User talk:Zuggernaut: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Zuggernaut (talk | contribs)
→‎Ganges x Ganga: Reply to Yogesh Khandke
Line 468: Line 468:


No talk pages - only articles. [[User:AshLin|AshLin]] ([[User talk:AshLin|talk]]) 08:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
No talk pages - only articles. [[User:AshLin|AshLin]] ([[User talk:AshLin|talk]]) 08:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

== Editing Restriction ==

Per consensus at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=422991721#Proposed_restrictions AN/I Discussion] I have imposed the following editing restrictions on you:

::1. You are topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia.
::2. You are banned from interacting with or commenting about {{user|Fowler&fowler}}, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user.
::3. You are subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been [[User:Zuggernaut/Community sanction|logged here]] and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
::4. You are banned from [[List of Indian inventions and discoveries]] and [[List of South Asian inventions and discoveries]] due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=419730888 inappropriate canvassing] in relation to these 4 pages.

If you do not understand these restrictions please say so and I will try to explain them. Point #4 will be [[User:Zuggernaut/Community sanction|logged here]] under the probation detailed in point #3. These sanctions have been logged at [[Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community]]. In addition I'd like to pass on a suggestion from the AN/I thread that you seek [[WP:MENTOR|mentorship]] to help with future editing. --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]])</sup> 09:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:04, 8 April 2011

Contents

Notices

Real and Fake Notices

Welcome

Hello, Zuggernaut! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz Talk 17:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

August 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Maharashtra. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. the statement you have referenced to two books finds no mention in either. If you continue to add this without consensus you will be blocked SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is wrong. Please check the sources properly and you will find the following statements per the citation: The first problem they faced was which variety was to be taken as standard for description. This they solved by adopting the speech of Deshastha Brahmans of Pune. This is no original research. I have reported the matter to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-15/Deshastha Brahmin due to your belligerent attitude and derogatory language used here.[1] Zuggernaut (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Maharashtra#Marathi_statement_dispute discussion. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Maharashtrian Bhakti saints has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, orpahned article with no content other than a list of apparently non-notable people.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Svick (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 18 2010

STOP! Vandalising and spreading false info of your own or from unreliable websites in many wiki pages, like upanishad for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.80.122 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You seem to one of those Islamic or christian fundamentalist who wants to spread false info against other faiths from unrelaiable source. STOP VANDALISING WIKI PAGES AND SPREADING HATRED OTHERS FAITHS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR BELIEFS.

You were already warned many times by moderators for vandalising and spreading false info and hatred against other faiths from unreliable sources. Watch it.

TempUser1234567 comment added by TempUser1234567 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya debate

The article Ayodhya debate has been renamed to Ayodhya conflict by an editor without any reference or discussion. I must note here that Ayodhya dispute is clearly not an armed conflict like Kargil Conflict and neither the mainstream media or government refers to the Ayodhya dispute as conflict. Even the term Ayodhya conflict has never been used in the article itself. Could you revert the name of the article back to Ayodhya debate or dispute.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of Sockpuppetry

You have accused me on the British Empire FARC page of being a sock puppet. If you have any reasonable grounds of suspecting this please request a check user as I said on that page I have nothing to hide. If you do not have any reasonable grounds then you owe me an unreserved apology. Outofsinc (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello

Hi Zuggernaut, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! Lunalet (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga move

Please contribute to discussion on talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello

Hi Zuggernaut, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edit count 3000+ since July, you are moving fast. I didn't mean to hurt you about your table, sorry nevertheless. Don't forget wp:GREATWRONGS. Can't leave the discussion untill it has reached its logical conclusion, but hence forth I will engage myself in simple editing and creating new pages, instead of wasting time arguing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the table and no need to apologize for it. I'm not sure GREATWRONGS is applicable here because we aren't dealing with problems with content. It's more about the bias faced due to an under-representation of a particular community and it needs to be fixed in a better way than by having a project or simply a FAQ in the NPOV. Otherwise 100s of millions of readers are going to read misleading articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like you said it is a numbers game, if more and more editors from a diverse background start editing English Wikipedia, the articles are bound to reflect the diversity of the backgrounds, competent, careful, wikilaw abiding editors. Wonder what you think of the table on Ganges' discussion page, have a go at it if you wish.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some ot these 100s of millions of readers have to turn into good editors, then the bias would be lost.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would take a while, perhaps decades. I'm beginning to find that the existing mechanisms (project for countering systemic bias, a mere mention in the NPOV FAQ) to combat the bias aren't sufficient. One last avenue that I am aware of and haven't tried out is the village pumps. I will give it a shot shortly and see where it leads. Waiting for those 100s of millions of readers to turn in to editors isn't a timely solution and the articles like British Empire, Famine in India and Ganga need to change sooner than later. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1)British Empire is a clear breach of Wikipedia rules like wp:V the units part, wp:OR the maps, and wp:UNDUE, it is not balanced, the process for FA scrutiny is too lax, it comes across as an obit., the whole tone is poor, it is not bias, it is beyond that, somehow the system has been circumvented, but is it really worth the trouble to raise Cain. (2)One can write an article a day and stay out of trouble, and hope that more and more editors from diverse backgrounds, open minds, and brave hearts come around. (3)Having said that at Ganges Jayen has done a fantastic job, why don't we talk at the Ganges page, so that we do not have to face allegations of canvassing and what not. (4)On famine have you read Henry Hyndman? And other socialists? (5)You have been coming up with great paper sources, where do you find all the books you quote from? (6)Freedom at midnight and another book has mentioned Savarkar's homosexuality, I wrote to the other book's author but received no reply, I did not find contact information for Dominique Lapierre, I wrote to www.savarkar.org they said that Gopal Godse has refuted the allegations but gave no sources???? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of Henry Hyndman. The leads for the sources come from general reading. Freedom at Midnight is not peer reviewed material. It's just a book. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hyndman was very critical of the Imperial Establishment, and even the Indian's in UK (early 20th century) found him too radical. I suggest you write articles written by him.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I have a problem logging in perhaps because of a virus resident on my PC so this anon edit. user:Yogesh Khandke)I had written to Dominique Lapierre seeking his consent to a discussion on Freedom at midnight, he wrote back agreeing to it. Do you have access to Freedom, will it be possible for you to send a scan of the text related to Savarkar from Freedom? What has Dominique based his allegations on? Are there footnotes or references. I had read Freedom a long time ago in the summer of '82 when I was in 9th standard, a hazy recollection is that Savarkar's homosexuality is mentioned as a footnote related to Gandhi's assasination.117.195.64.67 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have only a peripheral interest in this and I do not have a recollection of reading the book. I googled the quote today, here's what it came back with:

