Talk:British Empire

Sepoy

One editor above, has noted that the word sepoy is in contemporary use in the Indian army, admittedly it is but only as a designation of a rank. The sepoy is the junior most rank in the army. Does this article mean to convey that only the junior-most rank in the army rebelled and the others simply twiddled their thumbs? Sepoy is not used as a generic word to denote soldier, not even in Hindi, in Hindi the word Jawan is used. [1]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The article states it as an Indian in European service, which is much more specific then just soldier. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the Bharat-rakshak.com article quoted by this editor? Where? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sepoy Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The point made that the word Sepoy is still used in the Indian Army was made in response to your inaccurate suggestion that the word "sepoy" was just jargon. It is twisting things to suggest the responding editor was making some hidden point about rank. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh the word Sepoy is a historical word, an Anglo-Indian word which means soldier, a wikipedia article is not a wp:rs, the argument is not that sepoy is wrong, the argument is that it is unnecessary jargon, which has a very different meaning from its current usage say as in the Indian Army. A reader who does not have time and is not aware of jargon would be simply confused. It serves no purpose but to confuse. Native soldier or native troops would be a simple and easily understood alternative. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree it is unnecessary jargon (source for that anyway?), and a person who is unaware of meaning can simply click the wikilink. The alternative would have to be "native troops serving under the British" or some other such long phrase. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1857 mutiny of sepoys grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Could be written as The 1857 mutiny of its native soldiers grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Does that make it too verbose? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sepoy (from sipahi) is the accepted term for the rebels and is the term used by most sources. I see no reason to change it to 'native soldiers'. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see above arguments as evidence for change. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen them. 'Unnecessary jargon' has been adequately shown to be an invalid argument. Repeating that is borderline tendentious. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It has not been shown so. wp:te is about editing on article pages and not on talk pages. If you refer to ancient sources, the word sepoy would be common, give evidence of modern sources to prove your point that sepoy is a commonly used contemporary English word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) From WP:TE on how to recognize tendentious editing in yourself: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All right. Please give evidence of modern sources to prove that sepoy is a modern English word in common use and not jargon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd argument. A word is not either in common modern use or jargon. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Take your pick: Google Books, Google Scholar, Google itself. With over 600,000 results from only sources published in the last 10 years (and even assuming that some are reprints or invalid sources), I think it's safe to say that "sepoy" is a commonly-used term in English. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, please see the links, they are (1)Dictionaries (2)Refer to sepoy a rank in the Indian army quite different to the generic sense in which the word is used (3)Refer to the events of 1857. No demonstration of contemperory use of the word in English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the term so really keep repeating the same questions is disruptive and we should consider the discussion closed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes questions are repeated because they are not answered correctly. The point is that when you use terms which are jargon and write sepoy mutiny you give too much weight to one perspecitve of the events of 1857, which is against wikipedia policy of wp:npov. It is not this editor's fault that editors here are reluctant to use a neutral easily understood and accurate pair of English words, and prefer jargon, other editors are indulging in disruption. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If sources refer to the events of 1857 using Sepoy, then the word passes WP:V. Furthermore, I don't see how the one word gives a perspective either way, and that is because it doesn't. It's just a word, a completely WP:NPOV one. There's no reason for it being jargon than your own opinion. That's all I have to say, thank you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word sepoy gives weight to one perspective on the events of 1857, that it was a sepoy mutiny, to make it neutral this reference should be avoided and a neutral non jargon term used. See a reader going through would read, "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great" that is what makes it anti wp:npov, with the statement "1857 started with a mutiny in the camps, and then conflagrated" that would make it neutral, plus another benefit would be avoiding of use of jargon and trouble for a reader to check the link to know what sepoy meant. There is a limit to the power of words to convey thoughts, especially at the hands of a novice like me, if you editors (many of whom are administrators) cannot understand and appreciate, I think I have to give up for the time being at least, some other time, there is lot of it. Remember the largest circulating English paper is Indian, English is going to be more and more non-native. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I request those baring fangs here to give their attention to edits here that prefer unsourced material and remove material that is wp:V and wp:rs, seriously compromising Wikipedia standards. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This See a reader going through would read, "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great" makes a lot of assumptions about the readers. It assumes they will have a certain kind of emotive reaction based on certain words. Totally unwarranted in my view. It's almost like some sort of Monty Python parody. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know anything about the so-called sepoy mutiny, but reading the sentence I tend to think "rah-rah, sepoys! ..suppressed? damn EIC!" Pfly (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing sepoy vs soldier any more. Just a clarification What I wrote on second thoughts is not what I meant. What I meant to write is that the text reads as "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great", am I hallucinating? Tilting at wind-mills? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article at many places come across as that. Written like an obituary, even witha a sub-section "The end". It does not have a scholarly treatment such as "...Europe’s expansion into territorial imperialism had much to do with the great economic benefit from collecting resources from colonies, in combination with assuming political control often by military means. Most notably, the “British exploited the political weakness of the Mughal state, and, while military activity was important at various times, the economic and administrative incorporation of local elites was also of crucial significance".." (quoted from wikipedia article Imperialism) I hope editors here understand. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Or like this "This form of imperialism can also be seen in British Columbia, Canada. In the 1840s, the territory of British Columbia was divided into two regions, one space for the native population, and the other for non-natives. The indigenous peoples were often forcibly removed from their homes onto reserves. These actions were “justified by a dominant belief among British colonial officials that land occupied by Native people was not being used efficiently and productively.”..." ibid Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If editors still feel that I am halucinating and paranoid, then I am being tendentious and I need to stay away from this place.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Coming here from an ANI thread, it seems to me that we are adopting British usage in the editorial voice of an article segment that is as much or more about Indian history as it is about British history, and if that is what Yogesh was objecting to, above, I think he had a legitimate content point. Here for example is an Indian news source, commenting – not inappropriately perhaps – that

  "We read, see and analyse history in different angles. So is the case of India's First War of Independence or The Revolt of 1857. For Indians it is the First War of Indian Independence but for British it is a Sepoy Mutiny."

