Talk:British Raj/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about British Raj. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Indian Empire

The redirect Indian Empire has redirected to this page for a long time. Recently it was redirected to Maurya Empire. I have reverted that edit and suggest that those interested in this page, decide where it should redirect or if it should become a dab page See talk:Indian Empire. If the parties can not agree on what the majority of reliable sources mean when they say "Indian Empire" I suggest an RfC. -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorted - I don't think anyone should have a problem with this - if there are reverts - I guess RfC might be the route to take. In my opinion this works best because -

1. Anyone looking for Mauryan Empire will find it

2. Anyone looking for British Raj will find it

I however will not be surprised if a few more are added - Mughal Empire for starters. If you say "Indian Empire" to an Indian he would automatically assume it would be either the Asoka Empire or the Mughal Empire. Conversely, "Indian Empire" for a Brit would automatically mean the Raj. I hope this is fine. TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it for two reasons. First you should raise the issue here and discuss it first to see if there is a consensus. But this is not a major issue as anyone could revert your bold edit (if they object). The second reason and the more pertinent,there are more than 30 articles that link to Indian Empire, those need altering to direct links to the appropriate article (this one in most cases) before a dab page is created. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't think a dab page is appropriate here. The term 'Indian Empire' is used exclusively for the British Indian Empire. One could say "the Indian Maurya Empire" or "the Maurya Empire of India", but, the 'India' and the 'Indian' in both those cases is not a part of the term itself. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been various empires in India over time, so Indian Empire should go to a disambiguation page. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While there have been many 'empires in India' over the centuries, the term 'Indian Empire' appears to refer exclusively to the British Indian Empire. "Empires in India' could be a dab page (though it is an unlikely search term so even that would not work) but anyone looking for information on 'Indian Empire' is almost certainly looking for the Raj. Creating a dab page for the term Indian Empire is tantamount to saying that Maurya Empire and Indian Empire are interchangeable terms, which is not supported by sources. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple: please produce some reliable sources that refer to the Maurya empire as "Indian empire." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Education and aftermath sections

Please don't add random content. This is an old and well-developed article. Content can be added but it needs to be weighed and integrated with the rest of the article. Just because you can find a random quote here or there in what would normally be a reliable source, doesn't mean that you can introduce it here. Please read WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The content I added today is basically the same as the following from the "Indian Rebellion of 1857" article:

As a result, the end of the war was followed by the execution of a vast majority of combatants from the Indian side as well as large numbers of civilians perceived to be sympathetic to the rebel cause.

Except that I sourced my point, and I removed the weasel words from it. Eraserhead1 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right that I should have included the content I added before in "Education in India's" history section, and that has now been done. Eraserhead1 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Thinking about it some more I don't really see how its adding "undue weight" to the piece to add a single sentence pointing out that we did actually retaliate for the 1857 rebellion, when there is a whole subsection on that in the "detailed" Wikipedia article and there are two large paragraphs covering the rest of the content. I also don't really see how the Education in India article is the "mother article" for the Education section when there is virtually no content on education policy in the British Raj on that article (though it is definitely useful to have a summary of the effectiveness of British Education policy on that article too). Also I don't really see how adding an Education section to this article is "controversial" or "adding undue weight" when there is a large section on Education in the Company Rule in India article. Really by that measure Education is largely under-represented in this article. Eraserhead1 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My advice to you is to have an open mind, to not start out by being convinced that these pages are biased. In order to do that, you will need to read a number of sources objectively (and not just those parts that you might think would be appropriate for proving bias). These things take time. You say that you didn't read about the Empire in your studies. Well, the natural approach to remedying that is to pick up some of the textbooks in the references section and read them. Otherwise, you will end up adding random and biased content. You'll waste a lot of time, yours and everyone else's. And you'll make yourself vulnerable and then likely make the wrong conclusions about Wikipedia. Your edits as of now are nowhere near being quality edits and will likely be reversed whether you (perfunctorily) meet the formal guidelines or not. All the best. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't actually answered any of my points... Eraserhead1 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have. I am suggesting that you haven't digested the material, and you don't have perspective. You are consequently making yourself vulnerable. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets talk about Education first. How does adding a couple of statistical points on literacy and numbers in education require a vast knowledge of this subject? Unless you are trying to claim that measuring literacy and numbers in education aren't valid measures of education level. Given with the UN uses literacy and school enrolment (which is admittedly a slightly different statistical measure than the schooling measure I gave) to calculate the Human Development index (source) you're going to have a difficult time showing that. Eraserhead1 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in a summary article, we should confine ourselves to adding reasonably definitive claims that are well supported by the literature. If it is reasonable to include a section on Education, it should be along the lines of "The British Indian government actively worked towards improving literacy in India <ref1> <ref2>. They did this <ref1> <ref2> and they did that <ref3> <ref4> and, as a result, literacy in India improved from x to y between year1 and year2. All these statements should be well supported in the literature. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So what I want to add is fine then as that's what it says. Obviously some more detail would be good but its a good start on those lines... Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And that is done. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just read your additions and don't think they are well supported. For one thing, there is really only one reference used (Ferguson) rather than the several references one would expect for something that is well established (for example, if the Raj did 'follow on' the education policies of the company and 'improve' education, then that should be well established, well supported by multiple references, and should not need to quote statistics from an Indian government web site as support. What you need is a series of well established references, and that is missing. I'm going to revert your addition pending more reliable sources. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just been taking a glance of the Wikipedia rules - specifically WP:DR, WP:OWN, WP:Faith and ~~WP:Game~~ WP:GAME. Fowler do you have a good argument for reverting this change? Accusations of bias because I haven't read lots of books on the subject isn't being fair (specifically see the sixth example on ~~WP:Game~~ WP:GAME and the first comment from WP:Own). Following this I'm going to re-add the Education section in a couple of days if no further arguments have been made. Assuming no further arguments are made to keep this section out of this article by all means add further content to the education section - results aren't the only thing worth including in the section! Eraserhead1 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indian rebellion of 1857 summarisation doesn't cover the aftermath of the event

I attempted to add a brief summarisation of the aftermath of the 1857 rebellion section to this article. This section should to be included in the summary as the current summary is written like a discussion of the world financial crisis that ends on 1st September 2008.