At the age of twenty-eight, Godse had finally taken that ancient Hindu vow whose observance had so concerned and troubled Gandhi, that of the Brahmacharya, the voluntary renunciation of sex in all its forms. He apparently remained faithful to it for the rest of his life. Before taking it, he had only one known sexual relationship. It was homosexual. His partner was his political mentor, Veer Savarkar.

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough, we need page numbers, edition, and other things, thanks a lot nevertheless. Any go?Yogesh117.195.65.78 (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

from my experiences at ANI, administrators hardly get involved unless the issue is clearly black and white or some procedural violation. This case, being a procedural violation, there is a chance for someone stepping in. it is better to leave the ANI thread short and express major concerns and leave it at it unless we are absolutely required to respond. the concerns are often well understood without us having to rehash it multiple times. i know it is hard to resist. --CarTick (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will stay away and watch from a distance from now on. If the problems are not sorted out, I will start preparations to take the issues through WP:DRR. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 07:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishads

Upanishads

Hello Zuggernaut, I don't think adhering to one style of citation is as important as keeping those quotes in the footnotes. They are among the best pieces of information in the article. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help The initial sentence: "Criticisms of the Upanishads range from an ill-conceived and half-thought out bluster, to scholarly but scathing ones." is not encyclopedic. Either these weak arguments are really just nonsense--in which case, there is no point in engaging them--or they are legitimate and strong criticisms which deserve to not be disregarded by calling them "ill-conceived and half-though out bluster." Please post on my talk if you think I can be of further assistance. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I've moved that quote to footnotes. If you think it still needs work, please feel free add back the tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Yogesh Khandke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of Upanishads

The article Upanishads you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Upanishads for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at King Zebu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--King Zebu (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deshastha

Deshastha

You wrote, Shakher59, you have uploaded several pictures on Wikipedia, some of which are being used in Deshastha Brahmin. It'll be a lot of help if you can provide more information about the pictures. Things like location of the pictures, when they were taken, the occasion, whether they are Deshastha Rigvedi or Yajurvedi and perhaps their last names, etc will be of great help. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The pictures' title has the period when they were taken. If I give names of the people, the photographs will be immediately deleted for being of non-notables. These pictures are there simply to show what deshastha people look like to the average wikipedia reader who would have no idea as to what a deshastha person looks like. That is why I am not happy about the picture of contemporary deshastha couple being deleted. I don't see anybody else putting a new picture of contemporary deshastha family either. All my B & W photos are from 1950s and 1970s. Having a color picture does make sense so if you have one, please add it to the article. By the way, all the people in the photographs are deshastha, mostly yajurvedi. The munj ceremony is of a yajurvedi family.Shakher59 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I;ve responded at your peer review page.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your content "disgraced and ruined...." because Arthur Crawford on page 127 of your reference in the footnote only alludes to Bajeerao disgracing one deshastha man for having a copy of Sahyadree khand and not the whole deshstha community. Also I have noticed that in recent edits,a lot of people including you and at times myself, have started relying on free books available on google as references. These are very old books by western authors and don't always have a neutral point of view. Use these references but even in the text mention that "according to so and so..... That way the reader can make his or her own conclusions rather than going through the reference list.74.9.96.122 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anon (74.9.96.122), Thanks for pointing out the detail - I have fixed the Crawford citation to accurately state that one reputed Deshastha Brahmin was disgraced. While promoting the article Upanishads as a GA, my reviewer pointed out that it is not a good practice to name a reference in the article [2]. The use of Google books is quite helpful as long as we stick to WP:Sources and particularly WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Verifiable. I have also provided another citation in addition to Jadunath Sarkar regarding the social war. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaggannath, Please provide solid references that all deshasthas are the original brahmin inhabitants of maharashtra. the reference below on Nasik brahmins speculates that Madhyandin yajurvedis came from Gujarat within last 600 years. [3]74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than 95% of this article is about Deshasthas. You are welcome to start a new and separate article on Yajurvedis if you want to focus on the differences rather than the similarities. The current citations already substantiate the claim. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If current claims substantiate the claim then please cite it after "original"74.9.96.122 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion to improve the article. Feel free to improve the article in places you think we can provide accurate information. Please consider signing up and getting a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Mr. Jaggannath, Send me your email address and I will send you the image of the article74.9.96.122 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Take a look at Burden of evidence [4] Go on read [5]. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources and that does not mean I don't have complete faith in the claims of the article.
  2. Per burden of evidence, provide the full citation. The following minimum details are missing from your citation:
    1. Full author names. done
    2. The exact page number. The current range 241-262 is too large for the simple one line used in the article. Can I conclude that you are not from a research or scientific background ? this paper ( Mastana et al ) is not a review but original research involving blood samples taken from the four groups. most of the pages are tables of data. from what I have read about Wikipedia policy on verifiability, I don't think I have to quote the results verbatim.
    3. Provide the issue number of Annals of Human biology. VOL. 21.
    4. Provide the month of publication of that issue. why ?
  3. The content we are talking is tiny. Provide the 2-3 lines of conclusion that supports your claim. You can type it out in the talk space of the article. I would be very surprised if the authors do not use the word immigrant to describe the Parsi.
  4. I am removing the entire line from article space as we need to establish verifiability of the source to satisfaction before we can add it to the article per WP:Sources This is as bonafide as it gets.
  5. Suggested solution: given the universal knowledge/multiple sources stating that the Parsi are an immigrant community, consider adding "immigrant" before Parsi and we can consider this closed. Your explanation of Paris being native in the talk space of the article is WP:OR
  6. Consider signing up and getting an account, go to preferences and add your e-mail address. We can then exchange e-mails. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) No, the authors don't use that term and so there is no need to. If you want to take it to higher level so be it. I have just started with one of your reference on "Social war" and you had put your own POV. So if you want to verify my reference, then get ready for a fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article![reply]

