Talk:Hindu–German Conspiracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hindu–German Conspiracy has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Southeast Asia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auto PR Comments[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appopriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), harbour (B) (American: harbor), meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), paralyse (B) (American: paralyze), modelling (B) (American: modeling).
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: would've, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ghadar di gunj.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Ghadar di gunj.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

This template must be substituted. Replace {{GAList}} with {{subst:GAList}}.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It’s obvious that a lot of effort has gone into this article, particularly into sourcing (which was one of the problems addressed in the original FA review). My only substantive comment for the future promotion of this article is that, at nearly 100K, it is a huge article. It might be best to submit the article for peer review to see if anyone has any suggestions for trimming it down a bit. Otherwise, I think this is an excellent article and see no reason why it shouldn’t be promoted to GA at this time. jackturner3 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    I hesitate on this one because there have been more than thirty edits in the last thirty days. However, because the edits are mostly minor, I don’t necessarily think that the article should be held up on that account considering it has already been in GA review for more than a month.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Many of the referances seem to consist of a anme a date and a page, this makes it rather difficult to trace the source. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]]

The name, date and page links to the ==notes== section which through the {{reflist}} template lists the author, publication date and page number. This is in turn linked through the harvard ciation templates to the literature section. It is a part of the {{citation}} templates designed for use to cite references consistently. I realise this is a bit hard to understand, but you can see how it works in the main article page, as opposed to the editing version you're seeing.

1. ^ Desai 2005, p. 30 2. ^ Desai 2005, p. 43 3. ^ Desai 2005, p. 93 4. ^ Desai 2005, p. 125 5. ^ Desai 2005, p. 154 1. ^ Bose & Jalal 1998, p. 117 2. ^ Dutta & Desai 2003, p. 135 3. ^ Bhatt 2001, p. 83 No other information, does not link to anything. I have not tried any others, but I suspect there may be more. But fraiser and cor now do. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]]

These have now been added, please let me know if you find more. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Since over 48 hours have passed, I will assume that your suspicions were more presumpitive than substantive, since you also appear to ascribe notabillity per wikipedia citations of literature. Let me know when your suspicions are confirmed, please, wont you. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

^ von Pochammer 2005, p. 435 [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)]] Added


I read the complete page, and could not understand as why "HINDU" term is used for this conspiracy? neither i could find any reliable source which could substantiate the term "HINDU". where and how was it coined ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you did read the entire page, you will have noticed the Note on the name section, it explains why and how the term "Hindu" came to be used and linked to the conspiracy. For the sake of clarity, I will quote it here
The references 102 and 147 are from Joan Jensen's paper in the February 1979 issue of the Pacific Historical Review (Jensen, Joan M (1979), The "Hindu Conspiracy": A Reassessment. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. (Feb., 1979), pp. 65-83, University of California Press, ISSN 0030-8684). In the article she explicitly explains why and how it was called the "Hindu-German Conspiracy",even why the term conspiracy came to be used, and also explains why it is a misnomer to describe the event. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That could be POV of certain people but not all and certainly not the real name for this movement. For example, nobody knows the current name "Hindu-German Conspirancy" if you talk with people in the Indian subcontinent or some of the survivors of "Ghadr Movement". This name "Hindu - German Conspiracy" is an attempt to re-write history and has nothing to do with reality. Moreover, the section on "name" on the article which intends to explain this propagandist name "Hindu - German Conspiracy" is also misleading and false. --RoadAhead Discuss 00:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has expanded to such an extent that the link between it and its name is tenuous in the extreme. It has become an essay on a particular view of Indian nationalism with everything but the kitchen sink thrown into the mix. (I notice that the direct reference to Sinn Féin as part of the 'conspiracy', following direct criticism, has been quietly dropped.) RashersTierney (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Sinn Fein was dropped after a discussion, rather than quitely. I am not sure how much more loudly it could've been done, since there's a section below where we discussed this and you yourself made inputs. As for the PoV that Roadahead suggests, the section on the name explains what name's it is known both in and outside the subcontinent, exaplains why this is so, and references to a very well respected Historical journal. If you tell me which bit is "false" and "misleading", I'll fix these. But till you give a concrete example I fail to see how this ection is PoV. "Ghadr" was one part of the larger conspiracy, and as for everything in the kitchen sink being thrown in, you perhaps would like to have a look at the Rowlatt Report if you have access to this, since the British Raj itself counts these as a unified conspiracty? And what particular view of Indian nationalism does it throw in??? Your ignorance of something does not make it non-existent. I have used for this article mostly academic journals and books from reliable sources and mostly widely known authors of history. If you dont like it, thats not something I can help. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinn Féin?[edit]

