Thisthat2011 (talk | contribs) |
Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs) →note: reply |
||
Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
:::I have certainly not said that, but you ''have'', most recently, "some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism." What hatred? What is wrong with that Bangladesh statement? It's not my problem that Indian editors are getting defensive. They need to be objective. I believe the Bangladesh statement to be substantially true. While people who live along the banks of the river in Bangladesh do defecate there as well, half of Bangladesh doesn't turn up annually to do the same. The Ganges is a tired river. No point filling the article up with nationalistic chest thumping. How will that help anyone? [[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
:::I have certainly not said that, but you ''have'', most recently, "some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism." What hatred? What is wrong with that Bangladesh statement? It's not my problem that Indian editors are getting defensive. They need to be objective. I believe the Bangladesh statement to be substantially true. While people who live along the banks of the river in Bangladesh do defecate there as well, half of Bangladesh doesn't turn up annually to do the same. The Ganges is a tired river. No point filling the article up with nationalistic chest thumping. How will that help anyone? [[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::: The connection of how Hindus abuse rivers because of religion and not Bangladeshis do not because of religion is somehow ignoring the fact that Hindus do not abuse a river by any belief which it appears to say because of the words "consequently, and paradoxically" and in fact, the river is sacred to Hindus. The statement above ignores the fact that Hindus do turn up for certain Hindu rituals, and not to as mentioned defecate as an aim which is made quite apparent. To ignore Hindu understanding and practice is one thing, but after ignoring it commenting on all other aspects and passing it as a Hindu understanding and practice is quite a mischief I think. But this is my 2 cents.[[User:Thisthat2011|Thisthat2011]] ([[User talk:Thisthat2011|talk]]) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
::::: The connection of how Hindus abuse rivers because of religion and not Bangladeshis do not because of religion is somehow ignoring the fact that Hindus do not abuse a river by any belief which it appears to say because of the words "consequently, and paradoxically" and in fact, the river is sacred to Hindus. The statement above ignores the fact that Hindus do turn up for certain Hindu rituals, and not to as mentioned defecate as an aim which is made quite apparent. To ignore Hindu understanding and practice is one thing, but after ignoring it commenting on all other aspects and passing it as a Hindu understanding and practice is quite a mischief I think. But this is my 2 cents.[[User:Thisthat2011|Thisthat2011]] ([[User talk:Thisthat2011|talk]]) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths. Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:21, 23 April 2011
8 § 9 § 10 § 11 § 12 |
Thanks various people ...
... for the solicitous inquiries. Everything is fine; I have mainly been traveling. When I return in 3 (or is it 4?) weeks time, I hope this time away will have done me some good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- About time you got back ....! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to see all is well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see some activity here. --CarTick 22:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- ok. we see the warning. we will not bother you with anything else. :) --CarTick 16:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- We have not interacted much, Fowler&fowler, but I've long admired your work on Wikipedia. The months-long silence was rather disturbing; I feared the worst but of course hoped for the best. Fortunately, it was my hopes that were realized. :-) Welcome back, and I'm looking forward to reading anything further you have to say about the history of English grammars. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your contributions here are missed, Fowler, as is your voice of reason. But having reverted vandals for a couple days, I can see why you may be taking your time coming back. That's okay; just make sure you do. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- We have not interacted much, Fowler&fowler, but I've long admired your work on Wikipedia. The months-long silence was rather disturbing; I feared the worst but of course hoped for the best. Fortunately, it was my hopes that were realized. :-) Welcome back, and I'm looking forward to reading anything further you have to say about the history of English grammars. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again everyone. It's funny, but I don't seem to have time when I'm at home. I'm traveling right now and Wikipedia is a good pastime. Much better than watching boring news on TV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You posted a note on File:Pope1880CentralProv2.jpg that it should not be moved to Commons without getting your permission.
It has been moved to Commons, and I am cleaning up duplicates.
I see a notice that the file "should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States." If I read correctly, the location of the first publication was the UK. Per the copyright rules listed in List_of_countries'_copyright_length, it appears to qualify as PD.
