User talk:Fowler&fowler

The sayings of Isaac Newton

File:I keep the subject constantly before me.jpg

File:I keep the subject constantly before me 3.jpg

File:I keep the subject constantly before me 2.jpg

File:I keep the subject constantly before me 4.jpg

The sayings of Isaac Newton, from left to right: (a) I keep the subject constantly before me, (b) and wait (c) till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, (d) into a full and clear light

Archive 22 Archive 23

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Fylindfotberserk (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for appreciating.

Anyone can use my pictures. For verification you can see coordinates and also refer to the Delhi riot news. You can also do reverse search which is most helpful in verification. Thanks for appreciating my work. Hemant Banswal 08:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs)

Thank you so much for recognizing my work and for awarding me with Barnstar. Banswalhemant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Banswalhemant: You're very welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Wolf

I think all you need to do is state whether the cited are sourced in a consist matter. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I'm assuming you mean, "sourced in a consistent manner?" I'm not sure what that means precisely, and Ian Rose hasn't answered. Let me ask some others at FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you spotchecking again? We don't need that anymore and I see no issues with the Etymology section. That was to only section I and William Harris didn't write and I fixed any problems that Axl pointed out before. The reviews have dragged on far too long and I really would like to get this over with. LittleJerry (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Listen. I'm doing you a favor. The etymology section has not been paraphrased correctly. The Latin lupus is a distant connection. Please don't badger me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The source states that the PIE root is "probably" also the source for the Latin lupus and the article states that. There is no problem with paraphrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, please don't badger me. I know about this more than you do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the recent discussion about The Times of India at WP:RSN

Many people, including El C, seem to be fully convinced by your argument. I partially disagree.

While it is true that TOI has been - since time immemorial - a pro-government newspaper, it has recently begun to show independence. Nowadays, I see a lot of op-eds in TOI (and Sunday Times) which bash the Indian government for the CAA-NRC duplet.

Press freedom is directly proportional to the gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita) in democracies. Please wait and watch for a few years; you will see a gradual shift towards liberalism in Indian media.

And TOI is quite a visible newspaper; any false claims published in it will be instantly rebutted.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well GDP has some correlation, but it probably has to be hard-earned; look at some of the middle eastern countries Saudi Arabia, Qatar, ... I don't disagree with your other assertions, but the problem for WP is that a large number of people who will be attempting to use a TOI article as a source might not have knowledge of these changing dynamics. The decision about reliability is made with respect to a generic global WP editor. I'm sure TOI will get there again, but right now in my view, it is not there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Who said I was convinced by Fowler&fowler's argument? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely interpreted the arguments and agreements in that discussion. My closing was not a supervote and should not be viewed as such. I did not express my own view, but here it is: your view that in "a few years" there will be "a gradual shift towards liberalism in Indian media" is nothing but prophecy, which I put very little stock in. El_C 14:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I apologise for my mistake. I thought you were convinced by Fowler&fowler’s case because you praised his “substantive argument (and breadth of knowledge in this area)”. If you have time, please checkout this analysis by M. Huitsing published by Media Bias/Fact Check.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Unbecoming conduct

I objected here before about your conduct at 2020 Delhi riots but you did not reply. I'm going to try once again, but next time will take it to WP:ANI. Your sense of privilege is insufferable, as you showed today with your personal attack on a fellow editor. Please rein it in. NedFausa (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Please do take me to ANI. But first please read the long post I left on Talk:2020 Delhi riots. Please also don't accuse me of having a sense of social privilege let alone it being insufferable or exhort me to "rein it in," as if this is a longstanding behavioral issue with me. Please be aware of rebound at ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Thank you very much, btw, for this post, which is very cogent in argument and very well written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

Hey Fowler&fowler, just reminding you to come back and give me your final comments about the Roar article as you probably forgot to.

Best regards, -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 21:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, @NowIsntItTime:, I will be getting back very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

British Indian provinces coat of arms

Fowler&fowler, There are other British Indian provinces too where these plaque coat of arms images are already added. I've only added the images to the Orissa Province and United Provinces pages. Why are you removing only these particular images I've added while similar images already exist in other provinces' pages too.