74.9.96.122 (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead with "fine tooth comb investigation of all your claims in this article" It will only help make the article better. The more errors you can find, the better! Please consider using a colon to indent your responses. And please also consider signing up to get a username. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for copyedit. Moving {{copyedit}} to article as convention. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deshastha Brahmins

Hi, i noticed that you have reverted my corrections to the image captions under the claim that it violates WP:MOS. Well, i beg to differ. The common convention is that captions that form a complete sentence should end with punctuation. If you take a look at my edits, then yo u should notice that all i did was to correct the image captions which formed complete sentences. Let me quote it for you:

Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (noun phrases, sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period.

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 06:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Divisions of Maharashtra" is a fragment and the Til-gul caption is probably a fragment. Feel free to undo my revert if you disagree, it's not that big a deal. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a minor issue, but i'm not the sort of person who enjoys edit-warring, which is why i bothered to message you. In the Maharastra image, the fragment follows the sentence and the Til-gul captions are both succeeding sentences. The other caption i corrected was a sentence. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 06:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit

Is it all right with you if i open a request for copy-edit regarding the anglicization of the spellings and dating, or do you plan on making the necessary changes yourself? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My spell check is set to American English and I don't want to change it. So go ahead with the CE request. But make sure it is Indianization, not Anglicization given that the template added is {{Indian English}} not {{British English}} :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spellings of Indian English correspond to that of British English. Joyson Noel Holla at me!
I have opened a request here. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to spellings like the now disputed 'lakh' (current) versus 'lac' (earlier era). Numerous "Indian English" spellings from the British era have weird spellings, for example, I remember reading "Punah" for Pune somewhere in 19th century British literature. Thanks for your help in improving the article! Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually enjoyed reading the article. Given the dismal state of most Indian ethnic group articles, i must say that i am impressed by the effort you have put into promoting it to GA. Do you plan on improving it to FA status later on? Our spellings have changed from the British Raj era. As such, i think it would be more appropriate to use the current spellings instead. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 12:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough time to improve it to FA right now. Perhaps a few months later. Thanks for the encouragement. I would be glad to offer whatever little help I can to improve Roman Catholic Brahmin to a GA. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer! Likewise, don't hesitate to contact me when a review of the article is needed in the future. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 11:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks like you already got started on the article. I could not find too many sources on the topic. Do you know any that we can use? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found some content about marriage practices in this book:
Kurzon, D. (2004), Where East looks West: success in English in Goa and on the Konkan Coast, Multilingual Matters, ISBN 9781853596735
Take a look at page 72 and let me know if this information is still current, can we include it in the article? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, but the page says nothing about the marriage customs. It talks about the matrimonial Ads of Goan Catholic families of the Bamonn caste. At least in Mangalore, we do not use such ads any more. Currently, Mangalorean Catholics of the Bamonn and Charodi (Roman Catholic Kshatriya) castes intermarry in the cities. Perhaps, it is still not the case in the villages, as small town and village folks tend to be more traditional. Since the caste is very little known, it is very hard to come across materials on it. Furthermore, as it is present among both the Mangalorean and Goan Catholics, the contemporaries on both communities have different histories and are culturally distinct. Their marriage customs as well are indistinguishable from the other castes. This article will require a lot of research. To make matters more difficult, many of the books i need are out of print and very hard to get. I reside outside India, which makes obtaining them from a local library impossible. I do have a list of books on Konkani Catholics that i plan on purchasing during my next trip to Mangalore and Bangalore. So, these might eventually help me to expand the article to at least B-class. However, at present, i have different aspirations. For the time being, i am planning on working on certain Konkani related articles. These articles are almost neglected and in a sad pitiable state. After i am done with them, i plan on improving the Mangalorean Catholics and Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam article to FA status. It is only then that i will work on the Roman Catholic Brahmin and Roman Catholic Kshatriya articles using whatever limited materials i have. Thank you once again! Joyson Noel Holla at me! 13:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could call them modern day customs but even those newspaper ads must be outdated now since I know that many people who want to marry within the caste now use Internet matrimony websites. The problem I faced in this article was there were no references to make that claim (maybe I did not look hard enough). Good luck with your work on the Konkani articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


British Empire

British Empire

[6] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have raised the fact you have been canvassing over the India/British Empire articles at the Admins notice board here. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm going Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Vandalism before actually talking to the founders and co-owners... But before that, I'll make a sadbox out of the history section and present it for discussion and then let's see what happens from there...

thanks :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are attempting to do just that :D ... I've more amendments to suggest :P

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DisruptiveConstructive behaviour