Sorry, but what? Where's the evidence of SF involvement in all this, it isn't even properly mentioned in the article. I see a couple of mentions of SF (just links, not detail), plus maybe "Those involved in this liaison, and later involved in the plot, included major Irish republicans and Irish-American nationalists like John Devoy, Joseph McGarrity, Roger Casement, Eamon de Valéra, Father Peter Yorke and Larry de Lacey", which ignores that many of them weren't really anything to do with SF. Reference 108 is mentioned which is this source, but unless I'm missing something that only says "During that turbulent period of Irish history, many pitched battles were being fought between the Irish Republic Army — the Sinn Fein — and the British security force", which isn't particularly accurate anyway. SF at the time of the Easter Rising and earlier was a very different party to the one at the time of the First Dáil and Irish War of Independence. Does Plowman (I assume) state SF involved in the "pre-war collusions", or are the involvement of certain people who would later be involved in SF being used to backdate SF's involvement? Quotes from the source would be helpful please. 2 lines of K303 13:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to reply earlier. Plowman says these:

(Plowman p87,88)

(Plowman p97).

And subsequently a quote about the Irish uprising in India:

(Plowman 102)

But even before this, V.D. Savarkar, a key leader of India House is known to have strong links with Sinn Fein,(Five Stormy Years: Savarkar in London, June 1906-June 1911. Harindra Srivastava. p72 Allied Publishers. 1983)(Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths. Chetan Bhatt.p84 Berg Publishers. 2001), as far as that a Sinn Fein leader called Maude Gonne is believed to have been involved in the attempt to rescue Savarkar from Brixton prison.(The Internationalism of Irish Literature and Drama. Joseph McMinn. p299. Association for the Study of Anglo-Irish Literature Triennial Conference. 1992)

The bottom line is I am dont know a lot about the Irish movement and about Sinn Fein itself, but the literature I am using as sources are saying that members (and supporters?) of Sinn Fein where along with the other Republican movements were involved in helping the Indians and the Germans, preceding as far as the initial steps of India House in Britain. It is not suggested that they were involved inside out, and hence I did not devote any large section on it in this already massive article. I do intend to include it in the subarticle on the Hindu-German Conspiracy Trial, and this is why I have left it at the {{See also}} template. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The thing is, prior to around 1917 when SF was infiltrated and basically radicalised by members of the Irish Volunteers who took part in the Easter Rising, they were a peaceful party who did not agree with the use of violence to attain Irish independence. In fact Arthur Griffith disapproved of it, and believed Ireland should retain the monarchy as a consitutional link with Britain. That said, there were always links to varying extents between the various organisations both in Ireland and Irish-America, so I wouldn't read too much into the "American Independent" publishing "pro-Sinn Féin propaganda". The house on Eddy Street being used by "Sinn Feiners" may just be a contemporary use of the term, for example the people responsible for the Easter Rising were widely (and erroneously) called "Sinn Feiners", and again you have to look at the crossover in membership. For example Michael Collins joined SF in around 1908, in addition to being a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and later the Irish Volunteers. So while it's fair to say there is evidence of involvement of SF members to varying extents, to say in the lead it's "extensively supported by . . . Sinn Féin" is rather misleading. Re Maud Gonne, from what I've been able to discover it was approximately 1910 when the attempted jailbreak took place, whereas according to some accounts she didn't join SF till after the Easter Rising in 1916, but she was involved in other nationalist organisations. While there's no disputing co-operation between members, I think it's slightly misleading to portray it as a party-wide thing, does that sound fair? 2 lines of K303 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean and again, I dont know a lot about Sinn Fein or Irish republican movement. Give me a bit of time, since I am in the middle of an FAC and another huge article to do with this conspiracy. I will reword the article to reflect what you have outlined above. Or perhaps you could suggest a suitable prose yourself instead? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably just remove both mentions, at least for now. In my mind, the whole point of a "See also" should be to take the reader to somewhere where they can read more about their involvement, but it doesn't really do that. SF as a party really don't seem to have any documented involvement in this conspiracy, despite the actions of individuals. 2 lines of K303 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hindu-German-Sinn Féin conspiracy? This is just too rediculous! RashersTierney (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article implies that there was an organised and sustained collaboration between nationalist organisations, through their leaders, in India and Ireland with the German Government during the 1914-18 war. The assertion is not proven or even substantially corroborated. As such the credibility of the entire paper is undermined. Referencing to an academic paper,(Plowman, Matthew (2003)) inaccessible to most Wikipedia users, without at least an extract demonstrating unambiguously such a link, is, at best, a waste of effort, and may even be considered misleading. Cooperation between individuals of whatever nationality and for whatever motives does not a conspiracy make! As a long time student of early Sinn Féin policy and the foreign policy of the early/proto Irish State, this is to me a completely novel and therefore highly doubtful hypothesis. My concern is only to maintain Wikipedia as a reliable source RashersTierney (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)for general users.

