Talk:British Raj

Usage of the term "British Raj"

As per requests, I've opened a discussion. All throughout this article, "British Raj" has been used multiple times to refer to the territory/state/country. Sources provided, state that British Raj referred to the "Crown rule" over the territory between 1858 and 1947 or the "period" between 1858 to 1947 itself. Not one source has been provided stating that the term (British Raj) referred to the country/state/territory itself. This is a violation of WP:NOR which states that "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." At the places where the term "British Raj" has been used in reference to the territory or state, it should be replaced by "India" which is far more accurate and sourced. Thank you. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Fowler&fowler and @RegentsPark, the main contributors to this article. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You'd better give examples of where you think the term is misused. Just asserting "All throughout this article, "British Raj" has been used multiple times..." isn't very helpful. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

One example would be the captions of both the images in the infobox. I can list all instances throughout the article if you need. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

And what do you think the problem is there? Are you saying you think the term is incapable of a geographic meaning? Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The term is incapable of a geographic meaning unless you manage to prove that it is capable. The citations provided in the article till now have shown that the term has only been used to refer to a period/era or rule, that is, unless you manage to prove otherwise using reliable sources. Anyways, why would you even change the given title/caption present within the map to something else that you prefer? PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It's been more than a week. Have you been able to find reliable sources to support your claim that British Raj is also capable of a geographic meaning? If you haven't I'm going to make the changes myself. PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Links to previous discussions on the topic:

• June 2022
• November 2022

H/T: HistoryofIran's edit-summary. Abecedare (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not attempting to research this, as it's very peripheral to my interests, but a change is unlikely to be smoothly accepted. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've done my research and I haven't found a single source stating that British Raj referred to anything else other than Crown rule in India or the period of Crown rule in India. And if you're not going to the research to disprove my claim and nobody else does that too, then that would mean nobody objects. PadFoot2008 (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: There is a related discussion created by the OP at Talk:List of wars involving India. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  That discussion is about the British Indian Empire vs Indian Empire/Empire of India. This one's about British Raj. I don't think they are similar. And please, please provide a reliable source to support your claim that British Raj also referred to the entity in question. Please do not make unsourced claims.PadFoot2008 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Similar would be an understatement since the discussions are pretty much the same. In both discussions, your position is the removal of "British" to explicitly reference the period of British rule in India. I suggest you combine the discussions for clarity and, perhaps, to show that you're acting in good faith.RegentsPark (comment) 17:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, then. I'm ready to combine the two discussions if that's what's needed to show that I'm acting in good faith. Again, "British Raj" refers to the Crown rule in India, or the period, itself. "British India" refers to the Crown territories in India (and also the Company ruled territories before 1858). "India" referred to the entity comprising British India + Princely states during the British Raj. "British Indian Empire" referred to British India plus any dependent territory during Company Raj and British Raj (1757–1947) and "the Indian Empire" referred to the British Indian Empire but only during the British Raj (1858–1947). PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  PadFoot, I've said this many times, "the Raj" has an assortment of meanings among which are: (a) Crown rule in India, (b) the period of Crown rule, (c) the British in India, (d) India during Crown rule, and some more.

  Thomas R. Metcalf's book, Ideologies of the Raj refers to the Raj in (a) and perhaps (c) Yasmin Khan's The Raj at War: A People's History of India's Second World War refers a little bit to each, but mostly to (d); David Burton's The Raj at Table: A Culinary History of the British in India refers mostly to (c); Christian Wolmar's Railways and The Raj: How the Age of Steam Transformed India refers a bit to all, but mostly to (d), i.e. to how the railways transformed India during British rule.

  I think you are attempting to fit something amorphous and fluid into a straitjacket. What after all, is Charles Allen's Plain tales from the Raj: Images of British India in the 20th century about? You might think it is about (c) or (d), but it is really about yet another: India as remembered by the British. What else would the following passage be about?

  Vernede remembers from her childhood in Allahabad: “The syce was probably the servant I knew best, because I used to ride my pony every day. All I really did was either walk or trot or canter slowly up and down the road outside our house while the syce either walked or jogged along by my side. I think we carried on a non-stop conversation. I learnt nearly all my languages from him and he was one of my best friends.

  Or:

  Mohammedan festival of Mohurram, originally a festival of mourning, but to Deborah Dring and her sisters more in the nature of a carnival: “We looked forward to the Mohurram far more than Christmas or Easter. Men used to come gambolling into our garden dressed up as horses and do a most extraordinary dance in front of our house. They used to give us sweets — which was absolutely forbidden — which we used to eat. It seemed quite the most perfect festival.”

  If you are interested in that period of Indian and British history, I invite you to pick some disregarded topics and flesh them out, but stay away from these existential questions. If after a year of writing, you still feel strongly about this issue, you can post here again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler I apologise but I'm unable to access those books completely on Google Books, can you please provide citations from those books where the source refers to the Raj as (d).

  Also, in the title "Plain tales from the Raj", Raj could also have been used as in (b), try replacing "Raj" with "Mughal era", it still sounds correct. It doesn't need to be (c) or (d).

  Also as a side note, this discussion is not about the theme or title of this article like my previous discussion (when I was a novice, two years back). It's only about removing those instances where British Raj has been used as in sense (d). Also kind of important, don't you think that if Raj was used as in sense (d), wouldn't that be listed in a dictionary? Look up Google for definition of Raj, or just look up a physical Oxford Dictionary. Only sense (a) and (b) are listed there. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The OED copied their Raj definition from us. You may read about it at the top of this talk page. We are not bound by what they say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have the 'Compact Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus & Wordpower Guide Indian Edition' published in 2001 with the definition of Raj as "/rahj/ •n. (the Raj) hist. the period of British rule in India #ORIGIN Hindi, 'reign'". This article didn't even exist then.

