Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

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

Hello, on the Indus River page you deleted the actual Indo-Persian term for the river which is Darya-e-Sindh in the infobox. It's the most widely used and appropriate name, used by its indigenous people since the Persianization of the Indus centuries ago. "Sindhu" is an anachronistic Sanskrit term used by virtually no one. If you refer to other river pages on Wikipedia, such as the Amu Darya and Rhine, they have all the appropriate names of the river, and anachronistic and outdated terms from thousands of years ago are rightly relegated to the etymology section. Please let me know what you think, because the Indus needs to have its commonly used name in the infobox.

Thanks. Windafarna (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see in that article, the very first citation is to Britannica which begins its own article with, "Indus River, Tibetan and Sanskrit Sindhu, Sindhi Sindhu or Mehran, great trans-Himalayan river of South Asia." They give preference to the original (etymological) name (Sanskrit), the name in land where its rises (Tibet), and the name in the region where it empties into the ocean, which is also the historical region of its great civilizations; they do not to national languages (Urdu) of present-day countries through which it may pass. You are welcome to add Mehran Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just Urdu, the entire Persianate world and its influenced cultures (be it in South Asia, Inner Asia, the Iranic world) refer to the river as Darya-e-Sindh. Sindhu is an anachronistic and outdated term used by no one, if it has to be there fine but the modern name has to be in the infobox as well. Mehran is itself borrowed into Sindhi from Persian, and the Persian-derived Darya-e-Sindh, is more widely used both in and outside of the Indus region (including in Sindh) so again, the Persian-derived term which it is most commonly referred to, and which the river's heritage is tied to and widely used today throughout Asia, ought to be in the infobox.

I'm not sure what the river descending from Tibet actually has to do with anything, I mean the Rhine doesn't begin in Germany but naturally it is referred to in German first, in order of geographic and historic importance. And all rivers on Wikipedia referred to by their appropriate names, the Volga is not referred to in Proto-Slavic, the Don is not in Scythian, the Amu Darya is not in Proto-Iranic, etc. Sindhu, an ancient Sanskrit term, makes about as much sense as any of these.

"They give preference to the original (etymological) name (Sanskrit), the name in land where its rises (Tibet), and the name in the region where it empties into the ocean, which is also the historical region of its great civilizations; they do not to national languages (Urdu) of present-day countries through which it may pass" I'm sorry but this is beyond me, when you refer to the Indus river as "passing through" you are referring to a country which bears its majority, its hearth and being in terms of history, civilization and ethnicity. Tibet has and had virtually nothing to do with "Indus civilization", it bears only the source of the river, which is not a even major geographic, cultural, or historically important part to Tibet. It was not part of the IVC nor has it ever been a major influence over the "actual Indus" in any way shape or form, cultural or genetic. And I'm not sure what "civilization" Tibet ever beared in terms of its relationship to the Indus, which is in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Indian Punjab. Indus culture and civilization are, and have been for thousands of years, influenced by Inner Asia and Iran, this being Persianate influence but also population migrations from pre-Indo-Iranian and Indo-Iranian times as well which cluster Pakistanis and likewise Indian Punjabis with peoples of the Middle East broadly, including their culture and language (Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages are all significantly influenced by Persian).

Also, Urdu is a national language of Pakistan but its used commonly used in India amongst Muslims and also has a deep and significant history throughout South Asia and into Afghanistan, its vocabulary are largely Persian-derived and fall under that broader Persianate culture which made Darya-e-Sindh the common name for the Indus to this day.

Lastly, I'm sorry but Britannica is the not the always the greatest source, its sometimes written dubiously especially when it comes to its smaller articles, which are often just a paragraph. In so, it misses crucial information and in the case of the Indus river, its baffling that its most notable name which is Persianate, is not mentioned considering its history and that it is the most commonly used name. Windafarna (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be passionate on the subject of Pali/Sanskrit language usage, I was wondering if you had taken up your umbrage at Sanskrit being wielded unchallenged as the principle naming language for Buddhist terminology with WikiProject Buddhism. I've noticed that the entire Buddhism Portal prefers Sanskrit over Pali for names and the Buddhism infoboxes also place Sanskrit sequentially above Pali. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some preference for the Sanskrit in the literature as well (e.g. Abhdharma vs Abhidhamma) I could hazard a guess that Sanskrit is considered to be the major, and the primordial, liturgical language of South Asia even by the Southeast Asian cultures that practice Buddhism, e.g. Thailand. The preference I can understand. But they should mention both. And if they are talking about Theravada texts then the Pali should be preferred. As for infoboxes, I'll have to check the tertiary literature. Will do later, today or tomorrow. Unfortunately, Buddhism as a religion is somewhat peripheral to my interests in South Asian history. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the final irony in all this is that it's "Gautama Buddha" that's at stake in the debate, not "Gotama Buddha" - whatever else is switched, Sanskrit wins the day there. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page name is no longer an issue for me; I'm just trying to improve the lead and given Pali its due, an equal partner, even a junior partner, but a partner. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your comment I will be requesting the closer so inclined to close to also change Gladstone and Disraeli to The Gladstone and The Disraeli [1] which you later described as deadly serious [2] I think you should review WP:POINT.