Thus, I am deleting it from en.WP. If you think this is in error, please let me know why.--SPhilbrickT 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just saw this! I had been away from Wikipedia for quite a long time. Thanks for all your good work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
YM and dab
Wondering if you know that YM has been run off the project and now there is a danger that dab will be off too. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey, [1], and User_talk:Dbachmann. Hope you're back to stay! --rgpk (comment) 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I had no idea. Too bad. Will post something on dab's page. Well, I'm back for now; we'll see how much time I'm able to afford for Wikipedia! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Monkey's exit is good riddance and to think otherwise is hypocrisy. RP, remember how he hounded User:Hornplease a few years back merely because Hornplease fought the Hindu nationalist trolls who were Blnguyen's supporters. If dab goes, WP, will go to dogs in certain key, controversial areas. Let it be. Anything will go to dogs over years. --117.201.243.122 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Famine in India
Template:Major provinces of British India in 1907 I hope your taking up my nomination of Famine in India for a GA review was not a case of WP:Wikihounding. I will look forward to the ways we can improve this article and see how we can promote it a good article status. Also, since all of the problems you point out at the RFC on British Raj and the RFC at Presidencies and provinces have been fixed, I suggest you reconsider your opposition to the use of templates. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Equally, I can regard your first sentence above as an oblique threat. Have you considered that my taking up the GA review might have something to do with my interests and history of creating and contributing to a dozen famine articles? If you seriously think I am "Wikihounding" you, please raise the topic in the relevant Wikipedia forum, and let others be the judge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS I'm afraid my objections to the template have not been addressed. The size of the template is inflexible; consequently, text slides down the outside of the template—sometimes reducing to a single-word column—if the window size is changed. I also endorse SpacemanSpiff's objections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No threat but I wonder if you are qualified enough since you have a history of selectively omitting clear cut statements from sources in favor of your anti-India POV. For example you omitted the following from Grove:
- The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed. Page 83 of The Great El Niño of 1789-93 and its Global Consequences : Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Event in World Environmental History
- Nonetheless, I hope we can work together towards promoting the article to GA level.
- Regarding the template, the text does not "slide down" anymore since it uses the class infobox now. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it does, try changing the width of the browser window here. I'm talking about text in the article sliding down the outside of the template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS As for Grove, do you have another source which has corroborated Grove's statement. His is the only paper on the Doji bara famine. The Doji bara famine, moreover, predates any censuses of British India (which began in 1871). His mortality statistics are based on methods that are conjectural and not rigorous. Moreover, Grove is an environmental historian, not a historian of colonial India, and consequently, not able to assign political blame. Is there any reference in the paper to the administration of British India? Is there any evidence (by way of political culpability) in the paper to back up this one isolated sentence? Cherry picking isolated sentences in the one and only paper on a topic (involving less than rigorous methods) is WP:UNDUE. As Jimbo Wales himself says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." In this case, Grove is the only author that has blamed the British, and that too only for not providing relief from the famine, not for causing the famine. So, best not to keep beating the Grove-one-sentence-quote-horse to death. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- PPS I have just gone through Grove and found some glaring mistakes in the paper that makes it quite obvious that he has not understood the governance of British India. It, consequently, puts your sentence in a different light. I will soon list these in a subpage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Text sliding down isn't a major issue IMO since the class infobox is designed in a way that the letters don't touch the box. However if that is such a critical issue for you, the templates can easily be centered, just like the tables, thus occupying the entire horizontal space (but I hear <center> in now deprecated). Regarding Grove, I've said this before and I will repeat it here - if there are problems with Grove's work (Grove is 'your' source - you were the first one to add it to several famine articles), then they should be taken up with Grove or the publisher. Regarding the NPOV and Jimmy's e-mail, let us both bring sources to the table about the Doji Bara and we can then identify what is the minority view, what is majority and rectify articles accordingly. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Bring sources to the table?" I'm assuming you have more than one. Which is the second for the Doji bara famine? Fowler&fowler«Talk»
- I'm afraid, if you want to determine the majority and minority viewpoints, that's how it works. If there is only one source, then we treat that as the majority. Do you have any other sources on the Doji bara and who bears the responsibility for the 11 million deaths? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you ask on the WP:RS talk page or better yet on the Village Pump? Please also see the template {{One source}} when there is (mostly) only one source. The template will become relevant if more (UNDUE) material is added from Grove. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- sorry for butting in. I am not following the conversation completely, please pardon me if this information is already discussed. Page 251 from A History of India by Burton Stein, David Arnold has a nuanced point of view, for in addition to doctrinaire political-economy pieties about non-intereference with markets, there was an element of racialism that contributed to official inertia about alleviating irish and Indian famine deaths. But neither doctrinal rectitude nor racism should be exaggerated; the records of Britain's rulers with the English poor-their poor laws and poor houses-was also deplorable. hope this is of any help. --CarTick (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks CarTick, for the quote. I'll have to read up on English poor law and poor relief. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- The very fact that the British had the poor laws for people of Britain and not for the Irish and the Indians, also citizens of the British Empire, shows the discriminatory nature of the empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not true. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Irish Poor Law Act of 1838 was modeled on the English Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. Similarly, the first relief, modeled on the same principles, was provided in India during the Agra famine of 1837–38. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- The very fact that the British had the poor laws for people of Britain and not for the Irish and the Indians, also citizens of the British Empire, shows the discriminatory nature of the empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks CarTick, for the quote. I'll have to read up on English poor law and poor relief. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- sorry for butting in. I am not following the conversation completely, please pardon me if this information is already discussed. Page 251 from A History of India by Burton Stein, David Arnold has a nuanced point of view, for in addition to doctrinaire political-economy pieties about non-intereference with markets, there was an element of racialism that contributed to official inertia about alleviating irish and Indian famine deaths. But neither doctrinal rectitude nor racism should be exaggerated; the records of Britain's rulers with the English poor-their poor laws and poor houses-was also deplorable. hope this is of any help. --CarTick (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you ask on the WP:RS talk page or better yet on the Village Pump? Please also see the template {{One source}} when there is (mostly) only one source. The template will become relevant if more (UNDUE) material is added from Grove. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, if you want to determine the majority and minority viewpoints, that's how it works. If there is only one source, then we treat that as the majority. Do you have any other sources on the Doji bara and who bears the responsibility for the 11 million deaths? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Bring sources to the table?" I'm assuming you have more than one. Which is the second for the Doji bara famine? Fowler&fowler«Talk»
- Text sliding down isn't a major issue IMO since the class infobox is designed in a way that the letters don't touch the box. However if that is such a critical issue for you, the templates can easily be centered, just like the tables, thus occupying the entire horizontal space (but I hear <center> in now deprecated). Regarding Grove, I've said this before and I will repeat it here - if there are problems with Grove's work (Grove is 'your' source - you were the first one to add it to several famine articles), then they should be taken up with Grove or the publisher. Regarding the NPOV and Jimmy's e-mail, let us both bring sources to the table about the Doji Bara and we can then identify what is the minority view, what is majority and rectify articles accordingly. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- PPS I have just gone through Grove and found some glaring mistakes in the paper that makes it quite obvious that he has not understood the governance of British India. It, consequently, puts your sentence in a different light. I will soon list these in a subpage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS As for Grove, do you have another source which has corroborated Grove's statement. His is the only paper on the Doji bara famine. The Doji bara famine, moreover, predates any censuses of British India (which began in 1871). His mortality statistics are based on methods that are conjectural and not rigorous. Moreover, Grove is an environmental historian, not a historian of colonial India, and consequently, not able to assign political blame. Is there any reference in the paper to the administration of British India? Is there any evidence (by way of political culpability) in the paper to back up this one isolated sentence? Cherry picking isolated sentences in the one and only paper on a topic (involving less than rigorous methods) is WP:UNDUE. As Jimbo Wales himself says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." In this case, Grove is the only author that has blamed the British, and that too only for not providing relief from the famine, not for causing the famine. So, best not to keep beating the Grove-one-sentence-quote-horse to death. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it does, try changing the width of the browser window here. I'm talking about text in the article sliding down the outside of the template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Read page 93 of Currey and Hugo (Currey, B; Hugo, G (1984), Famine as a Geographical Phenomenon, GeoJournal library, Boston: D. Reidel, ISBN 9789027717627) for information on how the English had poor laws only for the English in normal times but would only apply them in India and Ireland in times of famines.
“ | But there lay the crucial difference: while the British were committed to the maintenance of the eligible poor in England, they refused to consider this as a possibility in normal times in India, preferring to rely upon the private charitable institutions and practices of the people over whom they ruled. They were prepared to interfere only when whole populations were endangered by widespread famine. The last thing they wished to consider was an Indian equivalent of the New Poor Law. | ” |
Zuggernaut (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this is true, about India, but not quite about Ireland. But no previous or contemporaneous Indian ruler even provided famine relief remotely on the scale that the British provided in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ancient, pre-colonial (and pre-industrial era) Indian rulers provided relief to their citizens to the best of their ability. See Famine in India for an example of the child Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao providing relief in form of banning exports and facilitating imports from Bengal to Deccan, the affected area. On the other hand, the British had more sophisticated and advanced abilities (they had made famine pretty much obsolete in Britain) but they were discriminative in applying their best abilities to citizens of the same empire in India. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean, "The oldest famine in pre-colonial Deccan with well-preserved local documentation is the famine of 1791–92. Relief was provided by the ruler, the Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao II, in the form of imposing restrictions on export of grain and importing rice in large quantities from Bengal via private trading, however the evidence is often too scanty to judge the 'real efficacy of relief efforts' in the Mughal period.[28]?" So, you at least acknowledge that Doji bara was a "pre-colonial" famine? Why then are you blaming the British for all the deaths? As for Dreze's working paper claim? He (Peshwa) didn't do diddly-squat. Please read the "Marathas" subsection in Doji bara famine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS How could the Peshwa have imported "large quantities" of rice from Bengal, since, according to Grove, "the main rice crop had failed"? And what "well preserved local records" are you talking about? Please read the Marathas subsection (mentioned above) again. You either believe Grove, in which case the Peshwa didn't do anything, or believe Dreze, in which case, why blame the British? This is a checkmate my friend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- For holes in Grove's paper, see User:Fowler&fowler/Issues in Grove's paper Great El Niño of 1789–93 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you have not grasped the content and sources correctly. I do not blame you for since another editor from the UK damaged the attributions in his bid to bring in divisions by blaming Muslim rulers. I have now restored the attributions. Please re-read since that information is now sourced to some of the same sources you are using for the Dogi Bara famine. We cannot assume that the famine in the Maratha province was the same Doji Bara famine unless the source explicitly says so. The source says the Peshwa did a lot by banning exports and importing food grains from Bengal and we will go by the source. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS How could the Peshwa have imported "large quantities" of rice from Bengal, since, according to Grove, "the main rice crop had failed"? And what "well preserved local records" are you talking about? Please read the Marathas subsection (mentioned above) again. You either believe Grove, in which case the Peshwa didn't do anything, or believe Dreze, in which case, why blame the British? This is a checkmate my friend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean, "The oldest famine in pre-colonial Deccan with well-preserved local documentation is the famine of 1791–92. Relief was provided by the ruler, the Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao II, in the form of imposing restrictions on export of grain and importing rice in large quantities from Bengal via private trading, however the evidence is often too scanty to judge the 'real efficacy of relief efforts' in the Mughal period.[28]?" So, you at least acknowledge that Doji bara was a "pre-colonial" famine? Why then are you blaming the British for all the deaths? As for Dreze's working paper claim? He (Peshwa) didn't do diddly-squat. Please read the "Marathas" subsection in Doji bara famine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ancient, pre-colonial (and pre-industrial era) Indian rulers provided relief to their citizens to the best of their ability. See Famine in India for an example of the child Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao providing relief in form of banning exports and facilitating imports from Bengal to Deccan, the affected area. On the other hand, the British had more sophisticated and advanced abilities (they had made famine pretty much obsolete in Britain) but they were discriminative in applying their best abilities to citizens of the same empire in India. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
F&f, the article was recently moved from its long standing title of Kannada lit in the kingdom of Mysore because Kannada was deemed to be the only language that they had any output in. I'm not sure if that's really the case, I think Tamil and Malayalam were also patronized within the kingdom, but I'm a novice on this subject, and since you've contributed to the article and the FAR/FAC discussions, could you shed some light? I don't want to move it back based on my insufficient knowledge. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have to mull this over. Actually, this area is very much outside my area of expertise. I got involved in it as a result of fighting POV warriors! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
that is awesome Decora (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes! He was quite a talent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
British Raj improvements
It's really good to see that our RfC and discussions are leading to improvements in the tables at British Raj!
- Thanks. I was merely following your lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I am glad I could help. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:History of Pakistan/History of the Pakistan region
Hello; I was just browing through and I happened to come across this page. I would just like to know, is this an old duplicate of the History of Pakistan page, or is it being developed for a new article? Mar4d (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Sorry I forgot to reply. It was something I wrote in early 2007 (?) which was once the actual History of Pakistan page; however, various POV issues (India page editors didn't want the history of Pakistan (created in 1947) to cover any event before 1947). Now that I recall, it wasn't them actually, it was the later Pakistan page editors, that might have wanted the history to be less eclectic ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. That's so unfortunate. The current article is really messed up and makes this draft look like a scholarly work. Mar4d (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey
I reviewed the lead proposed by you on Talk:India. Cheers! 59.182.71.68 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please rephrase
Please rephrase you're such a persistent teacher yogesh khandke. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- A persistent teacher is a:
- assiduous advisor
- bulldogged backseat-driver (also blustering bully)
- chronic coach
- dogged demonstrator
- enduring educator
- freebooting faculty
- grinding guide
- habitual hectorer
- indefatigable instructor (also inveterate invigilator)
- jostling judge
- knee-jerk know-it-all
- lingering lecturer
- marauding mentor
- nattering nabob
- obdurate overseer
- pertinacious pundit (also, persevering pedagogue, perpetual preceptor)
- quarrelsome quester
- relentless referee
- stubborn slave-driver (also steadfast supervisor)
- tiresome tutor (also tenacious trainer, tireless tyrant)
- unremitting usurper
- vengeful vexer
- wrenching wrangler
- xenophobic xenagogue
- yelping yahoo
- zealous zealot
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what the issue is but this list is brilliant! How did you do this? Some thesaurus you got there! A-Z!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.24.225 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I made it with the help of a dictionary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you think the knife cuts both ways if at all it does in my case, also, I too tried to search for the phrase but could not get the answer.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I breezed through 60 search results[2] (summaries only) for the string persistent teacher but did not find the meaning implied by your explanations; perhaps the phrase is not popular beyond your circle, (wherever it is). Thanks for the trouble please if possible share a few links in good sources where the said meaning is manifest. Thanks again. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you think the knife cuts both ways if at all it does in my case, also, I too tried to search for the phrase but could not get the answer.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I made it with the help of a dictionary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what the issue is but this list is brilliant! How did you do this? Some thesaurus you got there! A-Z!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.24.225 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Gateway of India
Thanks for the heads up on the photo - the book from which I scanned it REALLY got the caption wrong! I actually think the photo shows the landing of the Viceroy Lord Halifax on 1 April 1926. Interestingly, David Lean's movie "A Passage to India" pays homage to the photo in a spectacular matte-shot in the scene showing the landing of the Viceroy (un-named in the film) with an actor that looks just like Lord Halifax (check out the scene here in this clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SzpXKLhEqs&feature=related ) . ---Mrlopez2681 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! 1926 makes more sense as the Gateway would have been complete by then. And it does look complete in the picture. Thanks for the clip. Pretty close to the real thing! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar!!