• Note that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857; so one idea would be to follow mainspace article usage and make it, "The Indian Rebellion of 1857 grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company ...". Thoughts? --JN466 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And what was this wider conflict? Sorry, but "grew into a wider conflict which" is meaningless. HLGallon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but there are ways to get this right. For example, something like:

The Indian Rebellion of 1857, sparked off by a mutiny of native soldiers employed in the Company's army, led to the Company's dissolution and the assumption of direct control by the British government. The rebellion took six months to suppress, with heavy loss of life on both sides. ...

Basically, if it is possible to get the article to read as naturally to an Indian reader as it does to an English reader, we should try and do so. --JN466 11:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion under "westernize" above. This was a continuation of a discussion that started on the FAR page. There were so many strands to the occasion that either they had to be listed, which made the entry rather large, or summarised as simply and neutrally as possible. All suggestions gratefully received. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a continuation of the discussion which came to the conclusion that we did not have a consensus to change the term Sepoy? MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No I meant the broader discussion about the resons/causes of the event. I thought this discussion was veering off into that again.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the wording I suggested? I was hoping it would not inconvenience Western readers, but would read better to Indian readers. (Actually, I think we should say "Indian soldiers" rather than "native soldiers".) --JN466 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest a compromise - The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of sepoys (Indian soldiers employed by the British East India Company's army), led to the Company's dissolution and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Not that different. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think we need the term sepoy here. We have it once before in the article, in the "Company rule in India" section (where it should perhaps be placed in quotation marks, given that it is a distinctly British and historical usage of the word). Otherwise, your wording seems fine: The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of Indian soldiers employed by the Company's army, led to the Company's dissolution and the assumption of direct control by the British government. (We don't need to repeat the Company's full name, as the full name is given at the beginning of the section, and it then is just referred to as "the Company".) Would that be okay? --JN466 18:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the term Sepoy Mutiny is the common name for that event and to remove the term Sepoy would confuse many readers who associate the term with the event. Endless discussion above supported the use of the term so we dont have a consensus at this time to remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857, and that Sepoy Mutiny is perceived as a clear Britishism in India, we'd surely be better off with the more neutral term. I believe anyone who knows the terms sepoy and sepoy mutiny is unlikely to be confused when presented with a reference to the "Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of Indian soldiers employed by the Company's army". Please reconsider. --JN466 19:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that sepoy is perceived as a 'clear Britishism' in India. To use only the term 'Sepoy Mutiny', to describe the events of that period, is perceived as a colonial view (which is why wikipedia's article is at the Indian rebellion of 1857, but assuming that there is a distaste for the term sepoy, and that it should be removed en masse from the article, is a bit far-fetched because it is commonly used by Indian historians (c.f. [2] this article from EPW in JSTOR where the author, an Indian, writing in a well-known journal, Indian, refers to the events as "The sepoy war of 1857-58"). The fact that the rebellion started as a mutiny of sepoys, and spread as a cascading mutiny of sepoys that later grew to involve various local rulers, is fairly well established. You cannot take the sepoy out of the Indian rebellion of 1857 because it was largely fought by them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If Sepoy Mutiny is perceived as a Britishism then it would seem to be appropriate for an article on the British Empire written in British English. I dont have a problem if the terms are reversed and it is changed to The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of Indian soldiers employed by the company's army and known at the time as the Sepoy Mutiny, MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite, although there is no need to change the order to reflect a small group of editor's POV. It was fine when the article was featured and it's fine now. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good compromise, MilborneOne; I would sign up for that. --JN466 11:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not the word Sepoy that is the problem with the "First War of Independence" viewpoint so much as the word mutiny. But it began as a mutiny and developed into an Uprising with multiple strands/causes/motivations. Sepoy just means an infantry private. It had been used pretty much throughout for the soldiers of the EIC and that is what they were called. It wasn't the first mutiny but it was the biggest and the one that turned into an uprising - not least because it gained Mughal backing.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the issue really. The above compromise just dance's around the word Sepoy, making it unnecessarily verbose. I also dislike the change in chronology, the sentence as it is says A leads to B, not B lead from A, which I find better for a history article. Furthermore, it's still known as the Sepoy Mutiny, although maybe not in India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Indian famines

We currently have,

India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect.[90]

An editor above expressed concern that this made it sound as though most deaths of starvation occurred before, rather than during, the British Raj; the present wording can be read as though it were blaming the East India Company's lack of attention to the matter for the millions of Indian deaths, and as though it were praising the British Raj for making sure that after Company rule was over, these things were gradually brought under control. In fact, as was discussed earlier, most of these deaths occurred during the British Raj. An elegant solution might be to simply delete "The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj,", leaving something like this:

India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. It took until the early 1900s to bring the problem under control.[90] --JN466 19:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support that change. I would replace the words "widespread famines" with the worst famines in Indian history (ample sources can be provided). Also there are plenty of sources that state the famines were exasperatedexacerbated by British policy. Cormac Ó Gráda frequently uses "policy failure" in much of his work when he discusses/compares Indian famines with the Great Irish famine (which is called genocide in Ireland and recognized as such by the state of New Jersey). Zuggernaut (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I take it you mean "exacerbated" by British policy. HLGallon (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing out - I've fixed it. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't generally called "genocide" in Ireland. For genocide some intention is required rather than general laissez-faire negligence and stupidity. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A great many in Ireland felt and still feel it was genocide.

