Jump to content

User talk:Fowler&fowler: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Aksai Chin Map: new section
Line 308: Line 308:
Surprised to see that you don't seem to [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Indian_independence_movement edited this article] to any significant degree. It somehow wasn't on my watchlist till earlier today either. Haven't read the article yet but looking through the references etc, the citations seem pretty "random" with each work apparently selected to support a individual claims. Not clear which, if any, history texts were used to "structure" the contents.{{pb}}
Surprised to see that you don't seem to [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Indian_independence_movement edited this article] to any significant degree. It somehow wasn't on my watchlist till earlier today either. Haven't read the article yet but looking through the references etc, the citations seem pretty "random" with each work apparently selected to support a individual claims. Not clear which, if any, history texts were used to "structure" the contents.{{pb}}
Anyway, no particular ask at the moment but this may provide an interesting project if you are feeling particularly inspired or bored. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, no particular ask at the moment but this may provide an interesting project if you are feeling particularly inspired or bored. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

== Aksai Chin Map ==

Hello. Please prove that {{w|Demchok, Ladakh}} is part of Aksai Chin. If you do not give direct evidence of that, then I feel morally obiliged to remove this map, for lack of evidence of claims made: [[:Commons:File:Kashmir region. LOC 2003626427 - showing sub-regions administered by different countries.jpg]] [[User:Geographyinitiative|Geographyinitiative]] ([[User talk:Geographyinitiative|talk]]) 13:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:07, 24 June 2023

Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26


Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

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

Things to do on 6/10/22

  • Thapa, Namrata; Tamang, Jyoti Prakash (2020), "Ethnic Fermented Foods and Beverages of Sikkim and Darjeeling Hills (Gorkhaland Territorial Administration)", in Tamang, Jyoti Prakash (ed.), Ethnic Fermented Foods and Beverages of India: Science History and Culture, Singapore: Springer Nature, ISBN 978-981-15-1485-2 and
  • Tamang, Jyoti P.; Sarkar, Prabir K; Hesseltine, Clifford W (1988). "Traditional Fermented Foods and Beverages of Darjeeling". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 44 (4): 375–385. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740440410.
  • Add something on Tibetan refugees in Darjeeling.

The relevant news, June 24, 2022

Executive Order No. 600: Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services in the Commonwealth, DATE 06/24/2022, ISSUER: Charlie Baker, MASS REGISTER: No. 600 ... WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Commonwealth has long provided a guarantee of reproductive rights independent of and more expansive than any protection provided by the United States Constitution ... NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles D. Baker, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution, Part 2, c. 2, § 1, Art. 1, do hereby order as follows: ...Given at the Executive Chamber in Boston this 24th day of June in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-two and of the Independence of the United States of America two hundred forty-five.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

2c

F&f, if an editor asks to be referred to as male, female, or of neither gender, it behooves us to do so as a matter of common courtesy. The "real gender" [sic] of the editor or the reason behind their on-wiki preference is frankly irrelevant because while we can and should "argue" over article content based on sources, wikipedia policies etc, when it comes to this issue there is, IMO, no external authority to refer to beyond the person(a) themselves.

Of course, it is not always easy to remember each editor's preference and inadvertent lapses are almost inevitable. As a personal practice, for the last few years I have started using neutral third-person pronouns in all communications (both on and off-wiki) where the gender of the referent is unknown or is irrelevant to the topic of the discussion. And I haven't received any push-back from people who identify as male or female so far. The singular "they/them" takes some getting used to but English after all is a living language.