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For you contribution in India articleRahulText me 16:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
Indian matters
I think the bot will remove the template once the month is up. If it has not done so in the next 48 hours I will act. -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
59.92.30.11
This IP from Chennai is restoring articles, you have recently worked on, to previous versions. I have reverted his/her edits. Probably one of the matadors you are taking on. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- :) Thanks, Sodabottle, for watching over the British Raj article! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
India cooldown
While I fully sympathise, and find the pithy responses a good way to make the point (and indeed amusing), I think the point has been hammered into that talk page enough, and saying it more won't bring about anything really useful in terms of the article. Might be best for sanity and watchlists if we just let the talkpage cool down for awhile. I think it's fairly clear not much will be achieved without outside input, such as FAR. What do you think about a religion subsection? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was debating responding to the last one, but in the end didn't check the impulse to respond. So thanks for the timely reminder. A religion subsection is probably a good idea, given that India has many religions, but I think it should summarize the Religion in India page rather than the Indian religions one. The latter is both poorly written and a bit of a content fork. I'm not too knowledgeable on religions, but I'll be happy to help out in whatever way I can. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it should be obvious that the subsection should summarise the main Religion in India page, after all the Indian religions page is a subsection of the Religion in India page (not to say the current main location is correct). I'm not sure that the section needs to be all that detailed, just perhaps one paragraph on the history of religions, ie what religions were founded in Indian and when they were formed and others arrived, with a second paragraph on the current demographics for each group? Or maybe a paragraph for the religions founded in India and a paragraph for others. There's a general consensus for inclusion I believe, but I'm not going to start any discussion until the current hullabaloo is over. It can't be hard to get a consensus on a basic summary of religions, surely? I hope Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
So, I'm not sure what's required to start a FAR, last one I started I just listed a few issues I found wrong. Anyway, there's some impatience as you see, so if you don't have time to start it I'll be happy to give it a go. In addition, if I am your sidekick, I do want my own key's for the batmobile. Just saying. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can certainly do it, but let me look at the FAR page first and its criteria. I've been traveling for the last couple of months, and unfortunately not being very focused in my time on Wikipedia, which I've been mainly using to have fun at the end of a day (that probably explains the dark humor or the sarcasm). Give me 24 hours and I'll make a list of issues to be addressed. If the Wikipedia community is going to spend time improving the page, and I know some fine people from my days on WT:FAC, we should at least give them something tangible to work with. It will also give me time to go to the locksmith to get a spare. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:History of South Asia
I want to understand why the section 1100–1800 CE is considered "Muslim Period." There might be some confusion among new readers about: why it is considered Muslim when there is the Vijayanagara, Maratha, and Sikh Empires. Is it possible to change it to something else such as "Medieval" period. It will be more neutral and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.241.214 (talk • contribs) at 00:33, 22 March 2011
- Dear IP, You have a point, but one also has to strike a balance between very generic descriptions such as "ancient," "medieval," "early modern," "modern," which are too anonymous, don't grab a new reader, and would apply to the history of any region; and the very particular description of every significant kingdom by name, which would overwhelm the reader. Other sources and tertiary sources are a good guide. Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose India history section, is written by some of the best-known historians of India, has this broad breakdown: a) India from the Palaeolithic to the Decline of the Indus Civilization, –1500BCE, b) The Development of Indian Civilization, 1500 BCE–1200 CE, c) Early Muslim Period, 1200–1526, d) The Mughal Empire (1526–1761), e) Regional States 1700–1850, f) India and European Expansion, 1500–1858 g) British Imperial Power, 1858–1947, h) Republic of India, 1947–
