Talk:East India Company

Ganj-i-Sawai

The Ganj-i-Sawai did carry enormous wealth. It may, as the East India Company believed, have carried a relative of the Grand Mughal. But if there is "no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue", why even suggest that possibility?

The Bengal famine: to little information?

Shouldn't there be more information, preferably a whole section for the Bengal famine of 1770? It was the most deadly natural disaster in recorded history, killing 10,000,000, and it was caused by the East India Company. I realize the article does mention it, but shouldn't there be more? -Garet (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

To the extent that it wasn't entirely a "natural" disaster - at least some culpability for it can be attributed to HEIC's forcible destruction of food crops for opium production, not to mention their increasingly oppressive taxation - I would agree that this would make good material for the currently sparse "legacy and criticism" section. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The famine was not "caused by the EIC"Royalcourtier (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense

QUOTE: Indian fleet END OF QUOTE

What is this 'Indian fleet'? At best it would be Moghal ships. Mughals cannot be identified with India or Indians, unless all south Indians are defined as animals, and not humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.240.218 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone has replaced the "Founding" section of this page with advertisements for a podcast.

Hello. Is there any way for accomplished wikipedia editors to revert the changes made to the "founding" section of this page on the 8th of December? Mainly, the edits that replace a concise overview of the formation of the East India Company with what appears to be a bizarre rant that is poorly formatted, overtly long and heavily biased against the East India Company. Furthermore, it contains advertisements for a podcast, which as far as I'm aware is forbidden.

Can someone please revert these changes?

Ernie Smith (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ganj-i-Sawai

There may well have been a relative of the Grand Mughal on the Ganj-i-Sawai. But it is not known for certain, or known who it might be. What is the point of saying that "there is no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue". No one suggested that it was!Royalcourtier (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Article very biased: ignores company's racism, sexism, brutality

The article is shocking and clearly biased. Not one mention of the enslavement of blacks, the racism against blacks that most of the members of the company had, the discrimination against females (sexism), the inhumane treatment that most natives that encountered the company workers received, the genocide that the company participated etc. Truly a biased article in favor of the company and ignoring the historic truths.Would an article on Wikipedia dare mention Hitler's SS and not mention the genocide and blind violence? No. But when it comes to the core companies, principles that created and enriched Great Britain, America and Europe, articles tend to be biased and ignore racism, sexism, etc. We need to improve this article and teach the truth otherwise we help to perpetuate racism, sexism, blind national and only make greedy corporations more powerful. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:A0FF:B99F:8D6:BBB0 (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is not "shocking": it describes the Company's development and activities in a neutral tone. There is a section on Legacy and criticisms, with a tag saying that it "needs expansion" (and, probably, splitting). If you would like to do some work on that, with appropriate references to reliable sources, you would be very welcome to do so. Drawing crass comparisons with Nazism does your case no good at all. GrindtXX (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet why was so much effort put into this neutral tone regarding the East India Company when none of it reflects criticism at large? Clearly the company was responsible for so much that was wrong yet nothing has been discussed. You argue someone else should do this- why havent the authors who know so much about the rest of it not willing to discuss it? This itself is indicative of western bias and racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.14.224 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909080353/http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc009.htm to http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc009.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909081557/http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc013.htm to http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc013.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Digitisation of EIC archives

This British library blog post may be of interest:

http://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2017/01/major-new-digital-resource-for-the-india-office-records.html