Note that in the above, I have not referred to any wikipedia policy although I believe there are some that have been formulated recently (tps'er can perhaps link to them). For me, the crux is that, irrespective of whether such policies exist or are enforced, we should hold ourselves to high-enough standard not to stoop to questioning other peoples gender or gender identity. Hope you will give it some thought; feel free to respond here or through email, if you prefer (best though, not to make the discussion about any particular editor). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I belong to a peer group of men and women that didn't change their last names after marriage; some of us adopted hyphenated names for both, then argued in the best traditions of equality about order of hyphenated names for themselves and their children, ... Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, were our idols or were Anna Freud and Dorothy Burlingham (whose WP article I had the pleasure of writing),
So, I do try and remember your dictum most of the time, but like you said, there are times when the generic male pronoun pops up unannounced. It does in the speech of women I know and they are not Phyllis Schlaflyites by a long shot.
Speaking of her, and I'm reminiscing now ... I went to the big ERA demonstration in Cincinnati in the spring of 1979, and then we crossed the mighty Ohio river to oppose the Right to Lifers in their own something or other in Lexington, KY, and that wasn't the first time. I've been around enough straight women, gay women, and gay men to know that the humane ones at least don't make a big deal of occasional slips of the tongue.
So, I'll try follow your advice more diligently, but I can't help feeling that in some of the The lady doth protest too much, methinks type objections I hear on WP, especially for some reason on India-related talk pages where they appears in an ambience of increasingly brazen hatred, I can't help feeling that I am being conned. I get irritated not so much because I am personally offended, but because I think such cavalier use of something that grew of our such serious things is an insult to Sarte, de Beauvoir, A. Freud, Burlingham, to Betty Friedan, Harvey Milk, and a long line of pioneers who fought for various forms of equal rights, going back to the nineteenth century, not just to Frederick Douglas and Lincoln and Harriet Beecher Stowe, but also to others not so well known such Herbert Musgrave Phipson (whose article on WP I wrote long ago) and his wife Edith Pechey, both of whom did their bit more modestly.
The cavalier use of usage, without irony or the kind of wisdom that usually accompanies heartfelt things, hurts for that reason. Maybe it is not cavalier, but the seeds of doubt remain Pinging @Johnuniq: by way of explanation, not defense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to tell you that the pendulum is swinging strongly and we all must adapt to the times. Whether or not someone is using the issue as a tactic is not relevant in any way. Contributors, particularly those working in contentious topics, are quite readily indefinitely blocked when difficult issues erupt on a noticeboard, and where it is clear that the standard advice offered by Abecedare above has not been followed. From now on, everyone is they (or, find a way of avoiding pronouns perhaps by repeating the user name). Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about pendulums is that they swing both to and fro. Please have a quick read of WP:THREATEN. Personally I find using a plural pronoun when a singular one is used to be offensive to the reader. It interrupts the flow and makes you go back to find out which person you've forgotten about. But then abiding by standards accepted by the majority is considered poor form by right-on woke campaigners. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martin: I consider John to be a benign presence who had my best interest at heart just as I do you. I didn’t think they were threatening me, only telling me what the mood out there is and that their (Abecedare’s and John’s) hands would be tied in case someone dragged me to ANI. It’s what the rules are for better or for worse. The thing is that I do try to use they/theirs, might have even argued in favor at a MOS discussion.
Given that the nominator at the RfC is quoting rules repeatedly, they might be looking to drag me to the wood shed and caution is best overall but especially now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, and it is your talk page. It just read as "You're old fashioned, do it my way or you'll be punished" which is why I reacted. Best, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. I think both of you to be guardian angels and don't want to lose you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have read the situation accurately. A complicating factor is that at a noticeboard like ANI, almost no one can follow the background of a complex dispute so arguments might be settled by what onlookers do understand, namely that person X said something that person Y found to be offensive. Doing that more than once is an own goal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that bit of insight into decision making at ANI-like noticeboards. This is very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a soccer or hockey player, I had to look up "own goal" in the OED. At first, I thought it meant a personal goal (in life)  :)
1. Sport. A goal scored against the scorer's own team, usually unintentionally.
1922 Times 10 Apr. 6/5 Lennon (own goal), Smith, Pagnam 2.
1947 Sunday Pictorial 9 Feb. 15/1 An amazing ‘own goal’ by Wilf Mannion.
1976 Norwich Mercury 10 Dec. 8/6 With no one taking control J. Purling eventually left M. Warman stranded with a back header that lopped just under the crossbar for an own-goal.
1998 Miami Herald (Nexis) 16 Nov. 4 d His team's recent slump was highlighted by an own-goal off his stick against the Hurricanes on Saturday.
(Hide quotations)
