User talk:Fowler&fowler

Welcome, Fowler&fowler!

Welcome to our community!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Policies, guidelines, and rules (have fun, but watch out for these, as well!)
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial
• Writing well
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, riana_dzasta 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Dont you think your being way to picky and strange by saying if persisted could be vandalism? I mean yes I understand what your saying...But geez how was I supposed to know other people have covered it? Do I have to read everything before I make a comment?....There were others who talked about calling India the most populous so I read that part. But I dont remember seeing anyone say Russia & China were not Democratic (although again I dont think I read everything)

I can't believe I'm saying this (since a part of me sympathizes with your impatience), but you are supposed to read everything; otherwise, you end up repeating what others have already said, which in turn makes it harder for others to read everything, and so forth. BTW, most of that discussion was about whether China was undemocratic or not; and as you will see there, I was really arguing what you are saying. My reference to vandalism was not about being repetitive, but about inserting comments in the middle of a discussion. That is definitely very confusing and frustrating for other readers. Anyway, thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

I think it's ok to remove military info from both.However, I request that you put both articles in your watchlist and monitor them accordingly.Hkelkar 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks. Fowler&fowler 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good man!Hkelkar 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

India and Sati

Please read the article on Sati carefully.While the British enacted the first law against it, the ;aw was only restricted to Bengal presidency and hardly counts. It was only due to the lobbying of the Brahmo Samaj that Sati was outlawed all over British India (minus the princely states) and only thanks to their grassroots activity that the practice was phased out.21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Bengal Presidency hardly counts! The Bengal Presidency was all of North and Eastern India in those days (which is where most of the Suttee problem was); the other two presidencies Bombay and Calcutta were small by comparison (and had very little Suttee practice). See the map of the Bengal Presidency. You'll need a credible citation to claim that it was only through the efforts of RRR or Brahmo Samaj that the Suttee ban was passed. Fowler&fowler 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the refs below. It was only due to the efforts of RRR that Sati was banned throughout British India. The Bengal Presidency ban was a joke and was almost never put into action. Only RRR's lobbying efforts enforced the ban all over the colony and his grassroots campaigning that educated people enough not to break that law.Hkelkar 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sati

Please read http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/rajarammohunroy.html and:

History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand P461:

“ Raja Ram Mohan Roy counterpetitioned that Sati was inhuman and unjust. It was because of his cooperation that in 1829 Lord William Bentick could declare Sati against the Law [all over British India] ”

Hkelkar 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also read Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234.Hkelkar 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the other references, but I did read your URL article. It doesn't make the case that Roy was instrumental, but rather that he was supportive. It attests to my use of "with the support of":

In 1829 Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General of India, after consulting with Roy, declared sati illegal. Roy assured him that this would not violate religious liberty because it was, in his estimation, an optional rite and not a true part of Hindu religion. Roy supported the government decision, briefed Bentinck on how to respond to pro-sati petitions, and wrote a tract, Abstract of the Arguments regarding the Burning of Widows Considered as a Religious Rite, 1830. In this he called sati "cruel murder, under the cloak of religion." His persuasive influence made the British ruling seem less coercive.(my bold face)

Bentick was influenced primarily by Bentham and Mill who were championing women's causes long before RRR appeared on the scene. Fowler&fowler 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The two refs that I have provided do not support the claim that RRR's campaign was substratum to British mandate but the other way around. to even suggest that Britishers in the 19th century gave a damn about the plight of Indian women is contrary to reality as they regarded all Indians as essentially subhuman.Hkelkar 06:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time. Bring up whatever you have to on the India talk page. Fowler&fowler 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise effort

I appreciate your efforts to compromise on India regarding the Sati issue. Regarding your interesting post to Dbachmann [1]. If you believe that Indian patriotism poses some sort of systemic problem, I suggest you look at this [2] and statements made by Chinese nationalists on Talk:Sino-Indian_War. You appear to have done some research on India related matters and do acknowledge that we are the only true and stable democracy in the region, a region with other countries run by whack-job Islamic Fundamentalists, military dictators and oppressive communist regimes. In such an atmosphere of hostility from countries who hate us for our freedom and democracy which we Indians have embraced from the western culture only and adapted to our own, I posit that Indian Nationalism is, at the very least, inherently pro-west and not anti-west (even the most hardline Hindu Nationalists praise democratic ideas and participate in the democratic process, whereas the Deobandis and Wahabis want to return to a medeival Khilafat of authoritarian society). In contrast Pakistani and Chinese Nationalism are rabidly anti-democracy and anti-west, thus posing a far greater danger to the civilized world than Indian nationalism. Hkelkar 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Just offerring you some food for thought, that's all.Hkelkar 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for the links above. Will mull over the issues you raise. Fowler&fowler 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Question about signature

This should help. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that has been answered. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks both! I'm still working on it! Fowler&fowler 05:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Copy and paste the following code. It should work. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]]

The rendered output would be: Fowler&fowler«Talk»

Note that the "Talk" isn't highlighted here as this is your talk page. It will work correctly anywhere. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: Copy from edit box, not from the talk page. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yippee!! It worked. Thank you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

= Thanks ...

for spacing care of the spacing, even though it's a minor point. Keep working on the lead — maybe Nichalp will grow to like the new version better. Take care. Saravask 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Fowler&fowler 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job!