• Francis A. Boyle calls it genocide under the 1948 Hague convention. ("Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnic and racial group commonly known as the Irish People...Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish people within the meaning of Article II (c) of the 1948 Hague Genocide Convention." Ritschel, 1996)
• Peter Duffy suggests it looks like genocide to may Irish. (Duffy 2007, pp. 297-298)
• James Donnely says it looked like genocie to a great many Irish. (Donnelly 2005)
• Records show that food was being exported from Ireland to England when people were dying in Ireland. (Kinealy 1995, p. 354) Zuggernaut (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No mainstream sources consider it to be deliberate. They mostly either didn't care or didn't think it was anything to do with them. Most of the ruling classes didn't care about people starving on their doorsteps in England either. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some sources for "worst famines in Indian history" here on the talk page? --JN466 11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So two editors have extrapolated a meaning from the wording that might suggest something other than what it actually says. As with the earlier discussion, this is not grounds for change. The failure to delist the article and the temporary ban for trolling on this (and related Indian topics) should really give a pretty clear indication that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Present consensus at ANI is that that block for "trolling" was a bad block. The present wording, whether intentionally or not, implies that things somehow got better under the British Raj. They didn't; the worst famines occurred during the British Raj. We should fix this. --JN466 11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point about the implications. I'd personally avoid a blanket statement "famines were the fault of the raj", as well as avoid a statement saying they were completely vindicated. Perhaps it needs to reflect that the British raj tried to analyze and fix the effects, however the famines reputedly got worse? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The current wording does not imply anything to most readers, and the article's FA status (did anyone notice how it is still a Featured Article despite certain editor's best efforts?) would suggest it is neutrally written. That said the last part of the paragraph does not follow the general narrative style of the article ("which took until the early 1900s to have an effect"). We should remove this element of analysis so there is less chance of even the most ardent POV-pusher from reading things that aren't written. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being prepared to look at the wording. If we deleted the passage you highlight, we would then have,

India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies.

That still does not work. What I get from that is that Indians could not look after themselves, the Company failed to do it properly, but the British Raj did it, as kind and responsible helpers, even though it was a tough job. This does not reflect those sources that say that colonial rule itself, including and especially under the British Raj, was co-responsible for impoverishing Indians to the extent that they starved in their millions, to a degree unprecedented in their history, while the English prospered, in part because of the wealth they extracted from India. The article passed through FAR without being delisted, but there were several FAC regulars who drew attention to the fact that the article could be improved by reflecting more recent scholarly coverage of the economic and moral aspects of colonialism. --JN466 15:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Scholarly coverage of...moral aspects" is arguably an oxymoron! But anyway, when I read that I get the impressions the famines occurred beginning under the rule of the EIC, continuing on into the rule of the raj. The raj however, decided to investigate this. No fault going to anyone. Trying to think of a way to suggest the theory that the raj exacerbated the problem in an NPOV fashion. Perhaps

• The East India Company failed to implement a coordinated policy to deal with the famines it may have caused occurring in areas under its rule. While famines became worse under the Raj, it set up commissions after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies.

Better? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How about, The Company failed to tackle famines occuring under it's rule. Famines increased in severity and frequency under the Raj until investigative commissions set up after each famine finally led to effective famine prevention policies at the beginning of the 20th century. It is estimated over 15 million people died in the latter half of the 19th century under the Raj.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer wording that starts with the famines. Something like: Several famines occurred in India during the 200 years of British rule. While the causes of these famines are complex, it is generally accepted that administrative and policy failures on the part of both the EIC as well as later British Raj authorities contributed to the scale of the devastation caused by these famines, in which over 15 million people died in the latter half of the 19th century. Or, alternatively, Over 15 million people died in India in several famines in the latter half of the 19th century. While the causes of these famines are complex, it is generally accepted that administrative and policy failures on the part of both the EIC as well as later British Raj authorities contributed to the scale of the devastation caused by these famines.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an improvement but it still leaves out the fact that these were the worst famines in Indian history. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It also leaves out the fact that policy in the first part of the 20th century was successful - apart from the Bengal famine 40 years later which occured during wartime. The famines were actually worse under the Raj than under company rule until the 20th century.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Fainites, simple and notes both increasing severity and the attempt to counter them. Regents is good, but too long i think. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, these are good proposals, and thanks to Zuggernaut for posting the sources. I like RegentsPark's second proposal best; building on that, I would offer, Droughts and crop failures caused exceptionally severe famines in India in the latter half of the 19th century, in which more than 15 million people died. It is generally accepted that administrative and policy failures on the part of both the EIC as well as later British Raj authorities contributed to the scale of devastation these famines caused. --JN466 14:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Did we miss the bit about the work the British administration did to prevent the famines? MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is strictly necessary. JN's recent version is about the 19th century, not the 20th. And, the big one, the Bengal famine, took place after the work the British administration did to prevent famines. That's one reason why I'm not keen to put down a reason for the famines (the 1943 one was not because of crop failures) and would rather just say that there were many famines during british rule and that poor policies were a contributing factor to the scale of devastation. That view is generally accepted by historians of all stripes. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I support Jayen466's version. User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick was trying to distinguish between the British East India Company and the Raj in that the former had no policies at all and the latter devised some of the most sophisticated Famine Codes of the day. However, the back-story on this is that the Famine Codes were ready in 1880 but not passed until 1883 due to a conservative Governor General. Even after they were passed/enacted, they were not implemented effectively until the famines of the early 20th century. Then again in 1943 they were not implemented during the Bengal famine for reasons best left alone for now because they are far to inflammatory - besides the Bengal famine is outside the scope in the current context. Keeping all of that and MilborneOne's point in mind, here's my proposal: India suffered some of the worst famines in its history in the late 18th and the 19th centuries during which it is estimated that over 50 million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies such as the Famine Codes of 1883, despite which the worst famines occured in the last quarter of the 19th century causing an estimated 15 million deaths. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion I was just trying to make the point that the British administration didnt just ignore the situation, one example (although from the 20th Century) was the Lloyd/Sukkur Barrage which took nine years and £15 million pounds. Although that should be balanced as you have said by the huge loss of life particularly in the last years of the 19th C. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think which did not take effect until the early 20th century is better. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Between infrastructure developments of the 19th century (if any) and the Famine Codes of 1883, the latter had a more intense and a lasting impact because they were applicable throughout India and not limited to a geographical area (the Sukkur Barrage would have helped improve irrigation in a few miles radius). There were various reasons for this but I would think that the primary reason was that the Codes made it mandatory to import food in to the province affected by a drought. Until then wheat, grains, rice was still being exported from India to the UK to feed the poor in that country as it was a mandatory duty of the government per the poor laws of 1834. Very similar observations of food exports have been made in other parts of the British Empire (Ireland) during the same period. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Which source would we cite for the "over 50 million" figure? --JN466 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Several authors give the figure of about 37 million deaths from famine for the period 1800-1900. Adding to this the deaths from the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 (11 million deaths), Chalisa famine of 1791 (10 million deaths) and the Doji bara or Skull famine of 1789 (11 million deaths), we are well past the 50 million number.