- In it, Vijayanagara does come under "Early Muslim Period." That doesn't mean that every part of India was under Muslim rulers, but that Muslim rulers and broad hegemony over significant swathes of the region. The Sikhs and Marathas come under "Regional States." The "History of South Asia" template does have regional kingdoms, but, I'm guessing, that fans of "Maratha Empire," might feel affronted to find it in "Regional Kingdom," although, in essence, that's what it really was, except for a brief period. Here's my suggestion: The Muslim Period could be split into "Early Muslim Period," and "Mughal Period," and "Regional Kingdoms" could be changed to "Regional States." Vijayanagara would go into "Early Muslim Period," whereas, "Marathas" and "Sikhs" could go into "Regional States." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- PS I take back what I said about splitting Muslim Period into Early Muslim and Mughal. The template has to be compact; it has histories of other countries of South Asia. So, my suggestion would be to keep Muslim Period as is, but change "Regional Kingdoms" into "Regional States" and move Marathas and Sikhs into Regional States. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
POV
Stop deleting sourced content, as you did to Mughal Empire and Template:History of South Asia. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. You are trying to push your pro muslim POV here, If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HotWinters (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are going to block me? Why don't you try it! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your language is a clear epitome of your intent and aggressive nature on WP, stop pushing ur POV and discuss before deleting the sourced content. HotWinters (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fowler - I have not edited the template and the article you guys are fighting about. Just some friendly advice for Fowler - you bring scholarly content to Wikipedia but your approach is misguided. I have experienced this first hand at Talk:India and I can assure you that you are headed for an WP:RFC/U or WP:DRR. Most editors on Wikipedia are neither bullfighters nor matadors - you need to change your attitude, assume good faith and try to win over those who disagree with you via polite discussions. I won't be commenting on your dispute with HotWinters further. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've been editing Wikipedia since the Fall of 2006. My tone has been pretty much the same the entire time. I haven't had any RFC/U against me, but you are welcome to start it if you'd like. Most likely I won't respond to the RFC/U. What can they do? Throw me out. I'm really not that attached to Wikipedia. I can do other things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Unilateral editing
Since India is a featured article and you have been quite vocal and active in defending the article, isn't unilateral addition of new material to "Politics" without discussion on the talk page incorrect? What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. AshLin (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- :) Well, the article is now going to FAR, which means it will be worked on by many people. It is one opportunity when everyone gets to have a go at it. I have to do copy-edit, because the FAR rules say, "Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies," and "Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement." I can't very well turn in something shabby knowing fully well that it is shabby. You are welcome to post objections or improvements either now or during the FAR process. Nothing that I do now is etched in stone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- PS It is no fun copy-editing this boring crap. Not sure that I'm going to last out the entire article, but I'll at least do another section to show my good intentions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
India v. South Asia
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Mandell Creighton
I'm in the middle of peer reviewing your fine article. I have always had a soft spot for the Rt. Rev. ever since running across this (forgive me if you know it perfectly well already) by him about one of my bêtes noires:
Let me at once say why I do not think that Ruskin’s Political Economy is good food for you. I think that one of the nuisances of the present day is the attempted revival of the ‘prophet.’ Carlyle, Froude, Ruskin, all bore me in their prophetic capacity. It is a cheap line to denounce, it satisfies the sense that something ought to be done: I am weary of denunciation. We of this generation all go about the world each abusing everybody else, and each forgetting to amend himself. The world’s evils are many and patent. We can all do much to cure them, ‘here a little and there a little’, but do not let us expend our energy in meaningless abuse. Mankind will not be saved by that. I remember listening with sorrow to Ruskin describing a railway journey from Carnforth to Oxford. He ridiculed everyone whom he had seen, described his fellow passengers without a touch of sympathy, and ended by saying, ‘I saw over 700 people on the way, and not one face had a look of happiness.’ I looked at Ruskin’s own face: that certainly had not. I should have liked to ask him what contribution he had tried to make to the happiness of those whom he met. Did he expend a smile, a kind word? No; I respect Ruskin’s goodness, but his method is disastrous. The times do not want a Hebrew prophet denouncing woe: they want the spirit of loving sympathy. How large-hearted was Jesus, how sober-minded, how ‘sweetly reasonable’ as M. Arnold puts it. Teacher for teacher, there is more in M. Arnold than in Ruskin. Both are one-sided, both omit much, but the spirit, the tone of M. Arnold is fruitful, while that of Ruskin (save in art) is not.
Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was pleasantly surprised both to find your post here and to discover that you're reviewing the article. I know that reviewing can be tedious business, and I'm delighted to find that you like the article. Delighted too by the detailed review, which I will go through and implement. No, I hadn't seen the quote above, but after reading it, I did find it in his collected letters and went on to read more. I found another that had some wise thoughts (penned to the same female undergraduate):
One part of the training of life is to learn how to go one's own way quietly, wherever one is. Listen to people, but pay no heed to what does not approve itself to you (I include myself and my present letter). Perhaps you would say that you had that faculty. I know that you have, and you tend to fill up your time with dreaming, while you wait for the moving of the waters. You feel that this is rather unsatisfactory, and you wish to turn your dreamings to account by pursuing the lines to which they lead you. Now will that really help you? I only ask, I do not answer the question. No one can do more for another than suggest the real issue. ... My advice always has been, Get method: only through this comes practical strength. Get it by patient study of anything that requires accurate thinking and clear expression. It matters not what: learn to read and understand a Greek play if you will. I know that this prospect only fills you with shivering. You would like something more congenial, more in accordance with yourself. But self is a shifting quantity, and every step in development has to be by the loss (often with pain and grief) of a smaller self to gain a larger. Growth is a painful process at some stages, but it is pleasant in its results, and the stock of pleasure goes on increasing, and the pang becomes less every stage we consciously pass through.
Contrasting this with the superficially practical, even mercenary, advice given to most undergraduates these days, I have to wonder how much progress we've made in the business of giving advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a splendid extract, and is going straight into my commonplace book. I've finished reviewing the article, an undertaking which I assure you was not in the least tedious. One would like to have met Dr C, one feels. Having no shame whatever, I commend to your attention another peer review article, viz Elizabeth David on which any comments you felt inclined to make would be most welcome. I shall perfectly understand if you haven't the time or inclination, of course. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
History of South Asia template
Hi, in the template these states are missing:
Also can you put the Sikh Empire out of regional category. Also regional empires should be changed to regional states. It will be much better. Also French and Portuguese should be in the category of Colonial India.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.232.98 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
(Republic) India (Subcontinent)
I take it Zuggernaut has just agreed to what has basically been proposed from the very beginning, so that should sort itself out now. In other news, thought I'd ask if the POV tags you placed are still valid. I reverted another user's removal, assuming that they were still valid, and am just double checking that's correct. Ta, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
ANI comment
Fowler, FYI, your reply to Shovon76 is actually a reply to CarTick. --rgpk (comment) 16:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments on Talk:India
Fowler, could you strike your comments about Hanuman from the India talk page. I'm sure you mean no harm but the remarks have clearly upset and offended some users and have become a distraction. Striking them would be a positive sign of good faith. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Have scratched the entire comment, not one of my better ones. Many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! --rgpk (comment) 11:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out my error! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! --rgpk (comment) 11:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Can u help me expand this article? I found very few sources on the web. And none, whatsoever, on the peculiarities of the Trichinopoly.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. Welcome back! Well, for starters, you could look up "Cheroot," "Trichies," and "Trichonopoly" in Hobson-Jobson available free on the web. It's not always the most reliable, but does have some interesting stories. I'll look for more sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! I did find something useful to add. A picture would be better, I feel-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 06:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Zuggernaut's ban
I have been commenting on your edits regarding the above at the closing administrator's talk page, and at the Arbitration initiated by Zuggernaut, I considered it rude if I did not explicitly inform you about the same and so I am hereby doing it. Regards.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have no interest in it. I expect ArbCom will decline. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please
Please see this reply.[3] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fine, I saw it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the above is a draft I wished you looked at the final version as per this edit [4].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary at Ganga
Your edit summary for edit 424391004 at Ganga reads Yogesh Khandke best not to edit war with garbage. This refers to my edits [5] [6] [7] [8] which you have reverted. This is an extremely insulting comment of yours, it is a continuation of a series of other such insulting terms, please explain.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe what you are adding is garbage. "The Ganges is India's national river" can't be the first sentence of an encyclopedia article. A preponderance of reliable sources don't say that. By persisting in such fashion you tax the patience of well-meaning Wikipedians, who have a limited amount of time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- (1)Please check diffs before making nasty remarks, please apologise for making them, the said statement was not added by me. I have made a formal request to you earlier, I am repeating it, you have called me rabid before, please do not use impolite terms to refer to me or the edits that I make, take this as formal request number two.(2) I assume you do not have objection to other material added/ deducted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yogesh made this change[9] which messed up the lead. Jayen then tried to fix Yogesh's mistake, and inserted the "national river" thing.[10] I note that Mississippi River, which could be called the "national river" of the US, merely says it's the largest river system in North America. Similarly non-hype language should be used in the lead for the Ganges. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indian government website. i am looking for a ref that says Missisipi is the national river of USA. --CarTick (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if you'll find one, but it's not an encyclopedic term anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- yea sure. :) i bet you will advocate for the removal of the "national bird" sentence from Bald Eagle lead and may be from the entire article. --CarTick (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if you'll find one, but it's not an encyclopedic term anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indian government website. i am looking for a ref that says Missisipi is the national river of USA. --CarTick (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Continuing insults