You might have created these pages but that doesn't give you the authorship of these pages. Here on Wikipedia everyone is free to edit any article they want to edit and improve. Hemant Dabral^Talk 11:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hemant Dabral: I will be taking those out too. I wasn't aware they were there. But I first wanted to check who put them in there. There was an extensive discussion on Talk:British_Raj/Archive_9#Emblem_and_Flag?, presided over by at least one admin RegentsPark. Please also see: Talk:British_Raj#Flag. Note that the British Raj page does not have a flag or emblem for that reason. The reason why I mentioned I created the page, is not to claim authorship, but to state that I have followed the conventions on these pages. It is possible that the flags were allowed, but they are not anymore. Please read the discussions I have mentioned. We are all human. Creating conventions by extensive discussions, even RfCs, then watching them for violations, takes time and effort, and sometimes we forget to enforce the conventions. When you do something en masse, please make a post on WT:INDIA. Please take these flags and emblems out. If you don't, you will simply create more work for everyone in a difficult stressful time during a global pandemic threat. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, you can remove these images. Thanks! Hemant Dabral^Talk 12:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR violation at 2020 Delhi riots

Please self-revert while that option is still available to you. Please be cognizant of the restrictions that page is subject to. Thank you in advance for your close attention. Regards, El_C 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks. Had no idea I had done that, but you are absolutely right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries, these things happen. Thanks for self-reverting. Regards, El_C 23:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi riots

Thanks for the note, but yes, I do mind, a lot. Not just because of the quotes--I don't understand your argument at all, and they're already "in the record" already. "the lead is being carefully finalized" sounds like there's some committee writing it, some committee that I and others didn't get invited to. Perhaps you can ask the committee why it saw fit to revert my edits to the rather horrible prose; who on earth writes tripe like "Muslims were described as having been targeted by the rioters" (as if Muslims weren't targeted in reality, just in someone's mind--was this article written by someone who was afraid of saying it like it is?) or "Fifty-three people were killed, most of whom were Muslims who were shot...". Shit, I can't even restore a decent topic sentence ("Muslims, muslim-owned properties, and mosques were specifically targeted by the rioters") because of the 1R restriction. No, I mind a lot. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a toxic topic. It took a long time for it to calm down, and it wouldn't have happened without some general agreement among the editors (e.g. using only third-party international media with correspondents based in Delhi; in other words, not using Indian media, other South Asian media, etc.). In the absence of that, do you know how many newspapers there are available for use and misuse in the echo chamber of the Indian media? Enough that for every claim that Muslims were targeted, there are two that the Pakistanis choreographed the violence to embarrass Modi during Trump's visit. And I'm talking about the well-known newspapers that have the imprimatur of WP's tastemakers. Such is the pressure the Indian government has been bringing to bear on India's press. As for quotes, if you don't add the extended ones, i.e. only the citation, others will add polar opposite claims with the same citation, and then you'll be sidetracked in time-consuming disputes. Besides replacing the sentence, "Muslims were targeted, according to witnesses," (or paraphrase thereof) with "Muslims, Muslim-owned properties, and mosques were specifically targeted by the rioters," makes for less than coherent prose, when the very next sentence says, "In some instances, witnesses accused policemen of joining the rioters. In other instances ... Muslims were brutalised." Why? Because the police did not join in property destruction, only in beating up Muslim men. So the first sentence does need to be about Muslims, not property. Your sentence is also redundant when two sentences later we are saying, "The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters." So, again: people write, "Muslims were described (by witnesses) as being targeted ..." because if they don't there will be edit wars (and they've been plenty) disputing the paraphrasing; precise paraphrasing of the source can sometimes be clunky but is a good temporary expedient. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with your grammatical and rhetorical analysis, and that POV commentators will disagree with statements of facts doesn't mean we need to avoid stating the facts. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to tell me why you disagree. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, Fowler&Fowler--if you produce prose like this, "Muslims have been interpreted as having been marked out as targets for meting out violence" (I don't know how you managed to make it worse, but you did), using two weasel phrases and a passive construction to say "rioters singled out Muslims", I'm not sure there is anything I can explain to you. If "pressure" is making you write like that, maybe you should step away from the article. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

