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.

Dear FF Sir, I had added this on an Ahir page: " Ahirs who were mainly classed as having lowly status in the social hierarchy took to Sanskritisation an attempt by low castes to rise up the social ladder, often by tracing their origins to mythical warrior characters or following the lifestyle of higher varna.^[1]" but after your recent changes on Yadav page, I am bit confused as to whether I should modify the lines on Ahir page and add your reference there to make it ambiguous or leave it as such as other references are very explicit in their description about non-elite status ( indirectly shudra) for this group. Sir, I request for your small response to it below here for the next step. I will go accordingly to it. Thanks RS6784/Akalanka820 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akalanka820: Sorry for the delay. Let me mull this over some more. Will post here by the same time tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Akalanka820: Probably best to avoid saying anything about low-caste etc. Why don't you use the same language as the Yadav page with the same references, "have claimed descent from the mythological king Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence." cited to the same reference Smeeta Tewari, but without the extended quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Sir, for the great suggestion, I will go as per given inputs. Initially there was issue of difference between word Ahir and Yadav in some of the reference otherwise I do have taken some material from your good work. This led to me to avoid things initially. I will reframe the thing as per your great inputs here. Any further suggestions to it is also welcome & would be even more helpful. For the rest part I do have added proper references and quotes for whatever added. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A small following query, the above good suggestions are for changing the lead part ? I will change this accordingly to it. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also request for some input on this page Rajputs in Bihar, the page has been just transformed into rape of Dalits or depressed classes by certain Landlords related to Bhumihars and Rajputs basically making it a Landlords v Depressed classes theme which was common in northern belt. It would be great if you can give some spare time ( I know you are working on bigger projects), but this field definitely needs your ( great editor) valuable input and suggestions. 05:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Start the article Singrauli estate (see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Cleaning_up_confusions_about_"Singrauli_State"
• Start something on the Ethnic fermented foods and beverages of the Darjeeling Hills, using

• 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.

Hi. Could you please take a look at the article Ahir. A lot of recent edits by a extended confirmed user have been put in to enlighten the “Shudra” status, in various instances, and many particulars have been constantly added over time to negatively show the caste in low light. Little has been constructive as to say it good faith, since most of the efforts were vested to cast a shadow over the hierarchy. Hoping if you could have a look, since you are so experienced editor, and help the article with substantial improvements. Thanks. Harshv7777 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of original research, as you did here: We can't come barrelling through the article and engage in our usual OR, Joshua Jonathan.. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fowler&fowler. I'm a bit disappointed to see you accusing your fellow editor(s) of bias. I'm sure you have strong reasons and enough evidences to stand your ground but such comment feels unwarranted as it is neither helpful in building consensus nor trust. Wouldn't have bothered too much if it was some new user but since it's coming from a experienced editor like you, I'm compelled to leave a note. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing WP editors of bias, only saying that the choice would be biased, or would result in catering to the bias of Indian newspapers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias too is meant in a neutral sense, i.e. as a tendency to favor something, which obviously is the case with Indian newspapers, without implying that it has resulted from some preconceived notions, let alone malicious ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But when you chose to invoke that word, it invariably brings its negative connotations along, regardless of whether you mean it well or not. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invoke that word? What does that mean? "Bias" has many meanings in the English language. I used it in the statistical sense: (OED, 3rd edition, revised 2021): 5. Statistics. Of a statistical result: subject to a systematic distortion arising from the method of sampling, measurement, analysis, etc. Also of a method of sampling, measurement, analysis, etc.: introducing bias (bias n. 6). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you are anyone else is prejudiced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what follows is based on personal knowledge + OR + extrapolation, which is the reason I am placing it here and not at the RM discussion

Regarding this list: it's noteworthy IMO that many of the names are of those who had/have careers in the west. In several of these case, I believe, the 'preferred'/'original' individual style of the name would have been of the form P. Given where P stands for the father's given name and Given is the individual's given name, and the longer form is probably adopted as a matter of convenience or compatibility. To wit:

• Robert Kanigel writes about Ramanujan, "'Srinivasa'-its initial syllable pronounced shri- was just his father's name, automatically bestowed and rarely used; indeed, on formal documents, and when he signed his name, it usually atrophied into an initial 'S.' 'Iyengar,' meanwhile, was a caste name, referring to the particular branch of South Indian Brahmins to which he and his family belonged. Thus, with one name that of his father and another that of his caste, only "Ramanujan" was his alone. As he would later explain to a Westerner, 'I have no proper surname.'"
• Note the form used by S. Chandrashekhar's biographer and by Chandrashekhar himself
• Personally I am aware of numerous Tamil emigrants who spelled their name as 'P. Given' in India but changed it to 'Given Patronym' (in effect, treating the Patronym as their 'last name'; even passing it on to their kids) when immigrating to the West, simply because most individuals/documents in the West expect the name to be in that form. Relatedly: I know of people from Bihar/UP whose parents, following caste reform movements prevalent in mid/late-20th century dropped their family's last names altogether (cf Mayawati) and were later induced/compelled to adopt a lastname (often Kumar) by bureaucratic institutions in India and the West.
• It is instructive to take a look at, say, Category:Tamil Nadu MLAs 2021–2026 to see how Tamil people in Tamil Nadu typically write their name.
• Personally, I would place a lot of weight on the style used by The Hindu if I were, say, emailing a notable Tamil person and wanted to know what would be the 'correct' way to address them.