1. Source for 37 million number - Bose, Sudhindra (1918), Some aspects of British rule in India Monographs University of Iowa, 5, The University, pp. 79–81
2. Source for Great Bengal Famine of 1770: Desai, Meghnad; Raychaudhuri, Tapan; Kumar, Dharma (1983), The Cambridge economic history of India, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521228022, p 528
3. Source for Chalisa famine of 1791: Grove, Richard H. (2007), "The Great El Nino of 1789–93 and its Global Consequences: Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Even in World Environmental History", The Medieval History Journal 10 (1&2): 75–98
4. Source for Doji bara or Skull famine of 1789: Grove, Richard H. (2007), "The Great El Nino of 1789–93 and its Global Consequences: Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Even in World Environmental History", The Medieval History Journal 10 (1&2): 75–98

Zuggernaut (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well be careful here. Bose says 32 million between 1800 and 1900, but earlier famines you cite are not all in parts of India under British rule. For example according to the article on the Chalisa famine, the main famine in the second year was in areas under Indian rule. What does your source say on this? The Doji bara or Skull famine (11 million) was not in areas of British rule at all according to this timeline. Where does your source put it and what does it say about company rule having anything to do with the famine? We can't just take 1765 and say everything after that is "british rule". Here's a map of company territory in 1765 and 1805 if it helps. India also has specific drought prone areas - western Rajasthan/Kutch, Udaipur, Gwalior, Malwa plateau, Gujarat, north of Madhya Pradesh to Southern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, south west Bengal and northern Rajasthan. In my view, the simplest way to put this is as I suggested above, that famines increased in severity and frequency under British rule etc etc until 1900 etc etc. There is an article on Famine in India and individual articles on each famine.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the 32 million. Numerous regions remained Princely right until the end in 1947. It is unfair to claim that a particular area was Princely or not under British administration when faced with these sort of situations and then go ahead and paint the entire map in pink/red to be shown under the British Empire as is done in the map in the infobox. Also, the Princely states were Princely in name only. They were completely subjugated by the British and were indirectly under British administration. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not in 1765!!! The EIC did not walk in in 1765 and take over the whole of India and you can't conflate much later assumptions of authority or dominion of other parts of India in order to claim the EIC was directly responsible for all Indian famines from 1765. The map just shows the largest extent of the empire. That is why I asked specifically what your sources say on the issue of any company involvement in or responsibility for the Skull famine and half the Chalissa famine. There is no doubt famines were worse in the 19th century and that is largely the repspnisibility of the then british government, their taxation policy and their obsession with Malthusian type ideaology. You just can't extrapolate back from that to 1765. I'm not saying there was no reponsibility. I am asking what your sources say. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Grove says on page 83 The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed. He also gives detailed, district by district numbers on the deaths from that period, for example 141,682 people died in Muglatore in the Madras Presidency, 184,923 in Peddapore, 7,800 in Cottah and so on. The Bengal famine of 1770 is very well known as the first famine under the British. Adding all of those numbers to the Bose number we are easily over the 50 million figure and possibly approaching 70-75 million. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bengal is certainly in the area of British responsibility. Grove is there talking about the Madras and Bengal presidencies. The point I'm making is you can't just take total mortalities in a famine like the Chalisa which was pretty much over the whole of India when the EIC was only responsible for limited parts of it. What is really needed is a decent scholarly source that gives the rough total otherwise we get into extensive OR arguments, most of which belong in the famine articles. Personally I would imagine "over 50 million" is about right if we have Bose + Bengal (1770) plus some of the other late 18th century famines but I'd like a decent source to say so. The other point to make of course is that we know so much because the EIC and then the British started keeping better records than had been done before. Famine did appear to become more frequent and severe under British rule though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, if what you say is true about record keeping why are we even discussing this? We can't have comparisons when one set of data is known to be inaccurate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite that bad! There are some records. Major famines appear to have occured approximately every 40/50 years or so until the end of the 17th century. Things were particularly bad at the end of the 18th century because of el nino. Mortality was very high during medieval and more recent times as often various plagues/diseases and so on accompanied famines, but famines were more frequent under British rule. What Atreyi Biswas says is ....famines are not just a malady of the modern age. India has suffered from time immemorial from the devastating effects of natural calamities. At times, damage wrought by these natural calamities was worsened and acccelerated by man-made causes. Detailed records of these calamities are not available currently due to the general apathy of the Indian writers to record the conditions of the ordinary people at that time. He then goes on to write a whole book of what is known about ancient famines. He uses Hare's table of famines. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How about India suffered some of the worst famines in its history in the late 18th and the 19th centuries during which it is estimated that over 50 million people died. The Company failed to tackle famines occuring under its rule. Famines increased in severity and frequency under the Raj until investigative commissions set up after each famine finally led to effective famine prevention policies at the beginning of the 20th century. This sort of combines the points made above though I would still prefer one source for the over 50 million figure.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me; and I'd agree about the source for the 50 million. (I've corrected a typo.) --JN466 20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bose as a general summary source and another (hopefully) for the 50 mil. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a useful-looking source: A brief history of India, Judith E. Walsh, Infobase Publishing. The numbers are incomplete, and do not back up a total of 50 million, but the book describes for example how food was moved out of famine areas due to fixed contracts, and provides background on how famine relief measures came about and finally took effect. --JN466 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Sen, the problem was not generally food shortage as such but rather poverty. Calamitous natural conditions like drought and flood meant the agricultural labourers and artisans were thrown out of work in their millions and had no means to buy food.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Here is Mike Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts (the table at the top of the page gives Indian figures for 1876–79, and 1896–1902; note that the highlighted summary quoting 30 to 50 million includes other countries as well, but is restricted to the 1876–1902 period). --JN466 22:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not much help if it includes other countries. We could say eg India suffered some of the worst famines in its history in the late 18th and the 19th centuries with over 32 million deaths from famine between 1800 and 1900 alone. The Company failed to tackle famines occuring under its rule. Famines increased in severity and frequency under the Raj until investigative commissions set up after each famine finally led to effective famine prevention policies at the beginning of the 20th century. That gives some idea of the scale of the thing without having to analyse all figures.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mm ... Bose is from 1918. Do we have something more recent citing him or backing him up? Davis quotes totals ranging from 12.2 to 29.3 million for India, for 1876–79 plus 1896–1902. Given that things were worse in the second half of the century, the lower end of that range (12.2m) wouldn't be compatible with 32 million for 1800–1900, would it? --JN466 23:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bose uses Digby's figures which are also used for Hare's Table of Famines. He gives 1,000,000 for the first 25 years, 500,000 for the second, 5,000,000 for the third and 26,000,000 for the last quarter. I understand these are famine commission figures. Doesn't seem to fit quite with this though. It appears there's a lot of guesswork as figures in the princely states were unknown. The comparison of the 1891 and 1901 census, allowing for natural population growth, effectively showed over 11 million decrease in the worst affected provinces. The timeline figures for those years (which appear to be sourced to a much more recent paper on those late 19th century famines, unfortunately on jstor) show 6 million famine deaths in British areas and unknown figures in the affected Princely states, hence the later use in 1901 by Digby of census figures presumably. It looks as if the 12 million figure might be a conservative estimate of actual known figures collected in British areas at the time, with better guestimates made later. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's existing version is quite robust in terms of flow and construction of the sentence. I would propose to stick to it as closely as possible. I have seen the Bose-Digby number in several places and am OK with it. Once we have consensus on the actual number, we can plug it in place of the 'xx' below.