:) @Drmies: The problem is that we don't know that rioters singled out Muslims. Some people, by no means all, have made that interpretation. In some neighborhoods that is more the case than some others. Moreover, we don't know who has made that interpretation (the much-needed subject of active voice is absent in the sources; the source says, "The violence is described ... targeted," or "appears to be targeted." "Target (v)," moreover is chiefly an American English construction, and that a relatively recent one. The article is presumably written in some variant of Commonwealth English) What options do we have? An interpretation was made, by whom we don't know. Moreover, such interpretations are presumably still being made. We have no choice but to use the past perfect. I'm happy to listen to other formulations. Please suggest something else. But you will appreciate that constraints loom large. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've undone my last effort at forbiddingly scrupulous NPOV. Thanks for your post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Civility

Your many contributions are appreciated, but please remember to keep your comments on talk pages civil, even if what you read makes you angry. I don't think it's OK to refer to any Wikipedia editor as a "doofus" as you did in this comment, as it contributes to a toxic culture and denigrates a person rather than criticizing content. Thanks. -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in your intervention. I should not have cast aspersions on the editor's character or mental faculty. I have corrected and apologized to the editor. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I know this is somewhat off-topic to the current thread, but could you please remind the editor in the thread above to refrain from breaking out into intemperate language. Four letter words are four-letter words, no matter how much an editor considers them to be elliptical or metaphorical speech. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Apology greatly appreciated. Regarding the above thread, I'm deferring to User:El C who has already intervened to try to bring civil discussion to Talk:2020 Delhi riots. I'd just urge all the editors participating there to focus on article content and sourcing and not on each other or the talk or article history or personal agendas, and to try to be patient and objective or at least respectful of other perspectives. -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Indenting

I would like to draw your attention to the WP:INDENT essay which explains why indentation levels should reflect that which is being responded to and should be ordered as such. If you are replying to something I have written after someone else has replied to something else, you should indent and insert your reply in relation to my comment, above the newer comment. Also, smaller issue and perhaps just my opinion, if you post two replies to the same comment, the second should not be indented further so as to appear that you are replying to yourself. Not indenting in the same manner as one would indent computer code (which I do not expect everyone to understand without it being explained) is confusing to the reader, at least to me, I cannot speak for all of Wikipedia. This indentation we use, as partly explained at MOS:LISTGAP, is actually significant for people using screen readers. Without having a messaging system implemented, threading the comments ourselves in the same manner as an automatic system would is important.

For example:

My comment.

Your reply to my comment.

My reply to your reply posted subsequently to below other user's reply to my comment.

Your reply to my reply posted after below other users's reply.

Your second reply to me posted after below.

Other user's reply to my comment posted prior to your reply to my reply but subsequent to your reply to my initial comment.

Not:

My comment.

Other user's reply to my comment.

Your reply to my comment.

Your second reply to my comment.

Because it looks as if you are replying to the other user instead of me and then replying to yourself (which is less of an issue but still potentially confusing).

Hope this is helpful, and if I a mistaken as to any customs here I welcome any talk page stalkers to point this out. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your ownership of 2020 Delhi riots

@Fowler&fowler: Yesterday you removed 2020 Delhi riots from your list of self-appointed Current responsibilities, which I thought might signal you were done editing that page. Today, however, you returned. I therefore ask you to read my recent contribution to Talk:2020 Delhi riots that administrator El C removed after just two minutes, meaning you may not have had a chance to see it. I sought to comply with Wikipedia's Ownership of Content by posting it, as the policy directs, on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation. El C, though, disapproved, asserting in his edit summary, "this is not the place to make such a report!" For that reason, I am engaging you here on this matter, just to be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with you. NedFausa (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C, RegentsPark I understand that it is not the job of admins to intervene in content disputes, but at the same time, there is a limit to which people can nip at the heels of reasonably well-written edits, relentlessly. Please examine this history of death by a thousand cuts:

