Talk:Warren Hastings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Politics (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject British Empire
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.
 

Untitled[edit]

The section on Hastings' legacy opens with an apologetic statement on behalf of the British conquerors in contrast to the Islamic conquerors. I think the least one could ask for is a reference for its assertions, and also some specificity in the claims (which Islamic conquerors, and on which day did they kill 100,000 people?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.240.208 (talk) 06:36, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The Contents are not as per the rules of history.[edit]

I strongly approve what the earlier commentator had said.

I direct attention to the following lines. "In many respects Warren Hastings epitomizes the strengths and shortcomings of the British conquest and dominion over India. Unlike the Islamic invaders, who did not even bother to learn an Indian language till they had been in the land for at least half a dozen generations and whose approach to power was to strike terror in the population by building pyramids of skulls of the 100,000 civilians they killed in a single day, the British personified by such able and brilliant administrators such as Warren Hastings went about consoilidating their power in a highly systematic manner."

The above mentioned lines are against the very spirit of history writing. There is no reference to the incidence, when such a thing happened. There is no reference to the authority who had mentioned about such a holocaust had taken place. As far as my reading goes, I have never read about an incidence during the Delhi Sultanate period or Mughal period wherein they had raised a mount of skulls in at such a level. It should be immediately deleted.

Secondly, the article tells nothing. It merely suggests that something important had happened when Hastings was in India.

It has pointed about the impeachement but does not refer to the name Nanda Kumar and the incidence when his name got involved in wrongful transactions in India.

Warren Hastings became the Governor General of India after the Regulating Act 1773. During his tenure itself the Pitts India Act was passed. Both the Acts form an important stages in the constitutional development of India as well the history of East India Company.

Similarly Warren Hastings supported the Orientalists thought pattern. But the idea is given in such a abtruse manner that nothing becomes clear.

I can go on and on. In short if this article has to be rated, then the whole thing should be rewritten from the historic perspective. I think there is very little to perserve from the present presentation. If no objection comes in next fifteen days, then I will like to rewrite the whole article around September 16, 2007. Sumir Sharma 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talkcontribs) 13:59, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I found that this article has a novel feature: a section named "As judged by history", as if a presiding deity in Wikipedia has pronounced the final verdict on a person. I also found this line in this section: "The nationalists in the subcontinent consider Hastings as another English bandit, along with Clive, who started the colonial rule in the subcontinent through treachery and cunning." So I added another line to give some perspective on bandits: "However, it should be pointed out that other bandits, English or otherwise, did not found colleges and madrasas, nor helped to collect and translate Sanskrit works into English." The editors need to discourage such attempts to slip in one's value judgements as if they are the decisions of a jealous God- Gopalan evr (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article still does not assist in pointing out that Hastings was framed by a coalition of several people whose interests he was directly harming in his defence of locals against rogue EIC elements. Despite an impeachment lasting seven years with probably one of the best barristers in the history of English jurisprudence prosecuting him, he was still acquitted. In many parts of the populations of what is now three different countries Warren Hastings is revered as having been the defender of the rights of the "natives". That is no small feat.Ben.hastings (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • If you have access to some reliable sources that make the points you have mentioned, then please edit the article to include what you have said (crucially, citing the sources as evidence that the opinion exists amongst, say, historians/scholars) as that is pretty much how it works around here. If you believe something should be in the article and have the quality sources to back it up, then the best thing to do is add it somewhere - delicately if it is something you think might be considered controversial. Obviously, do not include anything that constitutes original research or an opinion other than that of someone reliably published. Regards, Sassf (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Cleanup|date=August 2007}} moved this off the front page (which is for people tu use wikipedia). Editor messages here please Victuallers 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Applied nowiki tag around above cleanup temaplte because the article looks clean to me. RJFJR (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Impeachment[edit]

What about having a separate section for corruption accusation and impeachment???? Docku: What up? 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think having a seperate section for "the trial of warren hastings" would be a great thing...there is certainly enough to suggest that this is of importance and the event represented enough of a referendum on the attitude towards the british empire by its parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIS33809wo (talkcontribs) 03:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Official Titles.[edit]

The official titles used are ad hoc, and wrong. His title was 'Governor of the Presidency of Fort William'. Hastings never presided over the whole of India. The first appointed G-G of India was Lord William Bentnick (1833-35). Wikip has a list of colonial India governors, and this article needs to be cleaned-up to match it. Wearing a pith helmet, or turban, does not make one an expert on history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.86.59 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Poor, Uninformative Article[edit]

Frankly, this article says very little. It is no more than a stub. For example, it says mentions things like the fact that it took two days to read out the counts when Hastings was impeached, but says next to nothing about the charges (beyond 'corruption'). It then goes on to mention Hastings' comment that he would have done better to pleaded guilty. The whole thing is below the standard of a poor booklet of notes for eight graders. Norvo (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to improve it, then? Don't forget to add references.Bmcln1 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of postnominal "PC"[edit]

User:Wikiain, I'm a little puzzled by what you say. You refer to Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Rights and privileges of members, but it says: "For commoners, "The Right Honourable" is sufficient identification of their status as a Privy Counsellor." It is true that there is some disagreement about whether to use "PC" in the case of peers, but there is no disagreement in the case of Commoners - it is not used. Debrett's, the standard reference for forms of address in Britain, says: "For all other Members of the Privy Council [i.e. other than peers] the pre-fix 'Rt Hon' before the name is sufficient identification."[1] And a search of the Court Circular, which is about the only thing more authoritative that Debrett's, reveals that it never uses it - it's always, e.g., "the Rt. Hon. Nicholas Clegg MP".[2] So I think that my edit was correct. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't concentrating properly. However, I wonder what the usage was at that time. Whichever way we go, we should match text and caption.--Wikiain (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, thanks, you're right about the text - I forgot about that! I did a little searching and the same seems to hold true at the time. I can't find any usage of the postnominal for Hastings or other prominent 18th century Commoners who were Privy Counsellors (e.g. Pitt, Walpole). This is true even when looking at cases where other postnominals were used (e.g. "the Right Honourable Sir Robert Walpole, K.G."). Unless you have any objection, Wikiain, I propose to remove it. Neljack (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No objection. All the best.--Wikiain (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Neljack (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)