Sources:

1. Bose for the 32.5 million in the 1800-1900 period.
2. Grove for the Doji Bara and Chalisa famines of the 1790's (both 11 million each)
3. Desai for the Great Bengal famine of 1770 (10-11 million)

Adding all of these takes us over the 50 million number. Such addition is OK under WP:NOR

Current

Proposed

India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect.

India suffered a series of famines in the late 18th and the 19th centuries, due to droughts and policy failures in which it is estimated that over xx million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after famines to investigate causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect by which time xx million people had died in the last quarter of the 19th century.

Zuggernaut (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Here is a list of sources requested by JN466:

For sources stating that the famines under British rule were the worst, see:

• Page 299 of Davis, Mike (2001), Late Victorian Holocausts, Verso Books, ISBN 9781859847398
• Chapter "VI.4: Famine" of Murton, Brian (2000), The Cambridge World History of Food
• Pages 463-532 of Desai, Meghnad; Raychaudhuri, Tapan; Kumar, Dharma (1983), The Cambridge economic history of India, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521228022
• Page 585 of Thakur, Baleshwar; Sinha, V.N.P; Prasad, M; Pratap, Rana (2005), Thakur, Baleshwar, ed., Urban and regional development in India: essays in honour of Prof. L.N. Ram, Concept Publishing Company, ISBN 9788180691997

The impression created by this article that after the Raj and 1900, the problem was remedied is also contradicted by the Bengal famine of 1943 which many sources claim was one of the worst:

• Page 32 of Rorabacher, J. Albert (2010), Hunger and poverty in South Asia, Gyan Publishing House, ISBN 9788121210270

Millions of tons of wheat was being exported to England when people were dying of starvation on the streets in Bengal. For sources stating that this was due to policy failure see the table and related content of:

• Page 23 of Ó Gráda, Cormac (2009), Famine: a short history, Princeton University Press, ISBN 9780691122373

Table:

Estimated death tolls from relevant famines (Source: Ó Gráda)

Year	Country	Excess mortality (millions)	% Death rate	Observations
1846-52	Ireland	1	12	Potato blight, policy failure
1876-79	India (under British rule)	7	3	Drought, policy failure
1942-44	India (under British rule)	2	3	War, policy failure, supply shortfall
1959-61	China	15 to 25	2 to 4	Drought, floods, Great leap forward
1972-73	Independent India	0.1	0.03	Drought
1995-96	North Korea	0.6 to 1	3 to 4	Poor harvests, policy failure

Zuggernaut (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say, precisely. The above table is a perfect example of WP:CHERRY. Please quote what the sources say, because unless they support the edit, your table is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYN. You need a source to support the claim, even then the best you could do with that is state that it is the author's opinion. Justin talk 01:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The format of the table is replicated here as it is in the source. A few rows have been deleted but the table is not going to be used in the article. It is simply illustrated here to support the claim that policy failure was a cause for the famines which is actually very well known. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For the second time of asking, what does the source actually say. You appear to not understand that original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Justin talk 08:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as page 23 of Ó Gráda is concerned, what you see in the table is what it says. We should be able to use this source to support content like policy failure and drought were observed in the famines x, y and z. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic impact on Britain and the colonies