• In other instances, Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (diff (some version of my original edit; I didn't have the m-dashes
• Some Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (diff (edit by NedFausa, which introduces the ambiguity that only some Muslim males are circumcised.
• Muslim males—who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised—were sometimes forced to show their genitals for ascertaining their religion before they were brutalised. (Corrected by Kautilya3 diff)
• For ascertaining their religion, Muslim males, who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to show their genitals before being brutalised. (I changed it to this version, as it came after, "Victims of the violence were targeted for being Muslim." "Muslim" was appearing back to back. (diff)
• For ascertaining their religion, Muslim males, who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised. (I changed it because a new sentence, "Among the injuries recorded in one hospital were lacerated genitals." had been added, and now "genitals" was being repeated in two consecutive sentences. (diff)
• Earlier today, NedFauser changed the sentence to "Muslim males, who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised, were at times forced to remove their lower garments so that Hindus could ascertain their religion before brutalising them." with edit summary, "reword to clarify that Muslim males were not ascertaining their own religion. Please note: this is not a substantial change to the lead's status quo"
• Dear El_C and RegentsPark, Each time these editors edit, they introduce errors which have to be set right, even when they claim in long edit summaries that they are not changing the status quo. Please examine my last three edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

India-related FPs I

• 
  Indian vultures, (Gyps indicus), in a nest on the tower of the Chaturbhuj Temple, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh. The vulture became nearly extinct in India in the 1990s from having ingested the carrion of diclofenac-laced cattle.
• 
  The bank myna is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent.
• 
  The vulnerable Malabar frog is endemic to the Western Ghats.
• 
  The endangered Nilgiri tahr is endemic to the Western Ghats. Shown here is a female in a national park in Kerala.

India-related FPs II

• 
  The brahminy kite (Haliastur indus) hunts for fish and other prey near the coasts and around inland wetlands.
• 
  The lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) is the Indian national flower. Hindus and Buddhists regard it as a sacred symbol of enlightenment.
• 
  The Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) is the Indian national bird. It roosts in moist and dry-deciduous forests, cultivated areas, and village precincts.
• 
  The Pahalgam valley in Jammu and Kashmir is covered with a temperate coniferous forest.

India-related FPs III

• 
  A Toda tribal hut exemplifies Indian vernacular architecture.
• 
  Bangles on display in Bangalore India
• 
  A Sadhu and a picture of Siva in Kayasth Tola, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh in Northern India
• 
  The pushkarani, or tank, located on the eastern side of Krishna temple in Hampi, Karnataka, the seat of the Vijayanagara Empire

India-related FPs IV

• 
  Large Gautama Buddha statue in Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim
• 
  A Jain woman washes the feet of Bahubali Gomateswara at Shravanabelagola, Karnataka. The Bahubali idol is 58 feet (18 m) high and is carved out of a single rock on top of a hill.
• 
  A Chola bronze depicting Nataraja, who is seen as a cosmic "Lord of the Dance" and representative of Shiva
• 
  A sixteenth century rendering of a scene from the Ramayana, an ancient Sanskrit epic.

India-related FPs V

• 
  Paintings at the Ajanta Caves in Aurangabad, Maharashtra, 6th century
• 
  The Agasthiyamalai range, constituting the southern end of the Western Ghats, as seen from the rainshadow region of the southwest monsoon in Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.
• 
  A beach off the Arabian Sea in Puvar, Kerala. The Arabian Sea is the northwestern region of the Indian Ocean, bounded by the Arabian and Indian peninsulas.
• 
  Flowing through its rocky terrain near Hampi is the Tungabhadra river, the major right bank tributary of the Krishna river, a peninsular river, which empties into the Bay of Bengal. The coracles, made of wicker, are traditionally covered with hide, their circular shape preventing them from overturning in rivers with rocky outcrops.

India-related FPs VI

• 
  The recycling industry in India, a Varanasi paper bag seller
• 
  An example of the Chinese fishing nets of Cochin. Fisheries in India is a major industry in its coastal states, employing over 14 million people. The annual catch doubled between 1990 and 2010.
• 
  A tea garden in Sikkim. India, the world's second largest-producer of tea, is a nation of one billion tea drinkers, who consume 70% of India's tea output.
• 
  A daily wage worker in a salt field. The average minimum wage of daily labourers is around Rs.100 per day

India-related FPs VII

• 
  A bharatnatyam concert in 2014
• 
  A Bondo woman walks to a weekly market in Chhattisgarh.
• 
  A woman in Bundi, Rajasthan
• 
  An ascetic in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

India-related FPs VIII

• 
  The tomb of Itmad Ud Daulah, Agra,
• 
  A Hindu bride
• 
  The interior of San Thome Basilica, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Christianity is believed to have been introduced to India by the late 2nd century by Syriac-speaking Christians.
• 
  A Sikh pilgrim at the Harmandir Sahib, or Golden Temple, in Amritsar, Punjab