2. figurative (originally and chiefly British). An act that unintentionally harms one's own interests.
1975 Economist (Nexis) 4 Oct. 27 The doyen of the Tribune group..scored an own goal on Wednesday night... His speech at a packed Tribune rally was a gross tactical miscalculation of [etc.].
1976 Guardian 11 Aug. 10/8 Two youngsters of Provisional IRA blown up by premature explosion of own bomb while crossing peace line..described as own goals by smiling Army press officers.
1989 Advertiser (Adelaide) (Nexis) 14 Dec. Senator Haines described Mr Downer's plan as an ‘own goal’ which would rebound against the Liberals.
2001 Farmers Guardian 17 Aug. 9/2 For a Government minister..and a key adviser..to state publicly their low estimation of farmers and farming is yet another spectacular own goal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHAAOE see own goal! Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, its more than just soccer or hockey. It means I have not really been watching my Green Bay Packers or Chicago Bulls with any diligence. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another cultural lesson is that asking "what gender are you?" is very creepy. I can't quite put my finger on why, but it is not appropriate at Wikipedia. We're not supposed to make any personal queries at all—it's none of my business where other editors live, or what they do in their personal lives. It might be ok to ask what pronouns are wanted but that's not scalable—we can't have each of a thousand editors asking each of the others what pronoun to use. Stick to singular they (it's not plural). Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't ask anyone again, but I asked in part because I assumed they are confident in their gender identity and would thereby give me a better idea of Wikipedia's demographics, which I currently assume to be overwhelmingly male in IT-related professions or male students preparing for careers in IT-related fields (according to the NY Times). Indeed I've spent much time (months, maybe even years intermittently) at WT:FAC arguing that topics that are of interest to "quantitative" males of the Anglosphere are the ones that inundate FAC (and its overworked reviewers) and are usually promoted; there was some sympathy for my views there and some change effected.
But I generally agree with you and won't ask again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked, to be honest, in part because I doubted their new found identity and wanted to test their answer against both very confident and very shy people I have known who have talked about identity issues. Both of the latter share a kind of underlying honesty that people who use it as a tactic are unable to muster. I agree that I should not have done that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are unable to muster, in part, because they have simply not thought about it enough. No angst, let alone melancholia, has accompanied their introspection. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that I'm not your typical his user by a long stretch, at best an occasionally forgetful one.
No typical user would be making a valiant stand to have :"wheechair bound" and "is confined to a wheelchair" depracated at MOS talk; none would have been asked by Ceoil to look look over: this tribute to SlimVirgin; and none would have had someone new to WP but dealing with issues of identity and disability make this post of thanks.
I'm not being defensive, only giving some idea of the finer nerved views I hold most of the time and the strangely opaque Wiklawyerish objections of my interlocutors. I don't mean you, John, obviously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So summing up, you are maybe saying that all the finer nerved stuff doesn't add up to a hill of beans if at ANI the only thing that the judges of the passing moment can understand is WP:ASPERSIONS. I don't want to be marching to the gallows on that account. I agree there and thank you for the explanations, John. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when you get strongly identified with your digital life on Wiki and start owning your community contributions. Ego is the path to the dark side. I think you should study this Sanskrit quote: “Seva Paramo Dharma”. Fayninja (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Service is merit, or Service is righteousness, apparently.
Kind of like Service is its own reward, or Virtue is its own reward. But then there is also (Mallory's) "Because it is there," or "Valor is its own reward." But then there is also: Discretion is the better part of valor.
Mottos are a dime a dozen. It takes more than one motto to carve out a philosophy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is translated as "service is the highest duty" or "selfless service is the ultimate virtue." The phrase encapsulates the idea that serving without any expectation of personal gain or reward is a noble and honourable way of life.
In many spiritual and philosophical traditions, seva (service) is considered a fundamental principle. It promotes compassion, empathy, and a sense of interconnectedness with others. By engaging in acts of selfless service, individuals can contribute to the well-being and upliftment of society as a whole.
Since you have contributed so much of your time to Wikipedia, I thought you were already walking the path but just needed a gentle reminder.
I apologize if any of my comments had hurt you. I tend to be spontaneous most of the time. Fayninja (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. In the heat of the moment, I do veer off WP's principles which I will follow with greater resolution after your reminder, especially in reference to using "they" as the universal personal pronoun, which this thread is about. Remember that WP's principles may not always conform to national perspectives. Kashmir might be one of those topic areas. Beyond saying this, I cannot offer much about the topic on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kashmir RFC