However I don't think enough material was included in my initial draft of the summary (which I've included below) and at least a few sentences need to be written on other details about the Aftermath including the reaction in Britain - the bit on the reorganisation is included in a separate section in this article. The reason I only mentioned the people killed as that is generally a key fact with these things, and the sources I have access to don't appear cover the reaction in Britain well. Can we add further content for this here first and then add it to the article when its ready? Eraserhead1 (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

After the rebellion had failed the British enacted revenge on the Indians, especially in Delhi and Lucknow and a large, but unknown number of Indians were killed.^{Ferguson 2003, p. 152 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFerguson2003 (help)}

Moving history section to the top

Shouldn't the History section be at the top of this article? Or at the very least not right at the bottom. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Both Company rule in India and British Raj are ultimately about history. The difference is in how the history is divided. In Company rule in India it is divided thematically; in British Raj it is divided chronologically. The reason for the latter (in my memory of it) is that there are simply too many themes. Here are some: Central Government, Administrative Division, Native States, Foreign Relations, Legislation and Justice, Finance and Land Revenue, Local and Municipal Government, Army, Police and Jails, Education, Religions, Languages/Ethnicity, Population, Public Health and Vital Statistics, Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Arts and Manufactures, Commerce and Trade, Irrigation and Navigation, Railways and Roads, Posts and Telegraphs, Rents Prices and Wages, and Famines. The list of themes soon becomes forbidding, as most of the present-day political, administrative, and economic framework of the subcontinent was being created then. (And the burgeoning censuses and surveys, for the first time, were creating modern forms of data.) The standard chronological account of most history books was therefore preferred in the British Raj article. Some of the basic chapters (such as Geographical and Administrative Divisions), however, had to come first, since the history wouldn't make much sense if people didn't know what "British India" meant, or for that matter, "Princely States." That is the reason for the current order in the table of contents. The chapter "Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health" really shouldn't be there and be integrated in the respective chronological periods, but it was introduced at a time of heated ideological debate (someone came along and accused the page of whitewashing the crimes of the British etc. by not mentioning the famines), and we let it remain. I created most of the individual famine articles (see Timeline of major famines in India during British rule), but the main article Famines, epidemics, and public health in the British Raj has remained a stub. Also, the "Company rule" and "Indian rebellion" sections shouldn't be there either, except as a compressed background paragraph to the history of the Raj.

The British Raj is a complicated article to write. It covers 90 years—longer by half, chronologically, than the present-day Republic of India. I don't have any problems with changing the structure, but until there is enough text for a proper new section, I don't see much point in creating one. In other words, if we are adding a few lines, or even a paragraph, and it has been vetted for comprehensiveness and balance, we might be better off adding it to the respective time periods in the history section. Perhaps the section headings in the history sections could be chronological (instead of descriptive/thematic), i.e. 1858–1876, 1877–1892, etc., but these headings create other problems .... people might object to those divisions or they might find them all too anonymous. Maybe, we should remove the history section heading and promote its subsections to proper sections ... Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I should note that the featured article, British Empire is a more or less straightforward chronological account; East India Company (former featured article) too has a loose chronological narrative, though its sections are labeled more thematically. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the stuff that precedes the Raj: Company rule and the mutiny, should be much shorter and should focus mainly on the transition from company rule to British rule through the company and then to the importance of the mutiny in getting rid of the company. The rest of the stuff in the history section should then be taken out of history and placed in their own sections. Also, and this is tangential, I am beginning to wonder about the structure of our articles on the British era, namely the discretization (into company rule and the raj) of what was essentially a continuous process of British rule in India. Perhaps that's what makes it hard to talk about the legacy of British rule (whether in education, infrastructure, famines, nationalist identities, etc.) because we are imposing a purely political dimension (the authority that ruled India) on a continuous social construct (British rule in India). Just a thought that this may be one reason why we keep wrestling with legacy issues on all these pages.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

EDUCATION

The education section states that 20% of India was literate by 1947 but it was only 3.5% in 1941? I found that a bit tough to swallow. I think the numbers are wrong. Wiki's Literacy in India states that it was 12% at independence. Can someone like Regent or Fowler throw light on this? Thanks TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

side bar is missing the Maratha rule

in the sidebar on the left side of the dates '1858–1947' there has to be a link to the Maratha rule/confederacy or whatever page there is. Right now there is only Mughal rule and company rule. You are leaving out the whole south West. I don't know how to add it so just writing it here. Kaveri (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Didnt Maratha Empire end around 1820 after the third anglo maratha war?. Since the left side bar only mentions the immediate predecessor states that existed before the Raj. I believe it is fair enough to leave out Maratha Empire as it was not a central power/confederacy in 1858.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the side bar should have Maratha Empire mentioned because of the following reasons- 1.The Mughal state was defeated and destroyed by the Marathas in the 1700s.What remained was a vassal entity under the Maratha control and constantly under Jat attacks. 2.The Maratha Empire was routed in 1820 but numerous Maratha states viz.Gwalior,Varoda,Indore survived through the British rule into the independence era.These states merged into the Union of India in 1947.In contrast the Mughal state ,even as a ceremonial entity ended in 1858. Skylark2008 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[Skylark2008]

Query as to name of British Raj Culture

HI folks, I am trying to find the sociological term I once heard during lecture to describe the nature of bureaucacy in India during the period of the British Raj. It was something like "hadyamaki" or something similar. Does anyone have a hint of an idea on this? 203.206.15.98 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Terry In Perth

I have posted your query at the reference desk. Someone there might be able to answer it. Please follow this up there.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi , please don't use hindi words to denote the things related to whole India in the english version, use the english words . Instead of using "raj" we may use "rule" that we could understand better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.77.12 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, per WP:COMMONNAME we use the term that is most commonly used in english to name the articles. "British rule" is a generic term and could be applied to any of the other british colonies. The word "raj" here has been borrowed by english--Sodabottle (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Indian English

I'm adding back the {{Indian English}} template removed by User:Pahari Sahib because there are numerous terms the article uses which are not a part of British or any other version of English. An example is the title itself - 'Raj' is an Indian English word. Please discuss here if you have concerns. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Zug, I assume you deleted the talk entry in error. British english contains many Indian and for that matter many other foreign words. The example you made of 'Raj' is a case in point. Raj is contained in both my Collins as Pocket Oxford dictionary. Outofsinc (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