India-related Classic Pictures-I

• 
  A farmer in Rajasthan milks his cow. Milk is India's largest crop by economic value. Worldwide, as of 2011, India had the largest herds of buffalo and cattle, and was the largest producer of milk.
• 
  Indian agriculture dates from the period 7,000–6,000 BCE, employs two thirds of the national workforce, and is second in farm output worldwide. Above, a farmer works an ox-drawn plow in Kadmati, West Bengal.
• 
  Schoolchildren in Chambal, Madhya Pradesh eating a mid-day meal. The Mid-Day Meal Scheme attempts to lower rates of childhood malnutrition in India.
• 
  Cricket is the most popular game among India's masses. Shown here is an instance of street cricket.

India-related FPs IX

• 
  Asfi Masjid at the Bara Imambara complex, Lukcnow, India
• 
  Chhota Imambara, Lucknow, India
• 
  Taj Mahal mosque, Agra, India
• 
  Bangalore panorama

India-related FPs X

• 
  Red Weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina in Bangalore, India
• 
  Female Telamonia dimidiata in the Lalbagh Botanical gardens, Bangalore, India
• 
  Mysore Palace in the morning
• 
  Indian Olympic athlete, Irfan Kolothum Thodi

India-related FPs XI

• 
  Grammodes geometrica, Bangalore, India
• 
  Mumtaz Ahmed Khan founder of Al-Ameen Educational Society
• 
  Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Bangalore, India
• 
  Kumar Anish, Indian yoga specialist

India-related FPs XII

• 
  Taj Mahal at the golden hour
• 
  Bara Imambara, Lucknow, India
• 
  Salman Khurshid, Indian politician belonging to the Indian National Congress
• 
  Indian palm squirrel, Bangalore, India

India-related FPs XIII

• 
  Odissi
• 
  Mohiniyattam
• 
  Kuchipudi
• 
  Arundhati Roy

India-related FPs IV

• 
  Chandiroor Divakaran
• 
  Karnataka High Court, Bangalore
• 
  Dharmaraya Swamy Temple a Hindu temple in Bangalore
• 
  Bangalore Town Hall

Arbitration enforcement notification

There is a discussion regarding your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Fowler&fowler. NedFausa (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V. S. Naipaul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Maurya Empire

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits to Maurya Empire for being too large of a one-time edit. Would you prefer if I divided it into multiple edits? Is this a Wikipedia policy I should be aware of?

I'm actually planning on making a number of edits to the article. As it stands, Maurya Empire is a bit of a mess: it is often haphazard and repetitive, contains a lot of unsourced content, and makes the mistake of presenting the narratives of specific poetic sources as fact, even when it contradicts other primary sources. There are also POV and OR issues regarding its appraisal of Ashoka's commanding abilities as a prince.

The main changes I want to make (the ones I made were 1, 2, 3, and some things under 5) are:

1. Addition of comments on the prescriptions of the Arthashastra for context on early Mauryan economic policy
2. Addition of references for the comments on internal trade in the Maurya Empire
3. Addition of a subsection on personal freedoms under the Maurya Empire, as per the Arthashastra and during Ashoka's reign
4. Addition of a subsection on the symbols of the Maurya Empire.
5. A section on the scientific and technological advancements and economic institutions created in India during the Maurya Empire
6. A subsection for Hinduism under the "Religion" section, as the Hindu synthesis occurred during the Mauryan period, and Buddhist influence on Hinduism (and vice versa) is also seen in this period.
7. Removal of unsourced content (which have been citation needed since 2016):
   1. attribution of waterways and canal construction to Ashoka
   2. attribution of expanded trade with Indo-Greeks to Ashoka
   3. claim of Ashoka being the first ruler in history to advocate wildlife conservation
   4. claim of private corporations existing prior to the Maurya Empire
   5. claim of Bindusara himself being an Ajivika seems to be OR (we know that the Ajivika sect peaked under his reign and that his wife and advisor were Ajivikas, but there are no sources that suggest he himself adopted a sramana religion).
8. A rewrite of the "History" section in accordance with the uncertainty regarding the chronology and details of the various described events. E.g.
   1. The Mudrarakshasa should not be presented as an uncontroversial description of the founding of the empire, as it contradicts heavily with Buddhist and Jain sources, and is considered a fictionalized account
   2. The account of the North-Western conquests are haphazard and repeated in multiple places.
   3. It is not clear that Bindusara himself carried out the Deccan conquests: Greco-Roman sources suggest that Chandragupta Maurya himself already controlled peninsular India, as does the Jain legend of Maurya retiring to South India.
   4. Whether Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism occurred as a result of the Kalinga war is controversial, as many historians believe it contradicts Sri Lankan legend. In any case, the section on Ashoka should be written in a more encyclopedic tone.
   5. Expansion of the Decline section, which currently does not mention the two-capital theory (that a breakaway capital may have formed at Ujjain during the reign of Dasharatha).
9. Some reorganization of the content about the contact with the Hellenistic world -- I find it rather unnatural to have an entire section devoted to Mauryan trade with Greece, when the Mauryans also traded with Central Asia and even built significant infrastructure for this purpose. I would find it more natural to have a section on foreign relationships including subsections on Hellenistic influence and the transmission of Buddhism to Central Asia.
10. Addition of a section listing primary sources of information regarding the Maurya Empire. This could be an expansion of the "Literature" section which is currently sorely lacking.

