Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:25, 9 November 2006

Welcome, Fowler&fowler!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Policies, guidelines, and rules (have fun, but watch out for these, as well!)
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial
• Writing well
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Misplaced Pages is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, riana_dzasta 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Dont you think your being way to picky and strange by saying if persisted could be vandalism? I mean yes I understand what your saying...But geez how was I supposed to know other people have covered it? Do I have to read everything before I make a comment?....There were others who talked about calling India the most populous so I read that part. But I dont remember seeing anyone say Russia & China were not Democratic (although again I dont think I read everything)

I can't believe I'm saying this (since a part of me sympathizes with your impatience), but you are supposed to read everything; otherwise, you end up repeating what others have already said, which in turn makes it harder for others to read everything, and so forth. BTW, most of that discussion was about whether China was undemocratic or not; and as you will see there, I was really arguing what you are saying. My reference to vandalism was not about being repetitive, but about inserting comments in the middle of a discussion. That is definitely very confusing and frustrating for other readers. Anyway, thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

India and Pakistan

I think it's ok to remove military info from both.However, I request that you put both articles in your watchlist and monitor them accordingly.Hkelkar 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done that. Thanks. Fowler&fowler 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good man!Hkelkar 22:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

India and Sati

Please read the article on Sati carefully.While the British enacted the first law against it, the ;aw was only restricted to Bengal presidency and hardly counts. It was only due to the lobbying of the Brahmo Samaj that Sati was outlawed all over British India (minus the princely states) and only thanks to their grassroots activity that the practice was phased out.21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Bengal Presidency hardly counts! The Bengal Presidency was all of North and Eastern India in those days (which is where most of the Suttee problem was); the other two presidencies Bombay and Calcutta were small by comparison (and had very little Suttee practice). See the map of the Bengal Presidency. You'll need a credible citation to claim that it was only through the efforts of RRR or Brahmo Samaj that the Suttee ban was passed. Fowler&fowler 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the refs below. It was only due to the efforts of RRR that Sati was banned throughout British India. The Bengal Presidency ban was a joke and was almost never put into action. Only RRR's lobbying efforts enforced the ban all over the colony and his grassroots campaigning that educated people enough not to break that law.Hkelkar 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sati

Please read http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/rajarammohunroy.html and:

History of Medieval India by Hukam Chand P461:

Hkelkar 06:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also read Social Structure of India by Ajit Kumar Sinha P234.Hkelkar 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the other references, but I did read your URL article. It doesn't make the case that Roy was instrumental, but rather that he was supportive. It attests to my use of "with the support of":

In 1829 Lord William Bentinck, Governor-General of India, after consulting with Roy, declared sati illegal. Roy assured him that this would not violate religious liberty because it was, in his estimation, an optional rite and not a true part of Hindu religion. Roy supported the government decision, briefed Bentinck on how to respond to pro-sati petitions, and wrote a tract, Abstract of the Arguments regarding the Burning of Widows Considered as a Religious Rite, 1830. In this he called sati "cruel murder, under the cloak of religion." His persuasive influence made the British ruling seem less coercive.(my bold face)

Bentick was influenced primarily by Bentham and Mill who were championing women's causes long before RRR appeared on the scene. Fowler&fowler 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The two refs that I have provided do not support the claim that RRR's campaign was substratum to British mandate but the other way around. to even suggest that Britishers in the 19th century gave a damn about the plight of Indian women is contrary to reality as they regarded all Indians as essentially subhuman.Hkelkar 06:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time. Bring up whatever you have to on the India talk page. Fowler&fowler 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise effort

I appreciate your efforts to compromise on India regarding the Sati issue. Regarding your interesting post to Dbachmann . If you believe that Indian patriotism poses some sort of systemic problem, I suggest you look at this and statements made by Chinese nationalists on Talk:Sino-Indian_War. You appear to have done some research on India related matters and do acknowledge that we are the only true and stable democracy in the region, a region with other countries run by whack-job Islamic Fundamentalists, military dictators and oppressive communist regimes. In such an atmosphere of hostility from countries who hate us for our freedom and democracy which we Indians have embraced from the western culture only and adapted to our own, I posit that Indian Nationalism is, at the very least, inherently pro-west and not anti-west (even the most hardline Hindu Nationalists praise democratic ideas and participate in the democratic process, whereas the Deobandis and Wahabis want to return to a medeival Khilafat of authoritarian society). In contrast Pakistani and Chinese Nationalism are rabidly anti-democracy and anti-west, thus posing a far greater danger to the civilized world than Indian nationalism. Hkelkar 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Just offerring you some food for thought, that's all.Hkelkar 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

it was you

So your an indian with hard control over this site User:Fowler&fowle.Well look here.One of my freinds was called a "pussy" and his comments "bullshit". Oh by the way,you speak of vandalism,I just created a new article on the bottom of the page,you deleted it.

Im not in the mood for your games.If you do block my I will file a complaint of your user: Fowler&fowler.

You dont own the site.