With Presidencies and provinces of British India ? I ask because the redirect for "British India" goes there, not here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

change the redirect to here. This article is already very big (way beyond the recommended 100k limit). A merger will bloat it even more--Sodabottle (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've no idea how to change redirect tho... -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't redirect just as yet. British India is used in Infoboxes and as bio links for place of birth/death etc, and that is best served by a target to Presidencies and provinces of British India as it best explains the distinctions between the different sub-territories, not this article. If a retarget is necessary, a suitable alternative ought to be found for that and all articles updated. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also fair enough. But its a shame that people searching for "British India" miss this comprehensive article. Maybe a universal solution is to redirect "British India" to a disambig list, from which people have a choice of going to either British Raj or Presidencies and provinces of British India? -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. That redirect came about, if I remember correctly, at the end of a long discussion about technical terms and pov battles involving a now-banned sock farm. The proposed disamb page is a good way of bringing back reason. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I see that Spiff has already gone and added a hatnote. Works. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC))

(edit conflict)That would cause the same problem as it would send ppl to a dab instead of the geo-political structure article. I've modified the hatnote at Presidencies and provinces of British India to provide a link here if someone is looking for the history of the empire. Feel free to modify it. I think it's a reasonable solution for now, but if any changes are necessary, we'll need to think of the numerous links to fix. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a rename (and am unaware of the history), but there are over 4000 inbound links to that title and a cursory glance at some of them show that they do go there by intent, so any rename should take into account that links need fixing and shouldn't go to a dab or this page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I still think it would be more helpful if a Wikipedia search for "British India" would take users to WP: British India (disambiguation) rather than to WP: Presidencies and provinces of British India with a hatnote. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Provinces templates

User:SpacemanSpiff undid my addition of templates to this article. The reason cited for the undoing in the edit summary is that the content "belongs in the body of the article, not as a template". Editors/readers are requested to comment on which version they prefer:

Table version [1]
Template version [2]

Zuggernaut (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not enough participation in this discussion. I will setup an RFC. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was the consensus of the RfC was not to use the two tables -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I converted two tables of the provinces of British India in 1907 to templates. The templates can replace tables in at least two known articles. Neutral editors are invited to provide support or oppose the use of these templates with a brief reason explaining their position.
* Table version of the British Raj article
*Template version of the British Raj article Zuggernaut (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:Presidencies_and_provinces_of_British_India#Use_of_templates_for_major_and_minor_provinces where the same template is being discussed for another article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This is article content, and belongs within the article with local editorial oversight. It is impossible to assess any changes made to the template when it doesn't show up in revision histories for the article. It's not an improvement technically either. This is a completely unnecessary template that adds no value, rather distracting from the ability to maintain the article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff - this data already appears in two articles and it has the potential to be used in other Indo-British articles. "Editorial oversight" can easily be maintained by simply adding the templates to your watchlist. The template adds significant value to Wikipedia just by the ability of transclusion. There are several other improvements like presenting data in metric and imperial units, reduction of article size (making it easy to edit), etc. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Second Spaceman. Zuggernaut, what's with all these multiple RfCs? See also my justification for the oppose in detail on the Talk: Presidencies and provinces of British India page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
~~Support~~ It looks better with template than with tables. Reduces size of article (easier to edit). Can be used in other articles. Easy to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.31.117 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - Curious as to whether there are policies relating to when to use templates versus tables. If I see any, I'd defer to those; however, as it stands, Fowler seems to make the more convincing argument. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per spiff and fowler above and elsewhere. --rgpk (comment) 21:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editors

Oppose For the reasons listed above, especially as the edits are shown in the revision history. Aesthetics are not as important as equitable oversight. Ampersandestet (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ampersandestet - May I request you to please provide a diff or diffs when you say "For the reasons listed above, especially as the edits are shown in the revision history". Zuggernaut (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, I would think that what I said is entirely clear. However, I will be kind and reiterate what has already been said, but I feel as if the point has been made and at this point you are taking far too aggressive ownership of this template and the need for its inclusion. It makes little to no sense not not only watch the article but to also watch the templates in order to keep editorial oversight. While there are slight improvements, as you stated, I again will state that aesthetic value does not warrant this change. As a neutral viewer in this, you raise the arguments that the template is smaller in size and includes metric and imperial units. While I do agree that the inclusion of metric units is a positive and should be investigated in the tables, the fact is that the table is article content. As such, there should be no differentiation between materials and information, nor should that information be collapsible or to the side. This even is withstanding the other discussions about the naming convention which you hold onto, as well as your contribution history to the article, which was raised in the other RFC you started, but we shall stick to content. There is no need to change the tables, and as such I strongly oppose this change. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

IF you re-read the entire discussion closely, you will find that the 'name convention' issue has been addressed a while back and that the aesthetics argument was actually made in favor of the tables, not the templates. Please point me to a policy that discusses 'article content' v. templates. Without such a guideline or policy, the argument that 'this is article content' is really weak, not to mention juvenile. Regarding a lack of my edit history - both articles British Raj and the Presidencies and provinces one have been on my watchlist from the time I first edited British raj in 2010, many months back. So that's a weak argument as well, if it is a valid argument at all. Let me repeat the advantages of using the templates:

Size

With templates - 137,516 bytes

Without templates - 140,245 bytes

Units Both metric and imperial units provided

Footnotes Better organization of content by the use of footnotes

Re-use The templates are already used in two articles, there is scope for using them in many more articles dealing with Indo-British history.

Transclusion When other editors improve the templates (no I am not the owner of the templates and I would encourage editors to edit and improve them), the improvements show up in all articles using the templates automatically.

I have been flexible and

Changed the name of the templates (to the ones preferred by Fowler)
Changed the template titles (to the ones preferred by Fowler)
Made the template expanded (not collapsible) as demanded by Fowler
Eliminated a problem with asthetics (letters touching table border (by using class infobox instead of class wikitable)
Provided an explanation for the lack of my edit history (if that is relevant at all)