British Empire is a featured article which was reviewed by the community a long time before you got here [7]. So, unlike your recently and unilaterally created categories, it is the subject of community agreement. Please do not be disruptive and remove things from it just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out a problem with the maps in the article - they are inaccurate because they show Goa, Daman, Diu and Oman as parts of the British Empire when they were under Portuguese and French control well beyond the 1940s. I've then provided a possible solution to how the problem can be fixed [8]. Our FAs need to meet the criterion of the finest article so I am trying to help you keep the FA status. You have ignored several questions from unique editors over several months about the maps including one from a color-blind person who clearly has a genuine question about making the map accessible to him or her [9]. It is your behavior here that's disruptive. You've been wikihounding me for weeks to India, Famine in India, American Revolutionary war where you repeatedly violate a pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility as has been pointed out by multiple different and unrelated editors [10] [11]. You've added POV tags to the India and Famine in India articles because the article asserted 37 million deaths from starvation during British rule. From this pattern of behavior, it is easy to see that you have an agenda on Wikipedia - to glorify the British Empire and stifle any information (even though it meets WP:Sources and other WP policies) that brings forward the negative aspects of the British Empire. Clearly it's your behavior that's the problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"POV"

You are misusing/misunderstanding the term "POV". The purpose of this tag is not to denote "someone did something I don't agree with" or "something hasn't been adequately responded to on the talk page". It is "this section/article is not written using a neutral point of view", which in turn means it does not "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

  • Western/Christian - Yogesh asked which word the source used, without making any point. I replied. You view that as justification for a POV tag. Why? We can't read your mind, or his mind for that matter, even though you seem to think you can. Explain yourself please.
  • Bangladesh/other Indian conflicts - Yogesh took a sentence which was sourced (all conflicts listed there are explicitly stated to be legacies of the BE by the cited author) and then decided to add his own conflicts, without any supporting sources. You view that as a justification for a POV tag. Why? Yogesh violated policies on WP:V (adding unsourced material), that was why he was reverted. If he wants to continue the discussion, he can start a new thread on the talk page.
  • maps ... a mistake on a map (or indeed failure to be 100.000000% accurate by not showing something the size of 1 pixel which is barely visible when blown up to full size) is not a POV matter - regardless of whether your requests to fix things was actioned or not. (Incidentally, why don't you fix it yourself?)

In future, if you feel something has "POV" problems, I advise you first read WP:NPOV, find the section of that which you think is not being followed, then you quote the exact text in the article and on the article talk page, put the two next to each other and explain your thinking. Continuing to slap POV tags everywhere is not going to endear you to your fellow editors and is liable to be viewed as disruptive. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens

I've been through this once. See history of Dickens and came up vindicated. The mention of racism of Dickens in the article is the result of that effort. I too did not know about this angle of Dickens before I made those edits. Dickens is related to 1857 more than you think perhaps. These guys are trolling, I am too old to react wildly. Generally. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple comments

Just a couple comments. I can understand your apparent frustration about the British Empire page. There are a group of editors there ready to defend the page, perhaps to a fault. There are others, like myself who, if I may be so bold, might support some of your complaints. I think I might qualify as a neutral party: I have no vested interest in the BE page; I think there is a systematic pro-British bias in English language sources in general; and I have worked to rectify this in small ways on Wikipedia (mainly on issues relating to the North American Pacific Northwest). Furthermore, I know little about India and the BE's history in India--so while I may not be able to speak as an authority I might at least play a role as a neutral party. However, your methods have come across, to me at least, less as a desire for improving Wikipedia and more as a broadside attack on the BE page and a few others. While I can understand the frustration you might feel when faced with a team of Britons defending the BE page, I have to say your methods have not exactly lent themselves to sympathy from people like me. Taking the page to FAR was, for me, going to far, and since then I've been mostly watching from the sidelines out of curiosity. Perhaps the best thing at this point would be to step back, wait a while, and then bring up single points, resolving them one at a time, at some future date. Just a suggestion. Best, Pfly. Pfly (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some advise

I really suggest you spend more time on article talk pages working with other editors. So far you have rushed issues to two forums without real discussion and now we have a nonsensical ANI report. Add that to your canvassing of pages hoping to create an anti-imperial alliance and your behaviour starts to become an issue. You are also (on articles such as British Empire) simply playing into the hands of the pro-British Empire lobby by taking too extreme a position. Please try and work with other editors, moderate what you doing and stop trying to game the system. --Snowded TALK 06:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


FYI

User_talk:YellowMonkey#Blocked_editor_humbly_requests_explanations Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be of help in handling a cabal?

[12] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Zuggernaut has managed to unite editors who normally have profound political disagreements I think calling it a cabal is a bit far fetched --Snowded TALK 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire

Just wanted to say how delighted I am that your attempts to have British Empire delisted have failed. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Raj

The templates have caused text to touch the table edges. Can you give a small white outer border so that the text stays clear of the template? AshLin (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be nice if you succeed. AshLin (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really happy to see encouraging words. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. Have already seen your template discussion. Nothing useful to contribute as of now. Will let you know. Keep up the good work. AshLin (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Categories - British Empire.

Thank you for youre invitation but I think that it would be more prudent to decline as the powers ranged against us are too powerful to be attacked by direct means. Will look for your work elsewhere and will contribute where appropriate and where it's likely to meet with success. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Z please stop labeling everyone who disagrees with your POV a "British Nationalist" (I for one find it insulting) and stop canvassing. You have been warned about this before. --Snowded TALK 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded - I do not think I have canvassed Laurel. If you think otherwise, please provide a diff. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See your language here --Snowded TALK 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am missing something but I don't see any canvassing in asking someone (who works on categories) about the viability of re-creation of a category that's been dead for 4-5 months? Zuggernaut (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for help in a neutral way possibly --Snowded TALK 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Laurel - I will do likewise but I will steer clear of British Empire for now. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Famine in India