Also, you referred to the references I added as old sources. This is odd, considering that I have mostly used sources from the 21st century -- you may have confused my edits with the references that were already present in the article. The only references I've added from before 1990 are:

• Craddock, P.T. et al., Zinc production in medieval India, World Archaeology, vol.15, no.2, Industrial Archaeology, 1983
• Joseph Spengler (1971), Indian Economic Thought, Duke University Press, ISBN 978-0822302452, pages 72-73
• Benjamin Walker, p. 69, Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism. In Two Volumes. Volume II M-Z
• K. M. Sarkar (1927). The Grand Trunk Road in the Punjab: 1849-1886. Atlantic Publishers & Distri. pp. 2–. GGKEY:GQWKH1K79D6.
• Arthashastra R Shamasastry (Translator), Book IV.

Of which Shamasastry is still the standard translation of the Arthashastra are Sarkar and Walker are just cited for the fact that the Mauryans built the Grand Trunk Road.

Do tell me how you'd prefer to have me make my edits -- I'll be happy to make them separately if it makes for easier documentation.

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page, and gain consensus for your edits. Consensus will take time. This is a high-level article with many watchers. Not everyone will respond right away. I would say at least a couple of weeks. This is a difficult time for everyone, and yours seems to be a big edit. Thanks and best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

PS pinging @Chan-Paton factor, Kautilya3, पाटलिपुत्र, and Johnbod: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I've created a section in talk for discussion. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi riots edit objection

F&f, can you clarify a point regarding this post? Are you objecting to:

1. this edit in which the editor removed a citation that they said did not support the claim that the riots ended on March 1, and replaced it with {{cn}} tag? From your statement that "I have no idea how long the violence lasted, precisely. it appears that you agree that the March 1 end-date claim needs to be examined and the previously cited HT article is not sufficient to support it.
2. Or, are you objecting to this edit in which the editor removed the sub-section related to March 1 events? If so, you can yourself revert the deletion (it will be within 1RR) and following WP:BRD, the issue can continue to be discussed on the talkpage till proper consensus is reached (I agree that editors should not be in a rush to declare consensus on any contentious issue and should wait at least a day or so; not a hard-and-fast rule but a common sense recommendation).

Posting this here since it deals mainly with a process issue and not article content itself, and thus may be a distraction if discussed on the article talkpage. Let me know if I am missing something. Abecedare (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Abecedare: Thanks for posting here. There are all sorts of dates and time frames given for the riots. We, for example, say that mobs of Hindu were going around Muslim neighborhoods attempting to scare Muslims out of house and home in the days leading up to Holi (celebrated March 9). We mention that in the lead. So, what do we mean by putting even the date of March 1 as the last date for the riots? I mean, do we mean, killing? Do we mean intimidation by mobs with threats of death? If the former, what date do we assign to the decomposed bodies found in the fetid canals for days afterward; if the latter, then even March 1 is too soon. I guess what I'm saying is that various editors, who shall remain unnamed, are, at least from my point of view, taking advantage of your good nature, by constantly bickering about inconsequentials on the talk page and wasting time, holding up progress being achieved by other editors such as SerChevalerie. I'm frustrated. I've added dates from the reliable foreign sources on the talk page. I'm sure I can find sources for the March 1 date. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I've seen them. Hold on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