I must say, the article on India looks so much better now. Keep up the good work! --Incman|वार्ता 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Fowler&fowler 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your rv of the ip's edits on India

See the talk on the India page. Do not revert responsible edits simply because you are ignorant or it goes against your POV. Discuss on the talk page before reverting something that you dont understand. Sarvagnya 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you should stop acting like you own the India article. I dont have to establish that Ugadi and Sankranti are as 'notable' or widely celebrated as Pongal or Holi. This is common knowledge. It is you who need to get your facts right and clarify it on whatever talk page you want with whosoever you wish. Holi is not even a public holiday in many parts of the country. Dasara is the biggest festival of Karnataka, Bengal and Gujarat. It is the official state festival of Karnataka. It is also celebrated in every other part of the country. Ugadi and Sankranti are the new year and harvest festivals of almost half the country. Pongal is limited to the state of Tamil Nadu and only to the state of Tamil Nadu. Ganesh Chaturthi is arguably the most widely celebrated festival of India and it doesnt even find a place in your scheme of things! You seem to know squat about Indian festivals. So go get your facts right before you start owning articles and pushing POV. Sarvagnya 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

Hi. Yes, Nichalp said we need more info on plants/animals. This probably means we should have a flora/fauna section modelled on Australia#Flora and fauna, Kerala#Flora and fauna, and West Bengal#Flora and fauna. Since I wrote Kerala#Flora and fauna, I have some experience regarding how it should be written — it's just a matter of reading, reading, and more reading. I've made a start at User:Saravask/Flora and fauna yesterday, and am doing some online reading now. I'm also going to the library today to get books on it. You're certainly welcome to add info to it, edit it, or change the pic/caption. We should probably have a comprehensive, well-written two paragraphs before we add it to India, though. Thanks.

Regarding the new users at India (for example, this one), I've had the same issues with them at Talk:Rabindranath Tagore. They tend to come and perform "drive-by" reverts, as was done to you yesterday. The good thing is that they tend to lose interest quickly and move on. Saravask 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Your list definitely beats mine — hands down. I was only able to find one book (Land of the Tiger: A Natural History of the Indian Subcontinent) by V. Thapar at the library. I'm going to join you in writing the new section tomorrow. Meanwhile, feel free to edit or delete anything I do at the subpage — we need to make this read better than the one at Australia. Good luck. Saravask 05:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanksgiving? No problem; me too. I'm going to post what I have tomorrow, though. It's alright if you wait until then to critique and edit it. Thanks. Saravask 07:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fowler, thanks for the compliments and happy Thanksgiving to you too. Saravask 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

I'm glad to see you working on the new section; many of the changes were good. However, I have to accept the view Nichalp took towards the lead — that the lists in "Flora and fauna" are getting overly detailed and "listy". I really believe that the lists shouldn't contain any more items than those at Australia#Flora and fauna. This means focusing on the eight or nine animals and perhaps three plant species that are most interesting and unique to India. For example, study the following:

Most Australian woody plant species are evergreen and many are adapted to fire and drought, including many eucalyptus and acacias. Australia has a rich variety of endemic legume species that thrive in nutrient-poor soils because of their symbiosis with Rhizobia bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi. Well-known Australian fauna include monotremes (the platypus and echidna); a host of marsupials, including the kangaroo, koala, wombat; and birds such as the emu, and kookaburra. The dingo was introduced by Austronesian people that traded with Indigenous Australians around 4000 BCE. Many plant and animal species became extinct soon after human settlement, including the Australian megafauna; others have become extinct since European settlement, among them the Thylacine.

Note how they don't present just large lists containing dozens of organisms (e.g., Australia has mammals like the dingo, kangaroo, koala, wombat, echidna, emu, kookaburra, ... ") Instead, they choose to select and highlight a handful of the most interesting organisms in the form of stories and vignettes (e.g., "The dingo was introduced by Austronesian people that traded with Indigenous Australians around 4000 BCE"). They use mostly stories, not lists. I was going to write similar vignettes, but I can't do that when so many organisms are listed. Also, I don't want Sarvagnya & Co. accusing us of hypocrisy (because we don't want the lists in the culture section growing long and crufty). I hope you understand what I mean. :)

Another thing I need help with is finding a reliable figure for the rate of endemism among Indian fauna. Thanks. Saravask 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were intending to prune. But I prefer we the pruning/rewriting at the India page, not the sandbox. This is because there may be people watching the page may be able to offer helpful input, refs, or facts that we can use. They can also point out mistakes. I noticed this when writing Kerala, for example. Let me know what you think. Saravask 04:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)