Famine and process

There are two options when someone inserts new text. Ideally a process of modification should take place. If that is not possible then the whole thing is reverted and then discussed on the talk page. I suggest you think about modification not reverting material to your preferred text. At the moment your material read as advocacy for a particular position. --Snowded TALK 08:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about the editing process makes sense. I will modify your changes many of which are clearly helpful in presenting material in a focused and concise manner. I disagree with your 'advocacy' comment though - I think you are bringing baggage from other articles or have a strong pro-British view point. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope my intervention isn't seen as intrusive, but Snowded is more likely to be accused of having the opposite view-point, at least by some around here. Sen may have something more specific to say on the Irish famine which might be incorporated in that particular article. Please concentrate on content rather than the perceived 'baggage' of editors. RashersTierney (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No intrusion seen and I appreciate the advice. I will look for Sen or entitlement theory (FEE) material specific to Irish famine once I'm done with my current focus areas/articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been called many things on Wikipedia, but that is a first for "pro-British"! As a socialist member of their first colony (Wales) which has yet to gain independence I think I might take that as a mortal insult.  :-) Z, you need to use the talk page when something is disputed ... --Snowded TALK 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It gave me a small laugh out loud moment seeing you accused of rabid pro-Britishness anyway Snowded. So thanks for the amuse-atron moment Zuggernaut. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Jamesinderbyshire. Glad to see some humor. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to insult you Snowded. But I don't know whether I need to say sorry for inadvertently doing so or whether I should sympathize with you :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Shopping

Its one thing to put objective "we are having a discussion on X, please join in if you are interested", without espousing a view. It's another to go around talk pages where potentially sympathetic editors might be found to rally them to the cause because that is WP:CANVASing. Please stop, or reword your posts accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the posts to address your concern. Please re-visit them to ensure we are in agreement there's no "Forum Shopping"/Canvassing. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting nonsensical

OK, every morning it seems we see a mass of edits from you. Many of these are very good, but there are always a significant number that take a clear POV. Please reverse these out and discuss on the talk page. Going through all your edits every morning to remove the POV position is becoming an unreasonable burden and I am simply going to mass revert if it carries on. --Snowded TALK 05:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which ones you object to and we can work on those. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zug, I can't believe you don't know. You are constantly inserting material that says British Empire Bad, Government of Indian Good. If really necessary (ie you can't work it out) I will go through all the amendments again as I have done several times now removing or modifying controversial material. However it feels at the moment that you are attempting to get your own POV established by volume of edits, exhausting anyone who disagrees with you. PS, I have your talk page under watch so I will see any response here--Snowded TALK 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The volume of edits is because I generally stay focused on an article until it's rating improves to GA status (someone has already assessed this one from start class to B class). I am copying this discussion to the article's talk page, please continue the discussion there. Here's what we can do to address your concern:
  1. I'll stop making additions to the article and limit my edits to the much needed copyediting, images, etc.
  2. While doing the copyedit, I will attribute opinions that may have been expressed as facts to the respective authors. I will re-read parts of NPOV policy to figure out where fixes are required and make them, if required.
  3. While the additions are stopped, you are welcome to go through all of my edits again as that will only help improve the article.
Zuggernaut (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Talk:Famine in India/GA1.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Talk:Famine in India/GA1.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Infobox famine

I still think you need to be unambiguous regarding 'state' examples. 'China' and 'India' can mean many things historically to a broad audience, where, for example 'USSR' or 'Ottoman Empire' are at least referring to broadly recognised (historically and in a contemporary sense) political entities. Best to get it as right as possible. RashersTierney (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title 'Country' makes it clear that a political entity is being referred to. China and India are relevant present day names but we can add The Kingdom of Ireland or something like that to illustrate older periods. I'll have to read up to get the nomenclature right but if you know off hand any examples from the past, please feel free to update.Three examples should be good enough - my preference is 2 from present day, 1 from the past. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two current examples and one historical example seem fine. If theys could be given their 'official' titles, and linked to the appropriate article, it should minimise any ambiguity. 'Country' is not as clear-cut as it might appear. Scotland (as just one example) is a country but not a sovereign state. An article on the Scottish famine of 1780 would have Country (I think) as Kingdom of Great Britain and Location as Scotland. Is my reading correct? RashersTierney (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Scotland example is correct. Wikilinking the documentation/example is a good idea. The only historical examples that use the infobox that I am aware of are the Irish famine, the Indian famines and the Ukranian famine or did you mean linking to the country? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of AGF failure