All that said, this is not to argue that, say, Viswanathan Anand should be moved to V. Anand because, whatever be the reason for it, 'Viswanathan Anand' is how he is (formally) known now. Ditto for many of the other names in your list. And I am sure there are both individual and caste-based variations, which Sitush or SpacemanSpiff may be able to shed some light on. So take this is just a set of general factoids rather than an argument for what that one particular article should be named. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have stopped getting involved in naming discussions as they are a quick way to get a headache. However, in TN, the naming structure is definitely changing. Venki Ramakrishnan is one example where the person's name has actually become the first name. I also changed my name structure during college but my brother did not. Looking at some of the sports bios from TN, Ravichandran Ashwin and Murali Vijay are still under the full name although they are seldom referred to by the full name. —SpacemanSpiff 13:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know too much about Tamil names, but am dimly aware of the Tamil naming conventions, both from old names from history books such as C. P. Ramaswami Iyer or C. V. Raman and new ones such as Kamala Harris's mother Shyamala Gopalan, whose scholarly papers are cited as G. Shyamala or Shyamala G. (I seem to have forgotten which one now), P. V. Gopalan being the name of her father.

    There is another issue. In the old days, say in pre-independence India it was quite common even in other parts of India for people to only use there initials and for others to call them by their last name with a ji or sahib at the end. Ambedkar is called Babasaheb after a fashion these days but when he was alive he was B. R. Ambedkar. There are many such non-Tamil names, witness J. R. D. Tata. Even Amartya Sen was most commonly called A. K. Sen until he went abroad. Speaking of AK, the economist Amiya Kumar Dasgupta might have that WP page, but no one would have dared call him anything but AK Dasgupta when he was alive. Who the heck would have called Dhananjay Ramchandra Gadgil anything but D. R. Gadgil when he was alive, or Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis anything but P. C. Mahalanobis. But all those traditions have changed with modernity, international travel, and cosmopolitanism.

    So why are we in a hurry to give this young man, whose future looks anything but traditional, the forced benefits of tradition. My gripe on that page is that there is a relentless effort being made on changing the young man's name. They just had an unsuccessful page move a few months ago. What is their hurry is what I don't understand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Spaceman and your observation that naming conventions are being homogenized with globalization is both interesting and consistent with my RL observations. As for for the particular case of R._Praggnanandhaa vs Rameshbabu_Praggnanandhaa: if it were clear, either through a media statement or use on a personal website, that the subject preferred one form over another, I would have !voted for that since either is justifiable under wikipedia policy. But my impression is Praggnanandhaa and family are focused on more important issues (chess!) rather than such trivialities; so I too am indifferent to the matter and don't intend to participate in the RM debate. For me that debate was just a spark for the above-listed thoughts on the general topic and not of interest in itself. Thanks for the indulging them here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the ngrams for Indus Valley C/civilis/zation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the IVC was discovered in 1923, changing the lower bound gives a better spread.

First things to check are the different spellings,

• -sation, (the British (non-Oxford; or Chambers', I like to say) and Commonwealth spelling)

  IVC leads from 1995 onward; Done

  with the definite article, the IVC leads from 2005  Done

  running prose, "IVC was" and "IVc was" are more or less tied

  running prose: "IVC is" leads from 1995  Done

  running prose: "in the IVC" has been leading from 2005  Done

  running prose: "of the IVC" has been leading of 2003  Done

• -zation, (North American, and Oxford spelling)

• IVC leads from 2014 onward.  Done
• with the definite article, the IVC leads from 2015  Done
• running prose "IVC was" leads after 2013  Done
• running prose "IVC is" leads after 2014
• running prose "in the IVC" led "in the IVc" from 2014, but they seem to be tied now
• running prose "of the IVC" leads from 2013  Done

In 10 of 12 categories, IVC leads; in the remaining two IVC and IVc are tied.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 13 June 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) 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of facile Wikilawyering, please read the quotes from sources I have adduced from Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Burton Stein, David Arnold (historian), Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal, and Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India, CUP, 2018. Read in particular Stein and Arnold's sophisticated treatment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read again, and none of your sources say as you claim in your own edit summary, that "He founded a power based in Magadha which during the regin of Asoka became an empire". The closest would be Sugata Bose who says that "The Maurya empire reached its apogee under the reign of Ashoka (268–231 BCE)", but that's still very far from claiming that Chandragupta is not the founder of the Empire. As far as I know, this goes against mainstream scholarship, and is WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH at best. Please retract yourself or justify. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this for a very long time. I know how to paraphrase judiciously. It is old scholarship you are talking about, and even that of a particular period. The very modern sophisticated sources don't and the much older sources such as Vincent Smith's Oxford History of India didn't. Only a nationalist or semi-nationalist, social historians of India did. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot produce mainstream sources that specifically back up your claim, then your "judicious paraphrasing" is just pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, in addition to being fallacious. There's no need to spend time on something so obvious and basic: please revert yourself and let's move on. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:02, 17 June 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) 08:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not just revert 1 week of work by a major long-standing contributor such as Joshua Jonathan, complete with an insulting edit summary [1]: this is rude and un-Wikipedian, you should improve on the work of others, not just revert to your preferred version. Adding an "in-use" template is not a trump card. Stop edit-warring पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz off. Don't ever ever post on this talk page again. Complain elsewhere. I hope this is clearly understood. Never again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]