IMO all the reasons for not using the templates have been eliminated and I would urge you and everyone else here to change their position and support the use of these templates.Zuggernaut (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not change my position on this, nor is it a point of consideration. You are being quite uncivil and you are attempting to lobby at this point. While you raise a few points of interest, they are nearly lost the moment you stated my point is juvenile-- as a general point you did, after all, request these multiple RFCs, and you have received it. Simply because you do not agree with my concerns does not make them any less valid or any more juvenile, nor does it give you the grounds to change the level of discussion, but I digress. My main concern is the lack of oversight on editing when viewing the history for the main page-- it should not require an additional step in order to maintain the veracity of an article. Is there a policy on this matter ? No. Regardless, that does not change the point that this is a concern, not a matter of policy guidelines. You raised a point that this template is used on other pages, but that argument does not stand. While you have done a good job of appeasing the requests of Fowler, all of which were valid, it does not change my concern on oversight. I have not contributed to this article save for this discussion, and you are correct-- my calling you out on your editing history was perhaps a bit asinine and I do apologise for that. However, that does not change the fact that you are being far too aggressive in this matter at this point, and I will neither engage in further discussion with you on this matter nor will I reconsider my position until you can approach it in a far more diplomatic, civil means. Thank you. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have been uncivil. I try calling a spade - it appeared that you did not read the RFC discussion properly. Yet you went on to take a support/oppose position and this probably made me call it juvenile. However I should not have called the argument 'juvenile'. I apologize for doing so. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I totally sympathize with Zuggernaut's point that this Template is already used on two articles and will probably be used on other articles in the future, so it makes more sense to have a template that can be edited once, rather than having to make a ton of edits to multiple pages. That's especially so because at present the info is pretty vague (rounded to the nearest 1000), and not available in metric. That said, it seems to me that, as a general rule, Templates are best when they come at the end of an article - as a general rule, I think people regard tables as part of an article and Templates as an article supplement, so if something is important enough to be included in an article, it should be in the form of a table, not a template. Granted, so far as I know, there is no policy on this, so others may disagree. But my inclination is to keep (and improve) the table, and add the template to the end of articles where that's warranted. Adam sk (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very poor and non-npov article

I have seen some poor wiki articles in my time but this one takes the biscuit, what sort of revisionist wrote this nonsense? The article is meant to be about the British Raj not about Indian Independence, it reads very npov, makes no mention of the contribution Great Britain made to the global powerhouse that is India today, in fact if anything the piece goes out of it's way to create an extremely negative pov denying geopolitical, economic and historical fact. We need a 'legacy' section, as well without doubt. Twobells (talk)

The article is still under construction. Please read my reply to the IP in the section above. Legacy is usually added when all the other sections are in place. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough's enough rather than get better it has got poorer and even more involved in Indian Independence, clean up time.Twobells (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please support Fowler&fowler

I am not a wiki editor, nor much of a contributor (although years back I did add a few touches to certain articles which still remain)but around 2008 I came across Wiki's BRITISH RAJ article (hard not to when it's at the top of Google). The article was SHOCKING. It told us things like "the British ruled India for about 250 years" (so they ruled with Aurangzeb did they?) and that in the first half of the 18th century the East India Company ruled "vast territories in India" (when in fact they just rented a couple of square miles in total) - basically it was all rubbish. Half the article was about the resistance struggle, which isn't the British Raj, and we read that patriots "achieved the impossible" and other non-encyclopaedic cringe-worthy wonders. What was left didn't even mention the words "railway" or a dozen other important things, but instead was just an anti-British rant, repleat with broken English and repetition. It was beyond bad. I complained loudly at the time on this talk page about the horrific state of the article and was accused of peddling pro-imperialist propaganda! Or I would simply have my posts deleted (which has also happened here in the last 24 hours in fact in a reply I made above). Fowler&fowler (and perhaps some others)turned the article from a joke into a neat, tidy, neutral and academically sound piece of work - I think serious editors, even if they don't agree with his style, should be really grateful to him. A few months back I paid a visit, and started seeing that old problems were starting to return here, namely that the article was turning into an Indian Independence Struggle page, which is about 99% off-topic, and that items that did not adhere to a nationalist and anti-British outlook were deleted. I don't think that this page should be (or ever has been) pro-British, but the edits were starting to look like Soviet style censorship. Without action, in six months this page would have reverted to its former benighted state. So like I say, please just let Fowler&fowler do what he has to do in order to uphold Wiki's good name. Also (and here's the controversial part) - I feel that any editors who had a part in the former 2007/2008 article should not be allowed to edit this page either. 121.217.132.217 (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC) TB

I would just like to point out that an article should not look like an exercise in glorification. Secondary sources, however inconvenient, should not be excluded. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction between articles

This article says that the Princely States are not part of British India. This article section and this map, however, list some of the Princely States as part of British India (under the suzerainty of a presidency or province).ZFT (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The princely states were not a part of "British India", so this article is correct. I can see what you mean about the article you mentioned; its choice of wording could be improved upon.

The British method of dealing with the Indian states varied by their relative importance. The major states dealt directly with the Government of India, i.e. with the central British authority in India. Most states weren't considered to be as important, though, so they were dealt with through a neighbouring provincial government; the states weren't part of those provinces, however, they were merely associated with them (i.e. took their instructions from them).

Some of the states were grouped together by the British into "agencies", which were again associated either with the central government or with a neighbouring provincial government. But these states/agencies were also not part of any province, just associated with one.

Hope this explains things a little! If I can figure out a way of improving the wording of some of these articles, I shall. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Andrew Gwilliam, except that I should go less far than to say of the native states and the provinces "they... took their instructions from them". Most states were reduced to taking some instructions, but depending on their particular subsidiary alliances in most internal matters most states did have the option of saying 'No', if they could live with the consequences. The Residents were diplomats rather than administrators, but diplomats with powerful gunboat diplomacy at their backs. Of course, there are anomalies such as Berar.

While I am here, I have a few points:

I feel this page goes too far towards treating "British Raj" as a country you could mark on a map, another name for "India" or "Indian Empire". Does anyone have a firm definition of "British Raj"? I have been thinking about whether "India under the British Raj" would be better, but the page seems to cover the whole of India and beyond, and Raj ("rule") hardly applies to (say) Hyderabad, Gwalior, or Mysore.

In the lead, "period of British colonial rule" is not quite right. After 1858 the provinces were colonies in all but name, but even the most subservient of the states were not. And "the dominion itself" is straying from the meaning of "dominion", which India (called here "British Raj") was not until most of it became two dominions in 1947. Moonraker (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the archives for similar discussions before. The Raj issued passports (for residents of British India and the Native States alike), which had "British Indian Empire" stamped on them. No native ruler, for example, could go abroad, unless he or she had one of these passports. Gandhi, for instance, who grew up in a Native State, had to have a British Indian Empire passport to go to England, and later to South Africa. On the other hand, no papers were needed for travelling between a native state and British India. The Raj had foreign relations with countries of the near east. The Raj as "India" was a member of the League of Nations, a founding member of the UN, and a participatory member in many Olympics (from 1912 onwards?). "British colonial rule" is commonly used to characterize India during that period. Dominion here does not mean "Dominion" (as in Canada, Australia, etc) but the common English word. Sorry, I'm in a rush, but we really have had all these questions before. Please read the archives. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

And now I agree with Moonraker! The article has been on my mental "to do" list since I started editing here a couple of months or so ago. Both the name and the content present problems.