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of a well sourced sentence

@HLGallon: We have had users complain of a racist, western bias earlier. Now, with this edit you have removed a well sourced sentence. Please explain!—Dona-Hue (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The objectionable text was "They also raised a private army that was mainly composed of Indian sepoys and conquered the whole of South Asia, operating as a quasi-governmental force in controlling and enslaving the native population". First, I do not regard the source as wholly reliable; it is a tertiary review of a book, not the book itself (which, although the Guardian article suggested should be available by now, has apparently not yet been published). Second, the Guardian text makes no mention of "the whole of South Asia" nor of the highly emotive term "enslavement", so in my opinion the source may be accurate in itself but is being improperly used. Finally the edit summary of "making this summary more correct and truthful" is itself WP:POV and unencyclopaedic. Please be aware that any accusation against me of racist bias will result will be regarded as a personal attack and will result in an instant report to the administrators. HLGallon (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@HLGallon: I am not here to make personal attacks (I am a Dale Carnegie fan). I am just reminding you that we have had users complain that this article has a Western, racist bias (see the section titled, "Article very biased, ignores company's racism, sexism, brutality" above). Can we work on balancing this article without an edit war? I don't know who added the "enslavement" word, but instead of removing the whole sentence, I suggest you make the sentence acceptable according to the rules of Wikipedia (or let me do it with that reference)!—Dona-Hue (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for taking what was probably too abrasive a tone in my first response. I have re-read the Guardian article. My mistake, the author of the excerpts is Dalrymple, which makes the article a preview, rather than a review. However, it is still not a complete work, rather it is a disjointed assembly of separate chapters and sections, so I would still not use it as a reliable source in the absence of the complete book. (It does appear from the limited extracts that Dalrymple is emphasising the company's rapacity and lack of morality with regard both to Indian rulers and states and the British establishment, rather than any aspect of racial discrimination inside India, though this aspect may be more apparent in the complete work.) With regard to the earlier section dealing with "Article very biased etc.", it is not always helpful to accuse historical persons or bodies of violating present-day conventions, or to merely complain without making constructive edits. As regards the suggested edits, I would remind everyone that the article's lead section should summarise the main body of the article; it should not introduce novel topics not present in the main body or even at variance with it. That said, I will see what can be done, once I have re-read other sources e.g. Dalrymple's earlier works, and others suggested in the bibliography. HLGallon (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps before we get too bogged down in the lede, we should work on splitting and developing the "Legacy and criticisms" section in the body, which has been tagged as needing expansion for over 2 years. GrindtXX (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@HLGallon: Okay, I will wait for you to do that (to use Dalrymple's quotations in this article). Is it okay to add the quotation by Justin Sheil in the introduction/lead of the Sepoy article here in this article?

Update: I have been in touch with the publishers (Bloomsbury), asking for a publication date for the book. No reply yet. Pending a reply, I will not be using the Guardian article as a source. Other editors are free to do so, if they wish. HLGallon (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrindtXX: Why don't you do it? I am sure you will do a good job! Are you willing to take it up as a challenge? I have copied a sentence and it's reference from the article on Macaulayism already!—Dona-Hue (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@HLGallon: I observed that the Boston tea party and American revolution is not mentioned here. Shouldn't we mention it in this article?

You would need to explain the relevance. HLGallon (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrindtXX: I feel we should use this also as a reference in this article! What do you say?—Dona-Hue (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

requires subscription. HLGallon (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@HLGallon: No, it doesn't! Please check again, the FT article doesn't need any subscription.—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, when I googled it, it didn't ask for a subscription, but on following the link, it does. You only let me/us know what to do about it!—Dona-Hue (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the matter in the section titled, "Tea trade to 1767" in the Boston tea party article and let me know if we can use it here (I want you to use it in a way you deem fit, so that we can avoid an edit war). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dona-Hue (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Survival of the Company beyond Disestablishment

I have come across a coin dated 1936 from Kinnar State which purports to be East India Company issue & seems to have been a non-currency religious token. It could be a mistaken date or not Christian dating or it could be a fake but it suggests that the company may have continued operation in independent states in which it had established good relations with the local political establishment. I've only found Kinnar as an alternate to Hijra or Transgender & suspect Kinnaur may be the modern equivalent. The Mahabharata mentions the Kinnara (Horse-Man or Centaur) tribe & their state. I confess I am perplexed. 101.164.87.162 (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Ian Ison

Lead

A block quote in the lead is almost always inappropriate and unnecessary, per WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:LONGQUOTE, and WP:LEAD. There is nothing in the quote used that is uniquely pertinent or indispensable in itself, and it should be summarized or paraphrased as described in the policies cited. (It is also ungrammatical as currently presented.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It was grammatically correct until an IP made this edit. Can you paraphrase Dalrymple's quotation without removing it?—Dona-Hue (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)