if you had looked above, i had given extracts, and the above discussion is on this topic. The fact that you dont have access to the journals is not something I can address, but you may ask somebody who does to do this for you. As to your comments below, Tunney doesn't, and Jensen in her 1979 paper says why this is so. Please have a look at the above discussion, I have explained I am busy at the moment with a couple of other articles. We can have an RfC or something similar soon. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reuben,if you had carefully read my point, I did not state that I don’t have access to published papers. In fact I have access to Irish related papers and material only available to few Irish editors. One of the difficulties of responding to this issue is the burden of proof to demonstrate something which doesn't exist now falls on anyone who queries this article. This is the ultimate conundrum when it comes to conspiracies. I made the point about sources being generally accessible to conform to Wikipedia’s policy on referencing. Apart from that, there are multiple issues with this presentation, ranging from linking to Wiki sources of disputed neutrality Irish Republicanism, to a 'flexible' interpretation to what sources actually say. At random I cross-checked references 33 and 34; at this point the article claims that a collaborative attempt between Indian and Irish Nationalists to smuggle arms on the SS Moratis was thwarted by a search at Smyma,. Even by the references given, this is stretching the point. Popplewell states merely that erroneous intelligence resulted in ‘the farcical conclusion’ that arms rather than the true cargo of industrial chemicals were on board. In fact, nothing in his book that I have read indicates an effective collaboration between Irish and Indian Nationalists, even in the relative safety of the US. Contact was much less in fact than might be expected of political activists with a common enemy. There is also the very obvious issue of ‘original research’. Personally, I am inclined to give plenty of latitude on this point, being of the opinion that all worthwhile Wikipedia articles should be more than just a cut-and-paste job of other people’s work. I can give no opinion regarding German-Indian relations or even contacts between individual Irish Nationalists and Indian Nationalists, but a Hindu-German-Sinn Féin conspiracy is something else entirely. I would be pleasantly surprised to find that Sinn Féin was so committed, on principle, to undermining Imperialism that they collaborated effectively with their Indian contemporaries towards this end. The facts, however, still say otherwise. Sinn Féin was well aware that if an Irish-Indian conspiracy threatening the stability of the Empire was discovered and publicised by the British it would have put at risk their primary objective which was independence for Ireland. This very point was specifically considered when representatives of the Irish Republic sought recognition for their state Even so, there were contacts with Egyptian and S. African Nationalist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference, (but none that I have found with Indians), with a view to exchanging ideas, but this is far from the idea of a sustained conspiracy. If you wish the Irish Nationalist connection to be reviewed, I suggest you invite Irish editors to get involved, but would strongly advise double checking the Irish related referencing before doing so.