Firstly, there's the question of our division of articles between Company and Crown rule. It seems a bit odd that the entirety of British (or even English and British) rule in "India" should not have an overarching article.

Secondly, this article does seem confused as to whether it's about a period or a place. If this article is about British rule in "India" from 1858 to 1947, then the lede needs to be completely rewritten and that infobox needs to come out. On the other hand, if it's about the "Indian Empire", then let's move the article there; the name may be anachronistic for the first twenty years of Crown rule, but that's hardly a major problem (cf. "Republic of Ireland"). Possibly "British Indian Empire" would be preferred, so as to explicitly state the British involvement.

If this article is not about a place, then "British rule in India" might be better than "British Raj" in some respects, but it creates a new problem while fixing others, due to the ambiguity of "India". But the obvious alternative, "British rule in South Asia", gets us tangled up with Ceylon and post-1937 Burma!

Regarding the narrower point about terminology. I have a particular bugbear about the misuse of terms such as "colony" in a British context; but I don't think that "colonial" is really a problem. The latter term doesn't have a formal definition to be confused with, and even contemporary official language used the term; the Colonial Office dealt with the African protectorates (albeit not initially) in addition to the "colonies" in the technical sense; the Colonial Development Act 1929 (to pick an example at random) dealt with "territories" as well as "colonies"; and of course it's the obvious word to use in non-technical discourse. However, I think that "dominion" in the lede has got in there by someone misunderstanding the use of the word in the source cited in the second reference; it's a simple fix, so I've got rid of it now.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Responding to Fowler&fowler:

I think you've missed Moonraker's real point, but I'll leave that to him/her. But regarding "dominion", it's a dangerous term because it's ambiguous, and it was explicitly linked to the article about Australia, Canada, et al. We have enough problems with people using the phrase "British India" in articles without adding to the confusion!

Andrew Gwilliam (talk).

I use to watch the lead like a hawk, but, sadly, don't any more. I hadn't realized so many changes had been made in the lead. Yes, it is about Crown rule. All history books (and most encyclopedias) divide British rule into Company rule and Crown rule, so I don't think we really have much choice there (and we've had a number of RfC's before). We've talked about having a overarching article "Colonial India" or "British Rule in India," but there is powerful injunction in Wikipedia ("content forks") against it, and so it was decided to first develop both Company rule and Crown rule to GA and FA status, and then worry about the overarching article. I've been trying to attempt the latter task, but keep getting distracted. I think the Company rule article is almost ready (the social reform section needs to be expanded and a few other things). Btw, the OED has modeled a portion of their definition of the Raj (on-line version) from our lead, just as we have modeled some of ours from them. I've restored the stable versions of the lead and the infobox.

PS Yes, the infobox has managed to turn the Raj into a modern-day country with heads of states and national anthems ... If I had my druthers, I'd get rid of the infobox entirely. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes in the lead, especially unlinking dominion. Fowler&fowler says "The Raj issued passports... which had "British Indian Empire" stamped on them", but I should just say "The British Indian Empire issued passports". As there was no authority called "The Raj", to my mind talking of one makes a complex period of Indian history even more obscure for those coming to it anew. I certainly agree that the British Indian Empire was the passport authority "for residents of British India and the Native States alike". Whether the issuing of passports was a function of a "political union" is rather more complicated. In the external relations of the states, the Crown had complete authority, and the issuing of passports resulted from that. For those who want to know what the British Indian Empire was, that link redirects here, and I find that odd - if British Raj wasn't a country or a passport-issuing authority, are the two not quite different? Moonraker (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not find "The Raj issued passports" use here any stranger than writing the "British Government issues passports for the UK", that is not technically correct but perfectly understandable (in the case of Britain more so that using the precise definition). -- PBS (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Irene (the so-called hurricane) has messed up my internet connection, so I'm using my cell phone. Please take a look at British Indian passport. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting article. I notice that Jinnah, who was both born and domiciled in a British province, is said in his passport to be a British subject. I wonder what was said of a passport-holder connected only with a native state? J. M. Jones's British nationality law and practice (1947) says "Many persons are nationals of states which do not possess a written nationality law, e.g. the Indian native states..." (p. 182) and "the protectorates, mandated territories, protected states, and Indian native states are regarded as foreign territory" (p. 296). I imagine the passport needed to say "Subject of the Nizam of Hyderabad", or whatever? Moonraker (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Gwilliam, the individual articles for the states that comprised the Madras presidency (for example), all describe them as princely states.50.103.241.71 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us to the articles you mean, 50.103.241.71, so that we can check them? Madras annexed Mysore in 1831 and Thanjavur in 1855, the latter on the doctrine of lapse, but Mysore was later allowed to go back to being a native state outside direct British rule. Generally there's a clear line between what was British territory and what wasn't (that is, the princely states and the French and Portuguese possessions), at any particular moment, because there were stark differences. The main anomaly I'm aware of is Berar, which was simultaneously part of a province and part of a native state, held by the British in trust and later under a leasing arrangement. Moonraker (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Side bar should mention Maratha confederacy

I think the side bar should have Maratha Empire mentioned because of the following reasons- 1.The Mughal state was defeated and destroyed by the Marathas in the 1700s. What remained was a vassal entity under the Maratha control and constantly under Jat attacks. 2.The Maratha Empire was routed in 1820 by the British East India Company but numerous Maratha states viz. Gwalior, Varoda, Indore etc. survived through the British rule into the independence era. These states merged into the Union of India in 1947. In contrast the Mughal state, even as a ceremonial entity ended in 1858. An alternative might be to remove the mention of all states whatsoever and mention that the preceding age had a multitude of Indian states. Whatever, it is outright erroneous to put the Mughal empire as a preceding state. The revolt itself had mostly Rajput and Ahir kings involved.A section of the revolting sepoys had declared the puppet Mughal emperor as a king in the Ganga-Jamuna valley area. Even there,the claim was contested by the likes of Nana Saheb. Skylark2008 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[Skylark2008]