This edit and others on article talk pages are starting to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour in which when you don't get your own way you launch attacks on other editors. Some of these attacks are offensive in nature. Please focus on content issues and stop making accusations (general or specific) against other editors unless you are prepared to back them up with appropriate evidence on the appropriate forum for peer review. --Snowded TALK 06:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if you can't get a grip on this tendency to attack editors, make general accusations and generally misrepresent people I will put the effort in over Christmas to document an ANI case against you for systematic failure to abide by WP:AGF. You need to learn that editors are allowed to disagree with you without being subject to the sort of allegations you are making. You have good technical knowledge and are obviously a committed editor. Please build on that--Snowded TALK 08:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words about my technical knowledge and may I reciprocate by offering you congratulations on being such a long time Wikipedia editor. AFAIK, I have not knowingly violated AGF at all. I've had a "healthy" amount of disagreements with other editors I've encountered in the course of editing articles (where you've not been). The outcomes have always been win-win and have led to a net improvement of Wikpedia articles, processes or policies. It's your perception that there's a tendency to attack editors and there's not much I can do about it. No comment about the threat of an ANI case against me. I might be on and off Wikipedia over the next few weeks. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you! Zuggernaut (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I for one remain deeply offended by your generic swipe at British Editors and despite the multiple disagreements I have had with BW over the years your latest comments on him radically misrepresented what he said and the attack on James was worse. There is a lot you can do about it by the way, but its your call if you choose to or not--Snowded TALK 07:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is me again Yogesh, I think Zuggernaut, you need to address the allegation of AGF, as the above may be the first step as is mandatory, before any one gets formal, discussion never hurts, and I still feel you should have another look at wp:GREATWRONGS.117.195.64.67 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Yogesh again)You have made certain allegations in the diff Snowded refered to[13], even though there have been a million instances when the ethnicity of Indian editors is mentioned, I opine that it is wrong to refer to the ethnicity of editors. It would be better if you substantiated your allegations by diffs, and replaced Britons by some editors or better became specific and named them, specific well sourced allegations would be difficult to refute, as against general swipes. I have experienced how it feels. I have faced similar behaviour on the British Empire page, when some editors refused to allow well sourced material calling it all sorts of names. I hope Snowded is watching this.117.195.64.67 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any accusation as to bias etc. should be against named editors and backed up with diffs, its that simple. Otherwise Oh mysterious IP, who are you? Under what name did you edit British Empire and what was your issue? --Snowded TALK 05:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that if Zuggernaut were to slow down slightly and treat each change in British India-related articles as something to be pre-discussed and have consensus on, he would get a much more positive reaction from other editors. Instead of that, we seem to see a persistent campaigning - regular appeals to other forums, activism against editors with whom he disagrees (some of it aimed at me at ANI for example), unwillingness to accept any other source of information other than those he puts forwards and, in general, a perception that he is absolutely right and all other editors apart from those sharing an identical position are absolutely wrong and that indeed there is a war going on which he must win against those editors. This in turn leads possibly to mistakes by other editors who perhaps over-react in some situations and do not treat Zuggernaut's edits and comments with the analytical dispassion they perhaps deserve. Zuggernaut does do good edits and is a very knowledgeable editor in his subject area. Unfortunately, in Wikipedia, simply being very knowledgeable and holding strong, determined views is not enough. One must make efforts to see other points of view and analyse them objectively. This is what NPOV is all about. The appeals to accusations of racism, misfeasance and a somewhat arrogant tone with regard to other editors don't help, in fact, they further undermine Zuggernaut's position. As things stand, I would join Snowded in case-building if this continues. I hope it won't, because, as I said, Zuggernaut is a skilful editor, who some of the time is correct but unfortunately causes a lot of difficulty along the way and goes too far down the path of assuming he's always right. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded there is no mystery about my identity, I have introduced myself above, there is a problem on my pc that prevents me Yogesh Khandke from logging in. What you and James have written cuts both ways, the likes of Zuggernaut and myself are finding the going tough because following WP rules like OR, NPOV, RS is not enough, the additional criterion is that they should confirm to a certain bias. Which I found difficult. Then I read and reread Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, I opine that the only way that this bias would go away is if there were more competent editors of another colour (not just about melanin, I mean colour in the sense of ideology, geography, language, culture, religion, faith and other components that make up a personality). Till then the tendentious lable would stick, so I withdrew from the BE article. I am a little busy and so am very thin at Wikipedia at this time, but there are over 30 lakh articles most crying for help, I hope to keep out of arguments, but again as in the case of Ganga, it would be difficult. James: Zuggenaut comes across as one who is prepared to discuss, till then there is no reason to go formal.117.195.65.78 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being asked to confirm to a bias, you are being asked to be balanced in what you do. Also to stop making generalised attacks without evidence something you have had just done it again with the bias remark. I hope that there will be no need to go formal, but its there as an option. I'm curious about what problem would allow you to edit wikipedia but not login, if you can get to the browser to do one then surely the other is easy. --Snowded TALK 07:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to be drawn into an argument. My problem was I could log in but when I clicked on Contributions or Watch list I had to log in again. 117.195.65.173 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) See the four tilde does not give my name but gives my IP address though I am logged in. Wonder why that has happened. There was a virus worm.silly.gen which I managed to delete with help from my Antivirus provider. 117.195.65.173 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that isn't an accurate description of what is happening. (1)I am at this page. user talk:Zuggernaut, and not logged in. (2)I go click on login, and the login page is invoked. (3)Then I log in by writing my username and password. (4)After that I am logged in successfully and I can see my name and other menus that you see after one is logged in. (5)But the momment I click on Return to user talk:Zuggernaut, I get logget out. 117.195.65.173 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check this out. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thanks, but things are sorted out. The problem was a little silly. My system clock is malfunctioning, I have to set it right every time I put the pc on. Its date was out of date, which caused the error. Thanks nevertheless.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, good to see your problem sorted out. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zuggernaut. You have new messages at Talk:Famine in India/GA1.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A book you might be interested in