No disrespect intended to any contributorsRashersTierney (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I partly agree with what you say, and as you will see above, I also consider the point on wether any author focusses too much on one aspect and emphasise on this, which is why I asked for time to edit the text. You're welcome to do this yourself, if you so wish. Having said this, Popplewell is but one source, there are a number of others, inckuding Hoover, Jensen, Brown, and a number of other noted authors. It may be worthwhile reviewing the facts and opinions stated by multiple authors to reach a synthesis where opinions or seeming facts disagree. For example, no two accounts of Annie larsen plot agree, as Hopkirk admits in his book On secret service east of Constantinopole. But the facts remains that it is one of the most notable trials in American legal history. Jensen says Irish involvement was deliberately played down by American government, somebody else says (or implies)it was a play by German General staff and their Indian "stooges" while another looks at it from the point of view that it was Indian "patriots" with German help. I welcome any help in this article to write an NPOV, balanced, unbiased factual account. I can see there is suggestions that Sinn Fein's involvement, as implied by this article, seems improbabale given the historical role and aims of the organisations at the time. If this is what the issue is, I suggest either give me enough time to double check the sources and/or read around to ascertain wether this was indeed so, for my expertise is not the Sinn Fein, my focu is the Indian movement and I have admitted so in the past. If you have the resources, and I will emphasise, if the resources are newer and beyond the Cambridgist biase that mores a lot of early histories (notable accounts I have found after 1990s), I will be more than happy to have a lot of help here, not merely because it relieves me of an enormous burden. I will say though that I have worked hard on this article for a long time, and have fair idea of what was going on about ten years before this, so I will look through this article wuite regularly. But as I said, I would love some help. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Irish Nationalist link, and not to be completely negative, I think the connection with Clann na Gael ( Clan na Gael ), John Devoy Joe McGarrity and possibly Roger Casement is on much surer ground, and this is where the article should concentrate. Relationships between the various Irish Nationalist/Separatist/Republican organisations and leaders were not always harmonious and rifts were very often present before they came to public attention. Sinn Féin was infiltrated by the IRB (privately resented by many in SF), which in turn was broadly linked to Clann na Gael, but they were not synonymous. Casement was used by the IRB and the Clann, but was not a member of either and neither his politics nor judgement were trusted by them. The fact that Irish leaders and activists of various political hues were in contact with each other, much less Indian Nationalists, does not mean that a concerted conspiracy existed. Much of the apparent unity of purpose between the Irish organisations has been written over the years to accommodate the expediencies of Realpolitik. But the implied/stated link with Sinn Féin, unless some new and overwhelming evidence is produced, really should go. The implication that de Valera was directly involved in an Indo-German conspiracy is also seriously open to question notwithstanding private sympathies he may have had.RashersTierney (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Plowman does mention de Valera by name though, although I dont have the paper to hand at the moment to quote from, but Iam sure he was mentioned explicitly. Rasher, what I will say is, have a look at the first discussion, and the quotes I gave, which should give you an idea. That, added with what you have outlined above, should help reword the article because the Sinn Fein is not really mentioned in that much detail. You I am hoping are in a position to do this yourself. If not, please give me a week or two, I am trying to get India House to FAC (you might want to check out the last section of the article as well) as well as Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition to FAC, so my hands are kinda full. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. Plowman and De Valera His visit to the Gadar Headquarters in San Fran. on July 21, 1919, is mentioned in NHR Autumn 2003,p103 and 'The Gadar Collection', Berkeley, given as a repository for account of the visit (cited at footnote), but no details are given, other than Dev. being presented with a tricolo(u)r and inscribed sword by Gopal Singh. Details of a speech might be of interest, if there was one, or any definite expressions of solidarity or promises of future assistance. This might be for someone with access to the source mentioned to explore. I think the use of the word 'conspiracy'. as a catch-all for having a common purpose and certain sympathy is a difficulty. This level of sympathy/solidarity is different from that of Devoy, for example, by an order of magnitude.RashersTierney (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I should add in ref to Devoy's radicalism, that his anti-Imperrialist credentials were severely dented when he supported Collins (IRB) on the Treaty, thus accepting the continued link with the Crown.

Focussing on the last point, I will emphasise that the article, especially in strict NPOV, shjould not try to attempt or disprove nationalist vredentials of anyone (or anyother credentials for that matter). It should repeat the facts. Sorry but I am not trying to be judgemental. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rueben, this is a discussion page. You should expect points of view to be raised and discussed until some consensus emerges. RashersTierney (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I did say "the article", not this talk page. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another source[edit]

This book, written by a NYC policeman of the time, has a chapter on the subject. (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to the 'Hindu-German-Sinn Féin Conspiracy', well then no, it doesn't! RashersTierney (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

see above section. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I showed up mostly before that, or @least didn't read it. (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Book--Ireland and India[edit]

For a discursive analysis of the colonial relationship between India and Ireland ( including the Nationalist perspective), at the turn of the 19th-20th cent., Ireland and India- Colonies, Culture and Empire eds. Foley and O'Connor, ISBN 9780716528371 is a v. good starting point. Included is an article by Plowman (mentioned in main article as 'for publication'), which is essentially his New Hibernian Review piece, but cut back. In all, the book contains 24 essays, presented to a conference at UCG in 2004. It is also sold at an accessible price in paperback.RashersTierney (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Connaught Rangers mutiny[edit]

Can anyone explain how this event is in any way linked to an Indian nationalist-German Government conspiracy, much less the Hindu-German Conspiracy?RashersTierney (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Italics in Last (3rd) Paragraph of "Indian and Irish networks"[edit]

I hate to nitpick, but I do want to improve the article. Look at the 3rd or last paragraph of the section described above. The majority of the paragraph is unnecessarily italicized. I do not understand the rationale but perhaps someone would defend or explain the reason. I hate to nitpick a matter of formatting rather than substance but I genuinely want to improve the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


It is inadequate, in my view.--Severino (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree! A country struggling to rid itself of its colonial oppressors -simply labeled conspirators. Wikipedia is being used a a propaganda platform. I am disgusted by this never-ending shameless bigotry and arrogance of the Anglo-Saxons. Wikirictor (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Title again[edit]

Obviously nobody seems to have a problem with this title. Indians are being called conspirators, trying to free themselves from colonial rule. Again Anglo-Americans above the "rest"? Wikirictor (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)