I broadly disagree, although I find the subject of the page so confused that I am not surprised by Skylark2008's suggestion. If as stated in the infobox this page is about "Crown Rule or Direct Rule" in India (I am not sure it is) then the Maratha Empire is not part of the subject, any more than the multiplicity of native states are. If we were to "remove the mention of all states whatsoever" then there would be no distinction between this page and the British Provinces, which have their own article. In many ways this page is plainly about the whole of the Indian Empire created by the British, and not about the areas ruled by the Crown, and in that sense it is not completely erroneous to see the Mughal empire as a preceding state, but the British and the Mughals co-existed in India for so long that one did not succeed the other. Moonraker (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "British Raj"

This query follows on from a note by Fowler&fowler on my talk page, in which he says "British Raj... is the name of the country as well as the rule". I thought we had agreed that "British Raj" is not a country? Fowler&fowler also says "As you know, it is not the same thing as British India, which was only one part of the Raj", and I broadly agree with that if "British Raj" is standing proxy here for the British influence over the Indian Empire when it was the whole of India except for the small French and Portuguese parts, but can we please clarify what meaning this page is giving to "British Raj"? Moonraker (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A good question. I think we've had inconclusive discussions on this before. My understanding is that "British Raj" is the common name for India and related territories (e.g., British Burmese territories until 1937), including territories directly under British rule as well as those that were ruled indirectly (the princely states). Officially, of course, the entire nation, princely states and all, was India. That said, I'm curious as to why this question is coming up now (some context would be helpful). --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I raised it because of the note left on my talk page. Moonraker (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think we should replace this "British Raj" business altogether. The term repeatedly causes confusion. I would understand the term to refer to a concept or a period, and not to a state.

Obviously the contemporary term "India" is of no use. And we can't use "British India" for reasons which I needn't explain. But why don't we simply call both the article and the country "Indian Empire"? The term was in contemporary use for most of the period in question, will be understood by anyone who readily understands the distinction between "British India" and "India" (as used in the wider sense), and is unambiguously about a "place". I see "Indian Empire" already redirects here, so it's just a case of flipping the two around.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

(To RegentsPark)I explained to Moonraker (somewhere upstairs) that the titles of the Wikipedia pages have followed the historiographical consensus in using "Company rule" and "Crown rule" for the British rule in India (1765 to 1947), but by replacing "Crown rule" with "British Raj." The latter too has a long and respectable tradition of scholarly use. Every now and then some editor turns up here and wants to change the page name, usually to "British India." Philip Baird Shearer, who has overseen this article longer than I have, will recall better than I the number and types of RfCs and page name changes we have had. I have already provided references ad infinitum, -nauseam, and -maiorem wiki gloriam. Moonraker should read the archives. Or try a page move. In which I'll get pissed and dredge up even more sources. Those are the only two options. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PS (To Andrew Gwilliam} The Indian Empire move too has been tried. The problem with that name is that very few (almost no) historians use the name. As I've also said upstairs, the name always had detractors. Gladstone made fun of the name when Disraeli managed to finagle it for Victoria (and so did Punch in this cartoon]). It would never have happened under Gladstone's watch. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PPS I should add that I myself favored Crown rule in India as counterpoise to Company rule in India, and as you can see, the first link redirects. I think I may have even attempted a page move or at least discussed it here, but the "British Raj" title has been around for some 10 years. Age does have some clout when it comes to Wiki page names. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the status quo?!

Looking through the archives here, it seems that discussion of the article's name has almost entirely revolved around a suggested move to "British India". Clearly such a move would be outright wrong. But that still leaves us with the problem that while "British Raj" does seem to get usage as a name for the territories under the authority of the Governor-General in Council, it's also used as the name for a period (see the article lede at "History of the British Raj" by way of example). In other words, the term is ambiguous, and thus we keep having people here and elsewhere changing terms back and forth, and I don't see how that will change so long as that ambiguity remains. That's why I think "Indian Empire" is better; it's clearly about a country. Alternatively, and I say this through slightly gritted teeth, we could have it at "British Indian Empire".

As for usage by historians, surely they most commonly use the simple term "India"? Which is not of course to say that other terms don't get used (especially in book titles).

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

(multi ec) (To Andrew Gwilliam) I think "Indian Empire" doesn't work because it is too generic. The Mughal Empire, for example, was an Indian Empire. British Raj has been the accepted version (and this is from memory) partly because it was, and still is, the common name. --regentspark (comment) 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's back to front: the Mughal Empire was certainly an Indian empire, but "Indian Empire" surely only ever means the British-created entity; people use the term "Mughal Empire" when referring to the Mughal Empire, no? Besides, since the term "Indian Empire" already redirects here, it would logically cause no further confusion if the middle man was cut out, and we could always have a hat note if necessary. Finally, I'm not at all convinced that "British Raj" is the common name for the country as opposed to the notion of "British political authority in India". Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

If there have been long discussions, does that not suggest that there is a longstanding problem, probably based on "British Raj" lacking a historical basis and having been used to mean different things, hardly ever "India"?

For me, "Crown rule in India" should not really be used to refer to the whole of India, including the native states which were a large part of it. There the British residents and agents were diplomats and not administrators, seeking to persuade rather than to rule. I should much prefer to see "India" or "Indian" in the name of the page and could support "Indian Empire". I agree with Andrew Gwilliam that it is not confusing - no more than, say, "United Kingdom", which is well understood although there have been several unrelated United Kingdoms. If there is a real issue, then "British Indian Empire" (which also redirects here) would avoid any possible confusion. That is on the lines of "British Indian Army", an awkward name but one which does at least identify the subject clearly. The term "British Indian Empire" is widely used. The Indian Empire was not declared in 1858, but neither was a "Raj". Moonraker (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, why don't you pursue your page move and let the chips fall where they may? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS

Here are some recent references (of the last 25 years) to "Crown rule" in India.
Among all books (Google Books) published in the last 25 years, there are some 49,000 books that use "British Raj," some 26,000 use the expression, "Indian Empire," but many are facsimile reprints of old books, and 3,500 that refer to the "British Indian Empire."
Among scholarly articles (Google Scholar) published in the last 25 years, some 10,500 referred to the "British Raj", 5,800 to "Indian Empire", and 972 to the "British Indian Empire". Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

By way of explaining my question further, it is really about what is the meaning of "British Raj" and whether there are reliable sources which indicate that it means roughly the same as the subject of this page (which, as you know, I do not think it does). I was not suggesting a particular page move at this point, although others seem to see the discussion moving that way. Moonraker (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I think you're missing the point. Nobody disputes that the term "British Raj" is commonly used; the criticism is in relation to how it's used. The term has at least two meanings:

the period of British Crown rule in and over "India"; and
as a name for that country.