Regarding your comment: note that the conclusion of this RFC may well be that, as North8000 suggested and you hinted, no updates are needed to the existing consensus! Getting the 2019 consensus re-affirmed (if that is what happens) will itself be of benefit IMO. Also, if your preferred option for the lede language is not among the ones listed in the RFC's currently (as I suspect), feel free to offer it as part of your comment. I haven't yet examined the listed options carefully enough and it would be good to have your preferred version listed before I get down to weighing in myself.

PS: I am commenting here in order to avoid have a threaded discussion in the "Survey section" of the RFC, because we both know how messy that gets! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added an "explanation" after that comment, mentioning your earlier argument, which I thought was beautifully precise, epitomizing what GH Hardy had said in A Mathematician's Apology about reductio ad absurdum, "A chess player offers the pawn sacrifice. A mathematician offers the game." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir is complicated

There seems to be no consensus in the academia about how to refer to the disputed regions. Even if we use the term Indian/Pakistani-invaded uniformly over all regions of Kashmir, we will still technically achieve neutrality because of the uniform application of the template. I have put in my last comment on the matter, now it's time for the bystanders to chime in and finish it. Good night. Fayninja (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'43 Famine

Hi F&F,

In the t/p archives of Bengal famine of 1943, you have frequently highlighted Hindu men's desertion of their families, as the famine gained pace. I am interested in a few sources on this narrow locus but for purposes which are not connected to Wikipedia. Will appreciate some aid. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TrangaBellam:
  • The time honored is Paul Greenough's Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: The Famine of 1943-1944, Oxford, 1982. Difficult to find. I have a hard copy but no pdf.
  • Arjun Appadurai's How moral is South Asia's economy: A review article
  • Among many rural folk in East Bengal, who were mostly Muslim and perhaps a few Hindus, a strange kind of passive acceptance was seen. They had gradually lost everything: their crops, their steady incomes, their livestock, their furniture (auctioned), even their thatched roofs (also auctioned or taken by the money lender). Eventually, they just sat in their homes and died by the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, never asking for help. It is briefly discussed in one of the war volumes of Bayly and Harper. Hauntingly sad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see that you don't seem to edited this article to any significant degree. It somehow wasn't on my watchlist till earlier today either. Haven't read the article yet but looking through the references etc, the citations seem pretty "random" with each work apparently selected to support a individual claims. Not clear which, if any, history texts were used to "structure" the contents.

Anyway, no particular ask at the moment but this may provide an interesting project if you are feeling particularly inspired or bored. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aksai Chin Map

Hello. Please prove that Demchok, Ladakh is part of Aksai Chin. If you do not give direct evidence of that, then I feel morally obiliged to remove this map, for lack of evidence of claims made: Commons:File:Kashmir region. LOC 2003626427 - showing sub-regions administered by different countries.jpg Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]