Were you to actually carry out this action, I think you would be on very shaky ground. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:@Andrewa: In view of BusterD's caution to not allow myself to be baited, I will reply on Talk:Gautama Buddha. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a behavioural issue, and should be discussed on your talk page if you wish to do so. Or, if you believe that this raises an issue of my own behaviour, that should first be discussed on my own user talk page,

I raised it here hoping to dissuade you from actually doing it, and in view of the fact that when challenged you said you were deadly serious (see above for the diff).

There are two reasons I do this. One is to avoid the waste of time that this would cause. The other is to protect you. I want to be sure that you realise that such behaviour is taken seriously. Even threats of it are frowned upon.

But there's another unfortunate consequence. Were you to do such a thing, the question could be asked, were you warned on your talk page? And you have been. I think it important that you be aware of that too. Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any interest in being baited by you. Please buzz off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are you clearly allowing yourself to continue to feel baited, even if that is clearly not @Andrewa's intent, but I would note that you are continuing to bait others. This edit, where you essentially compare other editors having a discussion around you to an external irritant that disturbs your inner piece or being at odds with your own enligtened experience, that is itself baiting. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bodhicaryavatara

SÄNTIDEVA, The Bodhicaryavatara Translated with Introduction and Notes by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton With a General Introduction by Paul Williams. Oxford World's Classics, 1995.

36 I bow down to the bodies of those in whom that excellent jewel, the Mind, has arisen, and towards whom even harm will lead to happiness. To those mines of happiness, I go for refuge

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Mandell Creighton Bishop of London Cartoon Vanity Fair 1897.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Mandell Creighton Vanity Fair 22 April 1897.jpg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi F&f. Hope you are well. I landed upon the Gazetteer of the Nellore District: Brought Upto 1938 prepared by Government of Madras Staff in 1942. I've 2 questions related to this one.

1. What's your view on this gazetteer, aka how reliable is that? I'm thinking to source some geographical data (like this one). This seems to be treasure trove, it this a reliable one for us to use here, despite being a "Government" source.
2. Is a redirect Government of Madras to somewhere useful? That seems handy, if there's one entity that we could redirect to.

Thanks and Cheers :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC):[reply]

Hello @DaxServer: The district and provinces gazetteers are probably less standardized than the Imperial which you can search at the DSAL site in Chicago, but which stops at 1909 (or 1937 for the atlas). They claim to fill the gap from 1909 to 1947 (or even later), but they often carry the old descriptions minimally changed. One problem with this one is that it is published by Asian Educational Services, a vulture of the back alley somewhere in Old Delhi that feeds on expired copyrights (whose expiration in India is often dubious) and publishes facsimile editions with the old copyright info removed. I will check this one and get back to you, and also about your other questions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nellore district from the IGI Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original 1942 version (a non-AES reprint) from the Central Archaeological Library (?) in New Delhi. You could check. The copying is not very clean but you could spot check the AES for reliability.

The uploader has uploaded some Biggles whom most people on WP today will not know about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes and links. I'll use the Imperial Gazetteer and/or non-AES reprints. Searching on the Archive.org seems not possible as it's not indexed like the Google Books does. But the page numbers should almost match.

I'm afraid I'm one of those who don't know Biggles 🙈😅 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have one question regarding the Archive.org upload, the title says "Gaxetteer" instead of "Gazetteer". I'm just wondering if this is a variant or a typo or an intentional typo to thwart possible copyvio? I hope I'm wrong — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who infest a page with OR at every stage in every sentence have no business templating experienced editors with no history of OR on Wikipedia. Should I list your offenses. Let Talk:Neolithic suffice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are misplaced. I have not edited the target article Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath), except for a link, a reference from the Sarnath Museum, a title change per your request, an infobox and map. The body of the article has nothing to do with me, I am uninvolved. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Neolithic/Archive_1#PLOS_citation_and_image_spamming Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the get go. Spam pictures. Copy text. Cut out pictures within pictures. Join them to others. Spam them some more. That is the MO Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't sculpt the Sarnath Buddha or invent the Brahmi script either. But you are spamming it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the Priest-King (sculpture) of infamous memory, this was an article started by someone else some time before, and in this case the great bulk of the text is by that original editor. You should check edit histories before starting to fulminate. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That I've never added OR to WP is true. That you haven't either is also true. That Pat has not is about as blatantly false as the Pope is Lutheran. Pat, whose MO is OR at every stage of every contribution, does this unceasing, specially cutting and pasting images and text from articles with a Creative Commons tag. I, on the other hand, agonize over paraphrasing 200-year old tracts quoted in a modern article I use for a source. It would be unethical to do otherwise in my book, even if WP allows it. When I said, "Editors who infest a page with OR at every stage in every sentence have no business templating experienced editors with no history of OR on Wikipedia." I was speaking generally about any page at every stage. If they seriously thought the page has unencyclopedic content, enough to deny any claim of contribution, why would they link it again and again in such a prominent position of Gautama Buddha? Why would they edit war again and again, and offer the excuse it has a changed title? Please Jb, you are fighting the wrong person here for reasons known best only to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]