But in my view, and I presume Moonraker's, the former meaning is far more common than the latter. Which brings us back to where we started: what is this particular article actually about? The period or the country? If the former, that means we're unable to refer in other articles to the country known pre-1947 as "India", in particular it means that a founding member of the UN doesn't have an article of its own, and it means that at the very least the article's infobox goes out the door. If the latter, it's completely misnamed: we don't talk about the independence of the Raj, the Raj government, the Governor-General of the Raj, the Raj Olympics team, the partition of the Raj...

At the very least, if an article's name is inherently ambiguous, then we cannot insist it as being about only one of two or more possible meanings; we have to disambuate the name, or choose a different one.

Incidentally, here's a third meaning (used by a historian!):

British India ([3])

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

(Reply to Andrew Gwilliam and Moonraker) I think I'm aware of the issue. Historical page names or titles don't usually refer to a country in the modern or geographical sense of the word. They hardly ever have geography sections. In that the British Raj page is no different from the Mughal Empire page or the Hapsburg Empire page. Here are some facts:

The "Indian Empire" was used both officially (especially so) and in text books of the period 1870s–1947. (The the 26 volumes published by His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council that sit in my shelves (see photo credit) are a reminder to me, if any is needed).
The term "British Raj" was not used much during the period 1858–1947 to describe the rule, the period, or the lands (except informally).
But then the Mughal Empire did not self-refer to "Mughal Empire" either. They had other, more grandiloquent, names for their empire (the rule, the period, and realms). The Wikipedia page Mughal Empire suggests the self-designation, "Shāhān-e Moġul," but too that has been cooked up either by a solipsist Wikipedian or by a nationalist historian keen to assign a vernacular name. In truth, the Moghuls didn't use the word, "Moghul." They were trying their hardest to disown the Moghul (cognate of Mongol) part of their family three.
Official names are not used much in encyclopedias. This was already evident from the Britannica's edition of 1911, the year of the Delhi Durbarof 1911 and the high-point of the Indian Empire. The page name there is not "Indian Empire," but "India." In other words, if this were the 1911 edition of Wikipedia, we too would be using "India" and wouldn't be having this discussion, or else having it on Talk:India.
If you examine the British Raj page, you'll notice that the term "British Raj" is used mostly in the page name and the lead. Once the context is clear, the term "India" is preferred.
That historians now use the term "British Raj" is undeniable from the Google Books and Scholar statistics.

Let me now offer my interpretation. Historians generally use the term "British Raj" as a overarching term (for example, in a chapter title). Once the context is clear, they go back to using "India." ("Indian Empire," however, they mention, usually perfunctorily, to acknowledge a historical fact, but hardly ever as a modern catch-all term.) Generally, the term "British Raj" refers to the rule or the period; only rarely does it refer to the land. But then the "Mughal Empire" generally refers to the rule and the period. You don't usually say, "Nanda Devi was the highest mountain in the Mughal Empire" or, for that matter, "Mont Blanc was the highest point in the Hapsburg Empire." You can, to be sure, say, "The Mughal Empire stretched from Afghanistan in the North-West to ..." but so can you say, "The British Raj stretched from Baluchistan in the West to Burma in the East." In other words, the title doesn't handicap us in the use of the term any more than any historical title does. (As a humorous PS, let me suggest that changing the page name now will also adversely effect the minor cottage industry of Wikipedia-copy-and-paste books. Although if you notice there, we did use (I don't know if we still do) "India under the British Raj" when needed in the text.)

For better or worse, the title "British Raj" is here to stay. As for how the word "British Raj" is to be interpreted, I am agreeable to removing the reference to land in the lead sentence. However, the princely states were very much a part of the Raj: a mostly non-notable part, but a part nevertheless. A British Raj dab page is not necessary as the definition in the lead (along with the OED definition) does just that. This is pretty much as far as I go. You are welcome to attempt a page move or create a dab page and wait for the reaction. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now rephrased the lead. I hope this is satisfactory. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, historians do use the term "British Raj", but (alas) they do not all see it as having the same meaning. For most, it is "British rule", or "British administration", or "British power" in India, but the usage of "Raj" to mean India itself (with or without Burma and/or the princely states) is thankfully rare. This brings me back to the question I asked, which is about what meaning this page is giving to "British Raj", and I think Fowler&fowler's answer is "British rule" as defined in the current lead. I do not dispute what is said in that lead, but it seems to me that it would be more usual for Wikipedia to have an article dealing with the country itself, in this case the Indian Empire, and perhaps one or more about its government, rather than its rule. We have Government of India for the post-1947 country of India, but there appears to be no equivalent for the pre-1947 Government of India (which had the same name). Moonraker (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Muslim Razakars pose with captured Hindu civilians before killing them in cold blood (Telangana, 1948).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Muslim Razakars pose with captured Hindu civilians before killing them in cold blood (Telangana, 1948).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Article

I am astonished the way the article has been laid out, it breaks at least five basic wiki tenet's and seems to have been cut and pasted from some socialist manifesto. The article bears no resemblance to the truth leaving entire periods of history out especially to do with highly modern contemporary infrastructure, administration and the legal system. When I created a earlier talk section an anonymous editor even pasted in ideological nonsense in an attempt to suggest it was from myself! Subsequently I am suggesting the valid sections be saved but the article itself be deleted as it seems quite obvious that editors cannot crawl out from under a negative point of view approach. Twobells (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to propose deletion. Take a look at WP:AFD for deletion procedures. --regentspark (comment) 21:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proceeded with deletion process on NPOV grounds as well as reams of non-related subject matter.Twobells (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss proposed deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_January_21#British_Raj Twobells (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the article for Indian Independence NOT the British Raj http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_independence Twobells (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the criticisms of Twobells, but I do not think his or her case would persuade many Wikipedians that deletion is the answer. To me, this article has several faults. One is indeed that in some areas it lacks political objectivity, another that it is seeking to create a country called "British Raj" which never existed. All faults can be discussed and dealt with, including the name of the article. In the mean time, if this article were to be deleted, the unhappy term "British Raj" would need to redirect somewhere, but where? The article has swallowed up real subjects, the names of which now redirect here. I particularly agree with Twobells about the lack of coverage of "administration and the legal system" and have made similar comments myself about the need for an article on the pre-1947 Government of India – of course, it is not possible to deal adequately with such matters and to continue to pretend that there was a country called "British Raj" which included the princely states, because the British did not administer or legislate for the states. I hope a more objective and historical approach will develop over the years ahead. Moonraker (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Moonraker nice to talk to you again, I have decided to clean up what I can and delete the sections of Indian Independence which has it's own page apart from a section at the end of the article.Twobells (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

changes

what changes occur during british rule in indian art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.232.212 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