Would there be support for adding a paragraph on the economic and human impact that the British Empire had on Britain and the colonies? I think it is fair to say that the Empire made Britain wealthy, and that wealth was transferred from the colonies to Britain. After all, that was the point of the Empire. We'd have to do some source research to see how sources in Britain and the former colonies are covering this. --JN466 00:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be incorrect, investment went both ways. The British Empire was more successful than other European empires as it invested in its colonies to develop their economy and further trade. Britain certainly became wealthy but then so did its colonies. You're starting from a premise and looking for sources to "prove that". That is cherry picking. Justin talk 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466 is actually quite right. The net economic effect of the British Empire on India was very negative. Sources and numbers of how India's share of global income fell from 22.3% (nearly equal to that of Europe's of 23%) in 1700 to 3% or something like that has been archived in these talk pages. The source, as I remember, was the Cambridge or Oxford economic historian Angus Maddisson (quoted by sitting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh while receiving an honorary Ph.D from Oxford or Cambridge). Zuggernaut (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was the sort of thing I was thinking of. We should present data on other colonies as well. --JN466 08:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I will need more time to generate content on the economic impact. Human toll is something I haven't yet looked in to. The human toll of an enslaved people can be disastrous and can take centuries to overcome, if at all. Again, I don't have anything on this right now but can come up with content in time. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good to cover. And we shouldn't forget that there was actually also a considerable human toll on the British themselves. I don't know how many Britons died as a result of war and disease in the colonies, but the mortality rates among colonial soldiers were high. --JN466 08:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that there were about 300,000 people in the British administration in India. We can certainly include the mortality numbers of the British but that number is likely to be small and within that number, a very large percentage is likely to be Indian sepoys/soldiers serving in the British administration. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You would also need a source to demonstrate that countries in the same region developed faster outside of the British Empire. Without this the bare comparison with europe assumes that india would certainly have undergone two agricultural revolutions and an industrial revolution had it not become part of the BE. No other country did outside of europe, so why India? How fast did China develop in the same period? Outofsinc (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources may differ on that, and we should reflect the spectrum of sources available. There are certainly sources arguing that colonialism created the Third World, and undeniably many Third World countries are former colonies. The progress of China, which had been doing very well until the 19th century, was checked by the opium wars, through which the British Empire asserted its right to continue drug trafficking from India to China, and the crippling conditions imposed on China in the wake of those wars. Japan, on the other hand, never was a colony, and has been an industrial superpower for decades. --JN466 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there is not support for this. Counterfactual history has a place, but it is not on Wikipedia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's leave the original research to university faculty. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there is any need to resort to original research for this; just source research. --JN466 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Two economic historians who do this/have done this for us as part of their careers are Niall Fergusson and the late Angus Maddison. I am sure there are many more. The bottleneck in getting that content in this article here has been the lack of consensus. RegentsParks observation isn't accurate. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Drawing together multiple (reliable) sources to produce/support novel interpretations is original research. How would you address the questions raised by Outofsinc (the tip of the iceberg - there are many more)? Balancing counterfactual theories (sourced or not) is not our business. Indeed, User:Zuggernaut's proposal to "generate content" should send shivers up Wikipedian's backs. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in promoting novel interpretations. All we should do is give an overview of existing influential interpretations. --JN466 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No thanks the political agenda that seems to be taking place here led by Zuggarnaut should not result in major changes to this article which has successfully passed a FAR. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• As for "leaving original research to university faculty", here is a source for the point made above about China, and the creation of a Third World: Maps of time: an introduction to big history, David Christian, University of California Press. That original research has been done, and published. It's not up to Wikipedians to say it is "counterfactual" (though of course, if there are alternative views, we should include them too). --JN466 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's some content that was proposed in the past: India's share of global income slipped from 22.6% in 1700, nearly equal to that of Europe's of 23.4%, to 3.8% by the time of Indian independence. Despite the negative economic impact of the Empire, Britons and Indians have enjoyed a benign relationship since independence.

This was based on the following sources:

• Singh, Manmohan (2005), In acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005, The Hindu, retrieved September 28, 2010

The relevant Singh quote is:

“ There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis for. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign. ”

The Angus Maddison quote that Manmohan Singh is referring to can be found in his book which has the following table on page 263:

Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)

Year	0	1000	1500	1600	1700	1820	1870	1913	1950	1973	1998
United Kingdom	-	-	1.1	1.8	2.9	5.2	9.1	8.3	6.5	4.2	3.3
India	32.9	28.9	24.5	22.6	24.4	16.0	12.2	7.6	4.2	3.1	5.0

The problem with this content is that it is India specific. If we could come up with similar content (African colonies, Malaysia, Singapore, etc) then this will enhance the article significantly (if we have consensus). Zuggernaut (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The percentages don't tell the whole story. There was an enormous growth in World GDP between 1700 and 1952 based mainly on the eurocentric Industrial Revolution. So it is at least possible that the percentage reduction in the Indian share of GDP corresponded to a low growth in Indian GDP rather than an absolute reduction. To put these figures in context it would be useful to at least know how world GDP grew over that period. In addition to African colonies, etc., it would also be useful to include the percentages for a non-Imperial country such as China in the interests of producing a balanced picture. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding China and USA though I do not think China is an appropriate comparison for the reasons provided by User:Jayen466. A comparison with the USA would be more appropriate:

Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)

