Talk:British Raj

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efrain805, AustinJAragon (article contribs).

Flags

@Kanto7: @Dibyojyoti RC: Could you please provide reliable sources that show that these flags, or any other flag, was used as a representatives flag for the British raj? Please note that Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia and material that is not reliably sourced should not be included. The mere existence of flags is insufficient for their being used as representative flags on our articles. --RegentsPark (comment) 11:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kanto7: Would you mind providing sources? Merely stating, in an edit summary, that official documents had them, is insufficient. If you do not understand what a reliable source is, please spend some time reading WP:RS. At this point, your editing is disruptive. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia articles on the Star of India say the Red Ensign was the official civil ensign from 1880 to 1947, contradicting what it says on the talk page. Fix up the issue on the Star of India article then I will stop Kanto7 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kanto7: That article is seriously lacking in sources and the official civil ensign bit is unsourced. Note that just because something is stated in some other article, it doesn't mean that you can include it elsewhere. WP:V is quite clear that the onus of providing reliable sources is entirely on you. If you cannot provide reliable sources then, by continuously re-adding these flags, you are being disruptive. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well then Fix the flag Kanto7 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kanto7: The Raj did not have a flag, although the princely states it indirectly governed did (see, for example, Hyderabad State, Jammu and Kashmir (state)) and the Viceroy had his own standard. As for the Star of India page, what they say, correct or not, is for you to work out with the major editors there. It has nothing to do with this page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The article states that each state flew their own flag alongside the Union Jack. Hence the Union Jack should be the flag on the infobox

Kanto7 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What article says this? I already told you: the Raj did not have a flag. What is it you do not understand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Union Jack was flown alongside state flags so the Union Jack should be the flag in the infobox Kanto7 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kanto7: You really need to understand what it means to provide sources. You keep posting comments but I have yet to see you provide a single source, let alone a reliable one. Without sources, all this is a meaningless waste of time. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I will provide reliable resources for that, so don't worry about the flags. Dibyojyoti RC (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you people might be getting Company Raj confused with British Raj. The State flag of India during the Raj was the Union Jack as it was flown alongside princely state flags, like the Aden Protectorate. The Union Jack should hence be in imfobpx flag Kanto7 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile the Company Raj there was no definitive flag. The company flag and the Union Jack were both used but there is no official record either was used as the official flag Kanto7 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Came to a consensus yet? Kanto7 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Look let me justify my actions here. I admit I was extremely rash when adding the red ensign here. But all articles relating to British India seem to have the Red Ensign. Maybe the Red Ensign should be removed Kanto7 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kanto7: You really need to understand what it means to listen to other editors. You were extremely rash not just here, but also other articles as well. PyroFloe (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Indian empire

The source does not explicitly say that the region was known as the "Indian empire" (note the use of quotes in the source). And, of course, there is no mention of passports. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I put in a link to the Wikipedia article on British Indian Empire passorts which demonstrates that the term was used in an official capacity by the Government in India, unless you argue that the passports were not issued officially. However, I am aware that people can use Wikipedia nitpicking to prevent accuracy when it it contradicts their prejudices. I used to believe in the project but have become totally disheartened by the deliberate attempts to conceal knowledge that people don't want revealed. Dabbler (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Passports_of_British_India#/media/File:BIpassport.jpg

Well, you can say that the passports were branded as "Indian Empire" but you can't draw any further conclusions from it. That would be WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sworn to staying away from WP until mid-February, so I can't make anything but a brief remark. First, there is no reason for two of the four stalwarts of this page, Dabbler and RegentsPark, (the other two being Philip Baird Shearer and Rjensen) to be in an argument; they are all needed and welcome. Second, we did once mention both the empire and the passport in the lead (see here). The problem in part lies in British ambivalence in usage, perhaps studied ambivalence. On the one hand, the Imperial Gazetteer of India, (whose 26 volumes I have been dipping into for three decades) does use "Indian Empire" on the title page of volume 4; on the other, that same volume 4, uses "India" when describing the acts of the British Parliament (see here). I think the studied ambivalence catered to the different political lobbies of the late 19th century, represented for example by Disraeli and Gladstone, to the tug of war between them. I'd say let us put this issue on the backburner for now. When I return, I'll propose a finessing of language that can accommodate both. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overly chuffed about Indian Empire, though it would be good to see solid references that clearly state that this was an "official" name of the entity. The passport statement is very dubiously sourced and Dabbler should know better than to use wikipedia articles to support their arguments. Particularly one that is poorly sourced and appears to rely on images for authenticity (we should not generalize from images).--RegentsPark (comment) 16:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

On 24 December I posted the definition of "Indian Empire" given by the Interpretation Act of 1889 and Indian General Clauses Act of 1897 — it's hard to find something more official than that — as an example of the official use of that designation, but it was deleted shortly after.

While "British Raj" was and is a very a common and popular name, it certainly was not the "official" name of that entity. I would argue that Indian Empire was a more official designation than British Raj and it should be pointed out. That said, I have no problem with the title of the article as it is. British Raj, while being an unofficial designation, was and is a better-known designation than Indian Empire, and therefore it is in compliance with Wikipedia's rule regarding the title of articles --Lubiesque (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that British Raj is the unofficial but common name for the entity. The reason why we need to be wary about saying that it was "officially" known as "Indian empire" is because it is not at all clear that that was the case. Documents, for example, often just used "India". The army was known as the Indian Army (not "Indian Empire Army"). And so on. That's why I think that our current formulation, which acknowledges that it was also called the Indian Empire but doesn't claim that this was the official name of the entity, is perhaps the most accurate. If, of course, we can find a reference that unequivocally states that this (or anything else for that matter) was the official name of the entity, then that's a different matter. To be clear, it is the word "officially" that needs a source, not the term "Indian Empire". --RegentsPark (comment) 21:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How about an Order of knighthood for people with connections with British India, the Order of the Indian Empire. Dabbler (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

British raj

British raj, period of direct British rule over the Indian subcontinent from 1858 until the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. The raj succeeded management of the subcontinent by the British East India Company, after general distrust and dissatisfaction with company leadership resulted in a widespread mutiny of sepoy troops in 1857, causing the British to reconsider the structure of governance in India. The British government took possession of the company’s assets and imposed direct rule. The raj was intended to increase Indian participation in governance, but the powerlessness of Indians to determine their own future without the consent of the British led to an increasingly adamant national independence movement. Hdhhdhbd (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)