Perhaps you already know it, but I just skimmed a review of it in the New York Review of Books and thought about you. The book is titled Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II, by Madhusree Mukerjee, published August 2010. Here's its Amazon page. The review is online, as an excerpt, here. Subscribers can get the full text of the review, it appears, so if you were interested, I could probably do that for you. Anyway, just thought you might be interested. Cheers. Pfly (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I would love to read the entire article but only if you are already a subscriber and don't have to go out of the way to get it. That's because I've attempted to use reviews of this book from various other reviewers as a tertiary source per WP:RS but we couldn't form the required consensus. Take a look at the talk page of Famine in India (Churchill quote section) which is littered with references to this book. The Bengal famine of 1943 is another place where you will find this content added and removed by some of the same editors from British Empire. And the Famine in India article has a history of biased treatment towards authors with Indian sounding names so while the book itself may not be a usable source right away, it will certainly be cited on Wikipedia on the long term as Wikipedia demographics change over the years. I appreciate your generous offer very much and thank you for remembering me and again, if it is not too much of a bother and does not involve other copyright issues, then I'd love to read the review in full. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you have heard of this book and it is already used as a reference on WP? Interesting—it was only published a few months ago! I'm not sure I understand the issues you mention—the book is used as a reference ("littered with references" even) but "may not be a usable source". Forgive me for not taking the time to figure it out—not to be dismissive of the topic, but I have other priorities. I'm also a little confused whether you are talking about using the book as a source or book reviews, or both. Obviously a book would be a better reference than a review of a book, in general. Perhaps some editors have rejected the book's reliability and you are trying to establish its reliability by pointing to reviews. Whatever the case, and whether or not this book is reliable (the review seems to suggest the author has some degree of personal "agenda" and might sometimes overstate things or "force the pieces of her jigsaw into spaces where they don't easily fit", but also has many positive things to say about the book), the topic in general seems to me one deserving to be better known. I can imagine the difficulties—historical revisionism can easily cause a rift between defenders of the "old story" and those doing the "retelling". The defenders can sometimes too quickly reject criticism of their history while the retellers can sometimes overdo it, sacrificing rigor for drama, courtesy for crusading. Maybe there is not yet a strong source on this topic that rises above such things. I've seen people posting here about your behavior. I'm not involved in any of pages you work on (except a bit at British Empire and Ganges River, I think) and don't know what's going on (and don't really want to know!). But it seems like you are trying to do some historical revisionism that ought to be done. I hope you can rise above the pitfalls revisionists can so easily fall into. A lack of good sources that "rise above" would make it very difficult here on Wikipedia. Good luck! Pfly (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that occurs to me.. Another book reviewed in the same issue is about China's Great Leap Forward and the famines that resulted, killing something like 30-40 million or more. Within China the blame has long been minimized and the history marginalized, although from early on it was acknowledged to have been at least in part caused by "human error". Books published in The West have put the blame largely on the Chinese leadership, especially Mao. There's a new book out about the topic that the reviewer says it so well done it is now the best available, at least about the famines and how they were caused and played out. It pins it directly on Mao. The title makes it clear, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962. The reviewer makes an interesting point though. He says that awareness and interest in the topic among Chinese is growing but won't really be taken seriously until a Chinese scholar writes a book like this. As long as the author is from The West it is easier to dismiss. I imagine the same thing is true for "Churchill's famine". Madhusree Mukerjee is Indian and, if I remember right, lived through the famine. For better or worse, that will color the way people read it. What the topic really needs is a good book written by a Brit, just as China needs a Chinese author to write about Mao's famine. Pfly (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the review article. It is the most in-depth review of the book I've seen so far. As you point out, using the book itself as a source is the best option but since I didn't have access to this new book, I tried using other reviews of the book as tertiary sources per WP:Secondary. I abandoned the idea due to a lack of consensus. I like the way you describe retellers and defenders. The retellers do indulge in some sort of revisionism as the Madhushree Mukherjee might be doing. Famines in India between 1770 and 1947 (the years of British occupation) caused about 70 million deaths and the topic has always been a sensitive one. Plenty of scholars of the era have criticized the British government for inaction and policy failure precluding the need for outright and 'full-fledged' revisionism in 2011. The Indians are more rational and logical in their accusations by calling it "policy failure" and attributing it to ineptitude of some of the British decision makers. Try to compare that with the grievances of the Irish who have much worse to say of the British and The Great Irish Famine (death toll - 1 million) of the same era - they claim genocide and it's taught to children in the state of New Jersey as such. I was reading the same about famines in Africa under British rule - some claim that starvation was used as a tool aiding colonization. "Incremental revisionism" will keep on happening as more archives are opened up. I am completely against revisionism on Wikipedia itself and I am sure Wikipedia policies are designed to disallow such revisionism. My natural disposition is to stick to Wikipedia policies that I am aware of in letter and spirit. Regarding the Great Leap Famine, the Chinese have a long way to go before a Chinese author living in China comes up with a book criticizing a major personality of the Communist Party. I try not to think of authors and scholars in terms of their race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, etc. A true scholar is just a scholar and the ones with an agenda gradually fade away. Mukherjee could certainly have done with a better title but I was reading in one of the reviews that she didn't start off with that title in mind. She only chose it when she came across documents showing Churchill's racist hatred towards Indians and his desire to destroy India rather that let it go. It remains to be seen how much success her book can get but one thing is sure, thanks to this book, Indians will now think of Churchill as a racist. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an interest (and the time), feel free to check out Famine in India. I've nominated for a GA. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Pfly - The article provided below by Jonathansammy is another review of another book, coincidentally by a Briton criticizing Churchill on lines identical to Madhushree Mukherjee. Here's an excerpt from the review:

As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.

The review also has some interesting stuff of how Obama's grandfather was affected by Churchill's racism and links it to some of Obama's actions in the White House. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the article below and the book it is based on: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html http://www.amazon.com/Churchills-Empire-World-That-Made/dp/0805087958 Jonathansammy (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great article - thanks! I remember trying to use the "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." quote at the Famine in India article but could not form consensus. You will find many more books and reviews on it's talk page in the Churchill quote section. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point Zuggernaut? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really trying to make a point - just that articles such as Famine in India, Bengal famine of 1943, India and other relevant articles should use these sources. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Z we have a reliable source that attributes Churchill's attitude to the devastation in Bengal in the 40s, should have been used in Famine in India.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famines and OCAT

Hi, I noticed you added Category:Famines to a few articles already categorized in Category:Famines in India and Category:Famines in Ireland. Isn't that a case of WP:OCAT? By the way, if you're working on famine-related articles, then List of famines could use some help, especially with good referencing. Cheers, jonkerz 14:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that guideline. I will look in to it, perhaps create subcategories under famine and remove the categorization from the articles I categorized recently. I've been thinking of improving that list by creating several templates - just not sure if it should be by country or continent or something else. Thanks for alerting me, I appreciate it. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that the subcategories already exist. Makes it easier. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Famine in India

The article Famine in India you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Famine in India for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Standard Marathi debate

