Template:Did you know nominations/Famine Inquiry Commission
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Famine Inquiry Commission
- ... that the Famine Inquiry Commission has been criticized for exonerating the British government of responsibility for the 1943 Bengal famine? Source: "the Famine Commission’s best efforts were directed not towards explaining the famine, but towards obscuring the role played by His Majesty’s government in precipitating and aggravating the famine" p. 72 (subscription required); Osmani 1993, p. 41; Ó Gráda 2009, p. 179.
- ALT1:... that members of the inquiry into the 1943 Bengal famine were reportedly ordered to destroy the transcripts of their proceedings? Source: "For an answer, it is instructive to review the Nanavati Papers, the unpublished transcripts of the secret hearings of the Famine Commission. These are highly revealing of the body’s underlying motivations. Members of the commission were reportedly ordered to destroy their copies of these transcripts, but fortunately Justice Nanavati did not comply – his set, or at least parts of it, are to be found in the National Archives of India in New Delhi" first source above
- Reviewed: Staten Island Quarantine War
- Comment: Some of the content was copied from Bengal famine of 1943 but enough is original to meet DYK requirements.
Created by Fiamh (talk). Self-nominated at 08:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC).
: article is new and big enough. It is referenced and read neutral in tone, despite controversy it reports. No copyright problem found. Hooks both appear in article. Both hooks (original and alt1) are short enough. Original hook alt1 is referenced and AGF confirmed by the texts included above, and are interesting. No image, QPQ performed. Good to go either hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
