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?

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)

The only thing that is "shocking" is how fast you are jumping to conclusions about the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:B058:E300:51E8:C63D:5C54:6F4D (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is not neutral by any stretch of imagination. A vast area and time is spent on technical aspects of the Company, while the real impact of the Company on peoples' life or the impact of it on an entire subcontinent is not even mentioned. Instead a small area is set aside for "Legacy and Criticism". This is a disproportionate and lopsided characterization of the East India Company and sadly it is defended by certain authors hiding behind the mask of another technicalities. There is nothing wrong in comparing the the impact of East India Company and later the British Raj with the Nazi regime. What Nazi's tried to do in a few years, the EIC and Raj accomplished over 300 odd years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.112 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2018 (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)

I am a huge Wikipedia history reader and after reading this article I have to agree that the tone regarding the deaths of millions is rather diminutive. I would argue that by minimizing these deaths we are not taking a neutral tone. When 10 million people die we can't put that as a footnote in history. In order to maintain neutrality while still giving light to these deaths, there should be a small section covering the famine detailing East India Companies Role in the deaths. We may also look at other similar issues such as the Soviet famines, the Congolese genocide, Native American Genocide, or the Holocaust for further reference on how to cover these issues with due gravity. 47.154.80.252 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the complaint: "- 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." As an American, let me suggest that the problem might be due to our piss-poor education of both missing and highly biased school curriculum and common mythologies which includes American Exceptionalism, textbooks from our corporatocracy with strong influence of regulatory capture in its broadest and deepest senses. I suspect the British who presumably are "the authors who know so much about the rest of it," are only somewhat better off. Our history textbooks are a joke in this context. "History is written by the victors." So what are you going to do about that?

In Orwell's famous prophetic novel; "1984," —Who remembers what Winston Smith's job was? Take care!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:B596:626E:D7:4B38 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

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

Technically, the EIC was never completely disestablished, as from time to time various investors have attempted to use the corporate brand and trademarks to start businesses. There was a "Banana Republic" clone under that name in the 1980s and '90s in Southeast Asia, and after it went bankrupt, another group started a tea company which is apparently thriving...that is according to their website at least. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Given that this is an opinion of a single historian using phrases like "dangerously unregulated" and alleging that Clive was "an unstable sociopath," inclusion in the lead gives it undue weight. In addition, WP:QUOTE states, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful." Even paraphrased, putting such an opinion in the lead lends it undue weight and gives the impression WP endorses that view. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, adding this material to the first paragraph, or in the lead at all, gives it undue weight. It does not adhere to the dispassionate, neutral tone required by WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, and places content in the lead that is not in the body of the article, in violation of WP:LEAD. Please review these policies and gain consensus for adding such language to the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are so enamored of this pointed quote. Where you have placed it now is a complete non sequitor, a hundred years of narrative before we are even introduced to Clive. The view stated is completely undeveloped or elaborated upon and solely from one writer. I don't think the quote has any place in the article without further support and development, and certainly not until a place in the narrative when Clive is at least alive. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20060630085209/http://www.plantcultures.org.uk/themes/empires_landing.html to http://www.plantcultures.org.uk/themes/empires_landing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

HEIC should not redirect here

I predict the majority of people will now be looking for High Efficiency Image File Format, the default camera photo format in new iPhones. HEIC is one of the file extensions used. --David G (talk) 20:36, 24 September 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/20140330215843/http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/trading/booksgifts1.html to http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/trading/booksgifts1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330065505/http://www.eicships.info/index.html to http://www.eicships.info/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

NCERT Textbook History.

The article seems to be a rewriting of the NCERT (Indian government school text book) History. The contents might be copyrighted.

Now, who can remove the whole nonsense and write something fair and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D382:85D2:D9BC:7E1B:9240:64CF (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Capital in 1613-16

There is a mistake in the chart of the capital of the first voyages - in particular the "block" of the four voyages of 1613-16. The listed number £272,544 is not the "total invested" for 1613-1616, but rather the joint amount invested in "ships and provisions" for those four fleets (that is, £272,544 are the four rows in the fourth column taken together, not the four rows of the first column.). The first "total invested" column should be £106,000 for 1613, £107,000 for 1614, £107,000 for 1615 and £109,000 for 1616. So the "total invested" for the four fleets of 1613-16 should be £429,000 (= £111,499 bullion exported + £78,017 goods exported + £272,544 ship & provisions). This what the Mill citation refers to: Mill. There is some citation to some "Baldwin, Cradock & Joy" in the article, but no actual work is cited, so can't follow that up for consistency. Would someone care to make the changes in the table? Walrasiad (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)