You are continuing to use abusive language when refering to my edits, rv bogus edits by Yogesh Khandke; it's best not to edit war tendentiously. You have no history of contributing productively to this page[11] Please mind your language, all my edits are well-sourced, please check for edit war or tendentious, your undo was edited here it shows what the consensus is on this page. Please consider this formal request no 3. Regards and thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please sue me or alternatively thicken your skin. In other words, stop harassing me on my talk page. Consider this a warning as formal as all the ones you have given me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please see what I have said on my talk. I've primarily addressed you seeing it was the concern about you which sparked the request for me to take a look. I did touch on your concern about YK as well, but you both need to try again (and if things don't work out, use a different approach which will not cause the other party to escalate unnecessarily). That is, I don't want to see useful contributions being lost from the area(s) unnecessarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
note
[12] based on the discussion that is taking place in India page, I would like to take the opportunity to warn you not to label everyone that disagrees with you as "Hindu nationalist". it is apparent from your comments in various talk pages that you do not care so much about "Hinduism" and has some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism or any other. i also warn you not to accuse every new user of a sockpuppet of someone as a strategy to weaken, discourage and discredit them. you really need to stop. --CarTick (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hindu nationalism is not a curse word. I am happy to provide perfectly reliable sources for the RSS being a Hindu nationalist organization, an extreme one at that. I regard your unwarranted musings, "do not care so much about "Hinduism" and has some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism or any other," to be much more in violation of Wikipedia policy than my characterizing someone edits as Hindu-nationalism-related. I have not called the editor in question a Hindu nationalist. You, on the other hand, have posited my hatred for the Hindu religion, for which you have no hard proof, not even for my Wikipedia output. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- you have never said you dislike Hinduism, but it comes across as you do dislike their belief and practices. i have seen that in many occasions. here is the most recent. Quote from your comment: The Bangladeshis don't revere the river (being mostly Muslims), and, consequently, and paradoxically, to their credit, they don't abuse it as much. --CarTick (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have certainly not said that, but you have, most recently, "some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism." What hatred? What is wrong with that Bangladesh statement? It's not my problem that Indian editors are getting defensive. They need to be objective. I believe the Bangladesh statement to be substantially true. While people who live along the banks of the river in Bangladesh do defecate there as well, half of Bangladesh doesn't turn up annually to do the same. The Ganges is a tired river. No point filling the article up with nationalistic chest thumping. How will that help anyone? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The connection of how Hindus abuse rivers because of religion and not Bangladeshis do not because of religion is somehow ignoring the fact that Hindus do not abuse a river by any belief which it appears to say because of the words "consequently, and paradoxically" and in fact, the river is sacred to Hindus. The statement above ignores the fact that Hindus do turn up for certain Hindu rituals, and not to as mentioned defecate as an aim which is made quite apparent. To ignore Hindu understanding and practice is one thing, but after ignoring it commenting on all other aspects and passing it as a Hindu understanding and practice is quite a mischief I think. But this is my 2 cents.Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths. Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The connection of how Hindus abuse rivers because of religion and not Bangladeshis do not because of religion is somehow ignoring the fact that Hindus do not abuse a river by any belief which it appears to say because of the words "consequently, and paradoxically" and in fact, the river is sacred to Hindus. The statement above ignores the fact that Hindus do turn up for certain Hindu rituals, and not to as mentioned defecate as an aim which is made quite apparent. To ignore Hindu understanding and practice is one thing, but after ignoring it commenting on all other aspects and passing it as a Hindu understanding and practice is quite a mischief I think. But this is my 2 cents.Thisthat2011 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have certainly not said that, but you have, most recently, "some kind of hatred for the religion. i understand that it is your right to like or dislike something. but, please do not use India page as a platform to spew your hatred on Hinduism." What hatred? What is wrong with that Bangladesh statement? It's not my problem that Indian editors are getting defensive. They need to be objective. I believe the Bangladesh statement to be substantially true. While people who live along the banks of the river in Bangladesh do defecate there as well, half of Bangladesh doesn't turn up annually to do the same. The Ganges is a tired river. No point filling the article up with nationalistic chest thumping. How will that help anyone? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- you have never said you dislike Hinduism, but it comes across as you do dislike their belief and practices. i have seen that in many occasions. here is the most recent. Quote from your comment: The Bangladeshis don't revere the river (being mostly Muslims), and, consequently, and paradoxically, to their credit, they don't abuse it as much. --CarTick (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)