I was scanning through the debate on this topic at Talk:Maharashtra, and looking up the sources you have quoted. Among the sources, Nemade's book appears to be the most recent and comprehensive. I would like to read the text on pages 98-101 of the book to understand the context properly (c.f. all other sources that seem to be talking of standardization in context of the Molesworth's Marathi-English dictionary). Unfortunately the book doesn't seem to available online. Would it be possible for you to scan and email me the relevant pages ? Don't hesitate to say no if this is not convenient since I can get the book from my library instead (may take a week), and am just trying the lazyman's option first. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the discussion! It's gotten a little lengthy and may have been hard to navigate in some sections - sorry about that. There are actually two distinct dictionaries being referred to. I provided a source (Bloch) to bolster support for the Molesworth dictionary after User:Redtigerxyz raised doubts about it ("Some 1831 dictionary..."). Bloch also indicates that the dictionary is still current. The other dictionary is A Dictionary of the Maratha Language. Unfortunately, I am unable to scan and send you the pages but I have typed out relevant content from the book which you can find here.User:Zuggernaut I am using content from pages 101 and 139 only. The book is still worth getting from the library if you are interested in the topic. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion about Khandoba worship section is moved to Talk:Khandoba#Worship_section. Please leave your additional comments there. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for any compromise. Just vote that's all. Make your point that's all about vote.

There is no need to accept something that you don't believe in. It applies to all. So you make your point and vote for that point. Your saying is like Just because Hitler made others to bow before him, you have to bow before him as well because it's compromise. It's not my dear friend. Things can be anything. Especially in Wikipedia, everyone can make their point. There are things that you can compromise on, but not on values. That's a big no. So you just vote for what you feel deem fit. That's all and the result will determine what need to be kept on Wikipedia. That's victory for freedom. You are free to vote for any of the choice or make compromise or anything that you deem fit. And thanks for the suggestion as well. All the best.Bcs09 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!

Can you please help me out with this article-Ooty? I was editing the infobox when suddenly the whole article went out of shape. It's LIVE now! Please help--Suraj T 07:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your problem has already been solved. An easy way to take care of such situations is to simply undo your own changes. Good luck with the editing. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Could you take a look at this article, particularly at the edits of User: Profitoftruth85[14][15], which seem to be deliberately inserting bias (with misleading edit summaries) to an otherwise very stable and well-written lead[16]? Particularly problematic are his violations of WP:POINT and WP:RECENTISM in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extraroundtable (talkcontribs) 20:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I do not mean to say that you fall foul on the said guidelines, I just wished you introspect. Perhaps you have, since you are steering clear of a particular article.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Good to perform that check from time to time. Thanks for alerting, it was timely. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently nominated Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for peer review. I humbly request you to peer review the article. Your expertise in making Deshastha Brahmin a GA will greatly help this article. R.Sivanesh 15:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Sivanesh. I am a bit strapped for time right now so let us wait for a couple of weeks. If there are still no takers by then and I am able to give more time to Wikipedia, I will certainly take this up. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganges x Ganga

The dialect nature of Indian English has been attacked using the argument that your list of words in Indian English is simply Indian language words written in the Roman script. I too disagree with your argument that usage like Chal yaar lets forget the issue is Indian English. Such arguments could weaken the position. IE imo is Wren and Martin, and the Indian character gained English words like tiffin or corruption, Indian method of Romanisation, etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff refered to. Perhaps Ghee and curd are examples of IE.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed a new project to handle such issues. Please participate in that discussion to evaluate the viability of such a project. For details, take a look at the talk page of WP:IN. You may want to add WT:IN to your watchlist. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was away for a long time, March ending woes. Back now. What do you mean by such issues? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actual project was proposed at the project proposal council. You will find the details there. The main idea was to tackle nomenclature issues that are seen all over Wikipedia such as Ganges v. Ganga, Bangalore v. Bengaluru and the the one on fire right now - India v. South Asia (for articles relating to Indian history), people are calling for ban on me due to this one! There is opposition to the project and it makes sense to move the project proposal to a task-force proposal which I intend to do as soon as I have enough time. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the ban part. I put my support on the talk page as I agree with your proposal, though I am not so sure about the table. What is a task force proposal?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reported the game playing by Fowler & company at ANI, and instead of addressing that, the administrators SpacemanSpiff and RegentsPark turned the ANI against me to permanently ban me from editing Wikipedia for India related topics. A diff from the ANI is here. A task force is a team working under a project, the project WP:IN in this case. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in India

When you deleted reference to judaisim in the India lead you wrote, and I quote "Judaism did not arrive in India in the first millennium CE". What do you mean by that ? I are trying to say they came before the 1st millennium or after ? The following reference may be useful for getting the correct information back in the article if necessary: S Sharot - Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1974 - Cambridge Univ Press ... The Bene Israel claim that they are descendants from the ten lost tribes of Israel and that they reached India about 175 BC. The Cochin Jews claim that their ancestors came to India after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70.

Having provided the above information, personally, I don't think it is important to mention in the lead that tiny jewish communities have been in India for X -number of years. Just like the parsees, they are but a tiny percentage of Indian population. In my opinion, however, unlike, the Parsees, the jewish contribution to Indian life is not that significant.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That FA was carrying wrong information for many years - as you mention, Judaism arrived in India in the first millennium BCE not CE. The Bene Israel claims you mention have been proposed by me before but we were unable to form consensus to have them included in the article. In fact Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) even proposed that we mention that India is the only place in the world in the history of civilization where Jews have never been persecuted. However we were unable to get consensus on that. No points for guessing who opposed the proposals. :-) Zuggernaut (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School version

No talk pages - only articles. AshLin (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Restriction

Per consensus at the AN/I Discussion I have imposed the following editing restrictions on you:

1. You are topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia.
2. You are banned from interacting with or commenting about Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user.
3. You are subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been logged here and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.
4. You are banned from List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of South Asian inventions and discoveries due to inappropriate canvassing in relation to these 4 pages.

If you do not understand these restrictions please say so and I will try to explain them. Point #4 will be logged here under the probation detailed in point #3. These sanctions have been logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. In addition I'd like to pass on a suggestion from the AN/I thread that you seek mentorship to help with future editing. --Errant (chat!) 09:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]