chandra Bose was always keen student in military and political history. From his college days up until his last days in Congress, this was known to many other members of the Congress party which is one of the reasons why they showed disdain for him. Have you actually analyzed the situation during this time period? It was a combination of misinformation campaigns, propaganda, monsoon season, lack of supplies from the Japanese due to war in the homeland. You cannot entirely pin the failure of the crusades on "military incompetence", let alone the alleged military incompetence of Bose. Remember, the cabinet of officers in the Azad Hind Fauj were experienced fighters, strategists, and professionally trained by the British. If that is not enough, he did not shy away from any planning with the Japanese commanders, as they too met for strategical purposes. Your references to Fujiwara's words are merely his opinion coming from the Japanese side which wanted full control of the INA. Bose's "stubborn" attitude is hailed because he was persistent in having an army for Indians by Indians. You have correctly highlighted Fujiwara's personal viewpoint, but what about the other side?

Now the question of whether or not Bose shaking hands with Hitler is enough to tie his legacy to anti-Semitism. This may be on the more subjective viewpoint, but there is an available photo of Neville Chamberlain shaking hands with Hitler. There is an available photo of a pope shaking hands with Hitler. Is that enough to pin that against them in the knowledge panel every time someone googles their name? My assertion was never that the article should be praising Bose or written from an admirer viewpoint, but the fact of the matter is that unsuspecting people are only forming negative opinions because of the way you have worded it. It is the first thing that pops up when people search "Subhas Chandra Bose"

Bose's public objection to Nazi ideals in 1927, his clear criticism of their regime in 1936, his public statement that he is not an apologist for the Tripartate powers and his concern is ONLY with India, and the first-hand experience of this Jewish author and Bose's resentment towards the Nazis outnumber the one claim that he refused to condemn Kristallnacht (which no source has been made available to me showing that this happened)

Thank you if you have read this far. I made sure to properly review everything you've said before replying. I believe it is time to change the opening paragraph of Subhas Chandra Bose. Here is my first proposal:

Subhas Chandra Bose was an Indian nationalist whose defiance of British authority in India made him a hero to Indians during the Independence struggle, but his wartime alliances with the Axis powers against the British remains a controversial topic among historians.

Secondary proposal:

Subhas Chandra Bose was an Indian nationalist whose defiance of British authority in India made him a hero to Indians during the Independence struggle, but the ethical nature of his wartime alliances with the Axis powers is hotly debated.

I prefer the first proposal because I feel that it best outlines the nature of this topic, but we may continue discussing until we reach the end compromise. Do you guys agree to make this change? Pranath vir (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark: I've changed it to "Military failure" piped to Military incompetence. Pranath vir, Thanks for your post and your effort. I'm sorry I'm unable to see your argument as constituting something consonant with WP guidelines for sourcing. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: This change makes little difference. I've provided sufficient references to my argument, some of which are primary sources, and I have linked other pages on Wikipedia filled with citations that you can see for yourself. I still have not received any source to back up the claim that anti-Semitism OR Authoritarianism is tied to Subhas Bose. If such an assertion will be made to people who Google his name, there needs to be credible backing to it. There is not. It seems that these edits are only being made from viewpoints on an opposing side rather than both sides. I have several journalists and scholars supporting me on this, and I strongly think that the opening paragraph should be changed to one of my proposals or something similar. Pranath vir (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the article and found what you're talking about within the citations, I did not previously know that it is what you were referencing, my mistake. Any professor can throw out a claim without evidence, and as of now I am skeptical. I am waiting for a response from an expert to verify this claim. We could perhaps create an entirely separate page based on the ethical question of whether he was right or not in seeking assistance from the Axis Powers in India's fight for freedom, OR it could be added as a section to Political Views of Subhas Chandra Bose.

Subhas Chandra Bose was an Indian nationalist whose defiance of British authority in India made him a hero to Indians during the Independence struggle, but his wartime alliances with the Axis powers against the British remains a controversial topic among historians.

At "controversial topic", you could make it redirect to this particular page/section that elaborates on the ethical concerns. Pranath vir (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia is not censored. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I read it and I agree with everything. However, it is not just objectionable content, it is badly worded and insinuates things that are not true. You are free to criticize him on the moral question of him seeking support from the Axis Powers, but nothing will change the fact that his colossal sacrifice is something that has earned him the admiration of nearly every Indian who knows the truth. I honestly don't care if you want to highlight these things in the article, my only concern is with the opening paragraph because that is the summarization of it. I do not think it is right to have that there, especially when I've shown from primary and secondary sources that he is neither tied to Anti-Semitism, and I can make the same arguments for his "authoritarianism". People are only associating this with his legacy based on the FIRST thing they see when they Google him, and that is the truth. I truly think that the better and more insightful alternative would be, "but the ethical nature of his wartime alliance with Axis powers against the British has remained a controversial discussion amongst historians." Pranath vir (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

What is not true? "vex" means "Of a question, problem, subject, etc.: to present with difficulties with regard to resolution or understanding; to perplex, confound." (OED) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion initially was of a claim that a researcher in Italy made in a book which is contradicted by people who first-hand knew Subhas and indicate that his actions had no links to anti-Semitism. His legacy has no ties to what atrocities the Nazis and Japanese have committed neither does it have ties to their ideologies, it is the ethical question of his alliance with them that is perplexing. Franklin Delanor Roosevelt allied with Joseph Stalin during WWII, does that mean that his name should be highlighted with the vexation of Communism and mass-murder? People will assume he's a Nazi or supporter of the holocaust without knowing the details or specifics regarding the situation at the time. I don't mind the ethical question being discussed on the page, it is only the opening statement I am concerned with because it should be a crisp summarization of what he's known for as a whole. On the topic of summarization, I also suggest that his former position as Congress President and Commander of the Indian National Army be mentioned. Pranath vir (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bulk edits warning

In response to this request you had made bulk edits without having consensus on talk page, which is against WP policy, next time before making bulk edits wait for consensus, otherwise we will have to revert those. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

I just wrote the lead of Prime_Minister_of_India. Do you feel there is any scope for improvement? Appu (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It reads like an essay. What was wrong with the old lead? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Hi, you had reverted this] valid edit without explanation, if you had mistakenly reverted please restore it, or stop instigation. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)