I'm on vacation and unable to go through the details of the changes, but it is best not to cite new additions in the lead to monographs and journal articles (rather than widely used textbooks which have been vetted for balance). For, given the amount of published material around, we can pretty much add any point of view. In economic history, for example, I would much rather see the work of the last 15 years, as seen in Tirthankar Roy (2011), Economic History of India, 1857-1947, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-807417-5, retrieved 19 February 2012 than the earlier work of Tomlinson (very selectively cited I might add). The lead was beginning to sound like the old-fashioned left-liberal critique of the Raj, and I've reinstated the previous pared down version. This is pretty much all the time I have, but please bear this in mind as you attempt to improve the article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

References format

In my view it is best to keep the old subsections of the bibliography: 1) Contemporary general textbooks, 2) monographs and collections, 3) articles in journals and collections, and 4) classic histories and gazetteers. The new subdivisions (e.g. Surveys) lump old references (now essentially primary sources) with modern text books used in major South Asia departments around the world and might be confusing to a new reader. Others seem vague references, not in the citation format, with incomplete details. Here is a list:

Bandhu, Deep Chand. History of Indian National Congress (2003) 405pp
Coupland, Reginald. India: A Re-Statement (Oxford University Press, 1945), evaluation of the Raj, emphasizing government. online edition
Dodwell H. H., ed. The Cambridge History of India. Volume 6: The Indian Empire 1858-1918. With Chapters on the Development of Administration 1818-1858 (1932) 660pp online edition; also published as vol 5 of the Cambridge History of the British Empire
Mansingh, Surjit The A to Z of India (2010), a concise historical encyclopedia
Moon, Penderel. The British Conquest and Dominion of India (2 vol. 1989) 1235pp; the fullest scholarly history of political and military events from a British top-down perspective;
Riddick, John F. The history of British India: a chronology (2006) excerpt and text search, covers 1599-1947
Riddick, John F. Who Was Who in British India (1998), covers 1599-1947
Smith, Vincent A. (1958) The Oxford History of India (3rd ed.) the Raj section was written by Percival Spear
Thompson, Edward, and G.T. Garratt. Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India (1934) 690 pages; scholarly survey, 1599-1933 excerpt and text search(Citations, btw, should be in citation format.)

Also, in my view, Kumar, Dharma, and Meghnad Desai, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume 2: c. 1757-2003 (2010), 1114pp; ISBN 9788125027317, should be used sparingly. Its Raj sections are a reprint of the 1983 CUP edition by an Indian publishing house (Orient Blackswan), and as such, calling it "Cambridge Economic History" is somewhat disingenuous (even though according to the new publisher CUP gave its blessings), as is the date 2010, which makes it sound contemporary. The publisher's sleight of hand (I queried them when I bought the new edition and received a smooth but unconvincing reply) is similar, though obviously not quite as extreme, as facsimile reprints of old books being passed off as new ones. The book has some good articles, but it does belongs to the nationalist/marxist era of Indian historiography, now some 30-40 years old. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The old bibliography was pretty light on the British side of the British Raj--it missed many titles that covered what the government was up to, and completely missed the "imperial" school literature, such as Moon's 2 volumes. The article is, after all, mostly about how the British ruled. The Riddick titles are a very useful, non-controversial compilations of names and dates. Mansingh, The A to Z of India (2010) is quite up to date and is a very useful one-volume encyclopedia (by an Indian diplomat now in academe). Bandhu, History of Indian National Congress is cited in most of the bibliographies. Dodwell is old but has the advantage of extensive administrative detail and it's online. While textbooks are great for studying for exams they give very brief treatments that need to be augmented by monographs & articles if the reader is to do any further research. I see the article serving many students looking for paper topics and resources. (Fowler need not worry: there is not much Marxism in the bibliography or text.) The The Cambridge Economic History of India, Volume 2: c. 1757-2003 (2010) is in fact used sparingly or not at all. What is most lacking in the text and the bibliography is the "cultural" approach to history. That literature up to 2002 is well summarized in Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition (2004). The problem is that material is very difficult to summarize in this survey article which has to cover lots of territory. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Massive revisions all at once? poor idea

To make revisions, please work with one section at a time. And remember the POV rules require full coverage of Indian viewpoints and RS. Rjensen (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not, the article is all about the British Raj not Indian independence each of the deletions were about Indian Independence and not the british raj, talk history has stated how poor and off topic the article is, time to resolve the issue. It is because of pov that I am cleaning up the article. It has nothing to do with 'points of view' Indian or otherwise but the facts of the British Raj.Twobells (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes are a good idea here,. However they should be made one section at a time or you will get the other editors very angry with you. Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The sections concerned which have been deleted were all to do with Indian independence and not about the British Raj, can't you see they are not the same thing? And please stop reverting suggesting that no reason was given, reason was given both here and in the edits themselves. Please do not revert again or you will be blocked I suggest that a small final section briefly state the facts of Indian Independence linking it to it's own article. Twobells (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you are acting in defiance of the consensus on AFD and have reported this case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Rjensen (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This en-masse removal of content is not one bit helpful, what makes the partition of Bengal or appointment of Indian judges etc not part of the British Raj. Twobells, discuss your content removals here and gain consensus before repeating. —SpacemanSpiff 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is like taking all of the content of the French Resistance article and titling the page, "Vichy France". Yes, the French Resistance is a huge part of the history of Vichy France, but there is a separate article on the French Resistance and the Vichy France article appears to be about Vichy France. While this article is titled "British Raj", it's not about the British Raj. It's hard to tell exactly what the British Raj article is about, because of the poorly written sections topped by picture galleries, although it seems to be mostly about the history of the Indian resistance to British rule under the British Raj. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I broadly agree. This article tries to do too much. We need separate articles for the Indian Empire, the pre-1947 Government of India, and other topics. Moonraker (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)