PS It didn't even take that long. See this piece in the Diplomat, which says, "Within hours, the worst Hindu-Muslim violence in more than three decades exploded. Between February 23 and March 1, mobs of Hindus and Muslims clashed, resulting in dozens of casualties, while vehicles, shops, and houses were razed to the ground. In all, 53 people were killed, mostly Muslims." and again later, "Even after March 1, when clashes had dissipated, hard-line elements of the BJP, including Mishra, continued to stir animosity by propagating a narrative that the violence was provoked by anti-nationals, aiming to undermine India, including during celebrations of the Hindu festival of Holi on March 9." This is an analysis piece, not an opinion piece. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

PPS I'm not hung up on any date. One could finesse it. We could write: The week of 23 February 2020, and leave the enumeration vague. Or several days following 23 February 2020. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your position that it will be hard/impossible to nail down any single date as the definitive end-date for the riots. That is the reason I believe that you too would agree that given the current choice between

(a) 23 February 2020 – 1 March 2020 (7 days), which states the March 1 end-date as a fact, and

(b) 23 February 2020 – 1 March 2020 (7 days), which at least indicates to the reader that the dates are not unimpeachable.

option (b) would be preferable. Right?

Of course, (b) can only be a temporary solution while the discussion on what the final arrangement should be takes place. That final choice could be between excluding dates altogether from the infobox; keeping it really vague "around end-Feb 2020"; slightly vague "Feb 23 to approx March 1"; reflecting the range of dates offered by sources, eg, "3-10 days starting Feb 23"; providing the most common end-date in the infobox and detailing the complexity in a footnote etc. You and I, both have dealt with such ambiguities in numerous history articles and are well familiar with the commonly used templates in such scenarios. And also too familiar with the discussion required to be waded through to reach a consensus; although, as you state, this need not be the highest priority for discussion for now and (b) may be a decent placeholder that may be acceptable to all the current discussants.

Hope you and fam. are doing well and protecting yourself from the pandemic (a sentence I couldn't have imagined writing just a few months back!) Cheers.. Abecedare (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and I too could not have imagined thanking you (in earnest, that is; I would have thought, "what pandemic?") for the good wishes a few months back! I hope you and your family are protecting yourself, as well, in these surreal, yet scary, times.

In case (b) above, can I remove the citation needed tag, by citing the claim to the Diplomat article? It is analysis, not hard news, but as long as we will be discussing the date anyway, what harm is there in letting the March 1 date remain, properly cited? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, @Abecedare:. Sorry, I meant, citing it to the Diplomat article and adding {{Better source}}, which would indicate that the source is not unimpeachable, as you eloquently put it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

PS The Diplomat article is: Singh, Jasminder (3 April 2020), "The 2020 Delhi Riots: Implications for Southeast Asia", Diplomat, retrieved 12 April 2020, Between February 23 and March 1, mobs of Hindus and Muslims clashed, resulting in dozens of casualties, while vehicles, shops, and houses were razed to the ground. In all, 53 people were killed, mostly Muslims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good find. Best to discuss it on the article talkpage but be prepared to spark discussion on what the ideal content for the infobox field would be. That discussion does need to happen at some point; just a matter of when you and others would prefer to deal with it. Abecedare (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Romila

I took the liberty of reinstating something that you removed from Prof. Thapar's page, namely she declined an award twice, but having not met some editor's arbitrary standard it was undone, despite my clarification that it captures her antidisestablishmentarianist outlook and independence as a scholar (mind you it wasn't like Caesar refusing the crown thrice!), as she wouldn't let her work to be even subconsciously affected by accepting one of the country's highest civilian awards, which is why you see me here requesting you to kindly put it back, as it not only serves a symbolic purpose in a country whose academic atmosphere is being increasingly throttled by insidious forces of sectarian politics (I will say no more), but also reveals a trait of her personality, surely befitting a biographical entry in an encyclopaedia, which allows her to appear to be resting some notches above the quagmire that is Indian academia... Regards, JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated your edit, but with a proper explanation of the context. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Reads even better, thank you! JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)