Year	0	1000	1500	1600	1700	1820	1870	1913	1950	1973	1998
United Kingdom	-	-	1.1	1.8	2.9	5.2	9.1	8.3	6.5	4.2	3.3
India	32.9	28.9	24.5	22.6	24.4	16.0	12.2	7.6	4.2	3.1	5.0
USA	-	-	0.3	0.2	0.1	1.8	8.9	19.1	27.3	22.0	21.9
China	26.2	22.7	25.0	29.2	22.3	32.9	17.2	8.9	4.5	4.6	11.5

There's no question about the European ingenuity of that era which led to the Industrial Revolution but I'm sure, free and democratic nations such as India would have industrialized or even surpassed Europe in the industrialization as the United States did. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a strange table most of these countries did not exist for most of the span of the table. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the economics of the British Empire should be in the article. It should mention that the Empire in the twentieth century was a burden on the Exchequer. It cost more to defend than it yielded in revenue. Due to the prevailing laissez faire orthodoxy, the British government in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries never actively sought to exploit the Empire's natural resources to their full potential. For example, in the years 1925-1929 the colonial empire supplied the UK with just 8% of its raw materials. In 1901 the colonial empire made up just 4% of the UK's export market. Due to Free Trade, less than half of the colonial empire's imports came from the UK, and the colonial empire in turn only sent 42% of its exports to the UK. 71 out of a 100 Indians worked on the land and only 12 out of a 100 in industry, so India added practically nothing to the UK's industrial capacity (the measurement of national power). In 1913, India's home market was worth £70,273,321 for the UK's exports. Compare this to France and Germany, which was worth £69,610,451. As for the UK's overseas investments, India was worth not much more than Argentina. As for imports into the UK, India accounted for less than half of the British-settled Dominions, and half as much as the U.S. Therefore the economic worth of India to the UK was outweighed by the immense strategic and diplomatic burden she was.See the Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Colonial Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1937) and Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (London: Eyre & Methuen, 1972). For the the rest of the colonial empire, I believe Harold Macmillan (when Chancellor) in the 1950s wrote an audit for the British Empire and it revealed that it was a burden on the UK.--Britannicus (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

How about Indian/nationalist editors create a new article, perhaps "Effects of Imperialism on India", or "What if the British had never ruled India?" or just simply "British Empire boo hiss"? Obviously it would get slapped down with NPOV, OR and all sorts of other tags, but at least those tags would be there and not on an existing Featured Article (whose status was recently confirmed despite the best efforts of said editors to change it). Just as a reminder:

• This article is NOT about India;
• It is not about what might have happened;
• It does not address whether something was "right" or "wrong";
• It uses a neutral narrative style using reliable middle-of-the-road sources;
• It does not analyse or summarise the historiography;
• Its talk page is not a forum.

Proposals which do not adhere to these points will fail. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What about a page the `British Empire caused the 2010 financial crisis in Ireland --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We actually have an article called Historiography_of_the_British_Empire (start-class). I see no good reason why a Featured Article should not at least give a summary of the Historiography; some of the commentators at FAR suggested as much. --JN466 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that article, but the fact that it exists rather strengthens the argument for this article to remain focused on a narrative of what actually happened, not on cause/effect interpretations (as far as that is possible). A short internet article cannot cover every interpretation of the consequences of each event (or the Empire as a whole), and certainly should not do so when they are controversial, as many of these topics are. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course this article cannot do more than give a broad overview of any aspect of the British Empire; I am not proposing to turn it into a coatrack whereby we spend 9,000 words on telling what happened, and then 5,000 words quoting Late Victorian Holocausts. But a short section on the historiography would add value, and yes, somewhere in that section there should be a mention of the nationalist Indian POV. --JN466 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to flood this article with Indian nationalist POV is wrong. This recently passed a FAR which was started for pathetic reasons by someone who was failing to get their POV crap added to the article. I oppose any change to this article that adds such POV and there is only so much room in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the time to speak of "flooding" the article with the Indian nationalist POV, because as of now, that POV is not represented at all. (If I've missed it, do point me to it.) It is, however, a significant point of view. --JN466 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Which points of view are represented here exactly? The North American? The Irish? The African? The Australian? I don't actually know whether it reflects any of them, but I do know that it does not reflect the British perspective. I also know that because there are lots of significant nationalistic points of view it is not possible to balance all of them. We should achieve NPOV by mentioning none of them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we seem to be working toward a wikipedia where scholarly sources are less important than extreme nationalist viewpoints. If that is indeed the case, and someone can point me to the new policy description, then I will support adding whatever JN466 deems necessary to satisfy the 'Indian viewpoint'. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been no policy change on Wikipedia and we are still working with scholarly, academic sources who publish in peer reviewed journals. If a view is not mainstream, it is not presented in articles or is clearly stated as a minority view. British Empire is odd in that mainstream views are chosen selectively. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite your best efforts to undermine this article, it survived a FAR you sparked. Its neutral and does not need flooding with your POV crap. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF BW that is verging on uncivil. Zuggernaut I think sincerely believes his statement above. I think he is wrong, and does not pay attention to WP:WEIGHT in his selections, but its not right to accuse him of POV crap, that is name calling. --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, there are Indian scholars of history, and there are scholarly summaries of the British Empire's historiography even by Western scholars which mention Indian scholars' points of view. We do nothing of the sort; of 218 citations, 217 are to British or American sources as far as I can tell.

And by the way, you are mischaracterising WP:V policy, which explicitly allows the use of non-scholarly sources. I know that, because I recently tried -- and failed -- for several weeks to have that paragraph changed to state more clearly that scholarly sources, where available, are preferred for statements of fact. Even in the version I proposed though, the policy would still have allowed editors to source statements of opinion and public perception to quality media sources, as it does now. The relevant passage is Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source,

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.

That is policy, and has been for some considerable time. So if there were a salient media source, we would be quite free to use it. Now, I generally don't like using media sources much when there are scholarly sources covering the same ground, and I don't propose that we resort to media sources unless there were very good reasons, but we should broaden the range of scholarly opinion a bit. And indeed, Mike Davis should get a mention too. --JN466 15:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are examples of the types of sources I am talking about:

• The debate on the rise of the British empire by Anthony Webster, Manchester University Press, p. 88f.
• The Blackwell companion to Hinduism by Gavin D. Flood, p. 51ff. (referring among others to Raychaudhuri in The Cambridge illustrated history of the British Empire by Peter James Marshall, Cambridge University Press; Raychaudhuri is much cited in the literature)
• The Oxford History of the British Empire has a whole volume on the debates surrounding the Empire's historiography (perhaps too much to be useful for a summary).

At any rate, such summaries describe prevalent viewpoints of all types rather than endorsing them. That is the sort of thing I had in mind. I'm using India here as an example, because India constituted three-quarters of the Empire's population, but this is really about any postcolonial assessments and writings on the Empire. It doesn't have to be more than five or ten sentences, but we should have something on this, and name some notable authors. --JN466 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

JN466, there are many views of the British Empire and many editors who have come here trying to put forth positive or negative views of the empire. The article, as it is currently written, deals with the historical sequence of events without digressing into value judgements. If we allowed one set of value judgements into the article, then it would become necessary to allow other sets as well and the article would quickly become long, unwieldy and hard to read. That would be a disservice to our readers. On the matter of economic effects, I've long supported a specific article on Economic effects of the British rule of India, and, IMO, the correct thing to do is to write that article and include it in the see also section of this article. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. My original post was perhaps somewhat facetious - RegentsPark has summed up what I was getting at much more eloquently. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that providing a balanced summary of the various perspectives in a paragraph would be easy, but we could try. --JN466 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not uncomfortable with having multiple value judgments in the article; I only have a problem with there not being any, even though they play a prominent role in public discourse about the empire. --JN466 11:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The British Empire was like a lot of previous empires, it had its good points, and it had its bad points, depending on whether a person/country, etc. benefited from its effects or not. People of all nationalities/cultures tend to dislike being governed by 'foreigners' as a rule, and so any criticisms of the British Empire need to bear this in mind, however when seen in comparison with some other people's empires, the British do at least seem to have been one of the less reprehensible ones, compared to ones such as Stalin's or Hitler's. And the British didn't send armed cavalry to hunt and kill their Indians, unlike some countries I could mention. Instead they sent the likes of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to their universities to be educated.

Also in criticising the British it should be tempered with asking whether the 'native' administration of the time could have done any better for the colonial people's well being or not, and in most cases the answer is probably not, many were still effectively Medieval in outlook, if not downright stone age. Like it or not, the British Empire effectively dragged a lot of countries into the 'modern world', for-better-or-for-worse.

Nevertheless, it is always (in my humble opinion) better for a people to govern themselves, providing they don't cause trouble for the rest of us. That's because I have a Western 'liberal' education, something that the rest of the world would lack knowledge-of, were it not for the British Empire.

And it may also be as well to point out that whether one likes it or not, people on this English Wikipedia are using the language of the British Empire. Writing as an Englishman, this is my native language, although for many (perhaps the majority of) contributors on here, it may not be. I'd just like to say thank you for learning my language. I'm very flattered.

This article is completely unbalanced - it does not go into enough detail on the positive effects of British rule in India

This article does not give enough weight to the positive effects of British rule in India. We ABSOLUTELY MUST MENTION that Britain's legacy in India was:

• the English language, why India and not China is where services are being outsourced to
• parliamentary democracy, law and order, freedom of speech and the press (again compare vs China)
• superb education systems
• establishment of rail and road networks
• postal, telephone and telegraph networks
• dams, bridges, irrigation canals
• the abolition of the barbaric practices of sati and infanticide
• the fact that India as a nation never existed until it was united under British rule
• the fact that until the British arrived, the Hindu population was under Muslim control

We must mention these things. We must. And I will repeat this until I am blue in the face. This article is not worthy of featured article status until we do. I think three or four paragraphs devoted entirely to this should be enough? No, wait, make that five. We don't need to mention any other colony, just India. India, India, India. But I'm Bwitish (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I like blue. More relevantly, find reliable sources for your claims - not just that they happened, but that they were positive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was making a point, in the light of this incessant "we must have the negative Indian POV included", although that seems to have been lost on you. But I'm Bwitish (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we could add the British role in challenging the ghastliness of the Mughal caste system, which effectively enslaved tens of millions of poor Indians in permanent genetic semi internal exile and destitution. This is often commented on by Indian writers oddly enough. I suspect the modern improvements to India where they have occured are at least partly down to reduction in the intensity of caste barriers, particularly in the high-growth cities, which are also of course a result of the British railway network, commercial expansion, etc. Really, the latter half of Mughal India was one of dereliction and decay, which is totally unreflected at Mughal Empire - as with Mauryan Empire, the Indian nationalist POV has been at work. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ceylon

And now for something completely different, and hopefully less controversial -- we mention Ceylon gaining its independence, and we briefly mention Ceylon being exempted from the abolition of slavery in 1834, but I can't see that we mention how Ceylon came to be part of the British Empire (mainly through the 1802 Treaty of Amiens). Could we please add this in the para where we mention Amiens? Thanks. --JN466 11:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. [3][4] --JN466 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip II of Spain, king of England

Philip II was king of england. I'd put England like spanish colonia too. spurce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.207.55 (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the fact that Philip II of Spain was jure uxoris king of England for four years doesn't make England a Spanish colony, if that's what you're saying. Gabbe (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What a load of rubish! King Philip of Spain was king only in that he married the Queen of England, his name was entered on legal charters as King by marriage. He held no sway over the English what so ever. He could not even speak English! And anyways, the Queen was the monarch of England if you argue for England to be a colony of Spain, then we English could theoretically argue that Spain be a colony of England.English n proud (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)