   

  Also, in the online New Oxford American Dictionary, Raj is defined as "British Sovereignty in India" and origin from Hindi, reign.

   

  And, in Merriam-Webster, Raj is defined as

  1 : RULE

     : especially, often capitalized : the former British rule of the Indian subcontinent

  2 : the period of British rule in India

  PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Please read the mention at the top of this page about what the OED, which requires a subscription, copied from us. Those dictionaries are not the OED Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I said, I have a physical copy of OED published in 2001. The other dictionaries are just additional sources. Also Merriam-Webster, if you do not know, is a prett reliable dictionary.PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  And secondary sources, typically don't define the British Raj. They just use the expression in the four meanings and perhaps more that I have elucidated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  For the geographical meaning, i.e. (d), please see these references to the "population of the British Raj" in Google Books. In particular:

  • Christophe Jaffrelot: "Muslims, one-fifth of the population of the British Raj at the time, had lost most of their political clout, ..." (the rule can't have a population, and the reference is not to the period of rule; otherwise, why would he say "at the time?"
  • B.A. Kosmin: "Prior to partition in 1947, Muslims made up 25 percent of the population of the British Raj," (the reference is not the period)Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  See also "born in the British Raj", in particular

  • Georgio Srafella's "Codified as the symbolic Other of China, Zhang Rulun's 'West' surprisingly includes individuals born in the British Raj and the Russian empire."
  • Brenda Rossini's" "FAZLUR RAHMAN KHAN (1929-1982) Bangladeshi/American, born in the British Raj where he was educated"
  • Norris Houghton's "The actress , not yet sixty , was playing an aged Canadian matriarch born in the British raj." (She wasn't born in Toronto during 1858–1947)
  • F. Kittler et al: "Kipling, creator of Mowgli and Kim, was born in the British Raj and thus spoke Hindi before acquiring English." They are not talking simply about a period.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I went through them, and there were merely six instances of each, out of the enormous, vast corpus of the instances of usage of "British Raj" . If you'd know Hindi or Hindustani, (because I do know it as a third language) you'd surely know that British Raj translates to English as "British Rule". And you can't even provide a citation defining British Raj as (d). To tell you the truth, I wasn't even aware of the fact that British Raj was an actual English term before I read this article. Though, I was aware of British India and the princely states (through history lessons). I'm pretty sure you picked it up in Wikipedia as well. Majority of sources (prob. more than 99%), define and use British Raj as in sense (a), (b) and also, (c) [British rulers in India]. You're using such few sources to prove such a big claim. Have you even checked if the authors are reputable, and may be also check if they have been published by university presses. Also, use Google Translate to translate "British Raj" from Hindi to English. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also kind of interesting, I searched for "population of the British Raj" in Google ngrams and it yielded no results. Does it have a different way of finding the instances of a particular phrase than a normal Google search? Same thing happens when I search "born in the British Raj".PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Google ngrams typically never show sentence fragments with more than one, two, or three words Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Google ngram's word limit per phrase is five words, so it should be all right. I did some research and it's probably because there are too few results. Other five word phrases work fine. Anyways, this isn't important. Please see my reply above this one. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: Related discussion also at Talk:List_of_princely_states_of_British_India_(by_region)#Move RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: Commented there. This is getting pretty ridiculous. Wonder if it's time for a topic-ban rather than playing this game of whack-a-mole at various venues. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: I mean you know that princely states weren't a part of British India, right? This article and that article too, say that British India and Princely States were seperate. That's not even worth a discussion. Is there a need to really oppose everything I want to to discuss that's related to the Raj? PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's examples of the use of "British Raj" to signify something geographical

The Raj is a many-spendored thing semantically. It can mean: a) British rule on the subcontinent from 1858 onward; b) British rule on the subcontinent from the late Company rule, i.e. 1800 onward; c) the period of British rule; d) the British in India (as in "the poetry of the British Raj" see below); e) infrequently, British India, i.e. the directly ruled provindes; f) preserves of exclusive British life and privilege (as in the Civil Lines in a town); and g) India during British Rule, especially between 1858 and 1947.

• Here are some examples of the usage of British Raj, or the Raj. As you will appreciate, it can veer towards geographical meaning. I will write an FAQ and explain this more thoroughly at some point.
• Lying on the Postcolonial Couch: The Idea of Indifference - Page 268 Rukmini Bhaya Nair · 2002 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 268 Rudyard Kipling , " The Boondi Queen , " reprinted in Poetry of the Raj : A Collection of British Poems on India, ed . H. K. Kaul ( New Delhi : Arnold Heinemann , 1984 ) (The meaning here is d), i.e. poems on India written by the British in India)
• A Brief History of the Middle East Christopher Catherwood · 2011 FOUND INSIDE If a suitable Maharajah style figure could be interposed between the British and the natives, that would be fine so long as the British were the real rulers, as in certain of the Princely States in the Raj
• The Courtesan and the Gigolo: The Murders in the Rue ... - Page 111 Aaron Freundschuh · 2017 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 111 “Once in Bombay we got into contact with the princes in the Raj, thanks to our knowledge of the Indian language and for 7 or 8 months we sold them products of all sorts,” Pranzini recalled, including hectographs, a gelatin-based system ("the Raj" here is not British India, the British in India, nor preserves of exclusive British life and privilege in India)
• Rebels for the Soil: The Rise of the Global Organic Food and ... Matthew Reed · 2010 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 41: "Famines in the Raj appeared with terrifying frequency, imperial tax demands and ecological fragility meant that the people of the subcontinent were very vulnerable and the imperial rulers were not immune to the suffering that they .."her forms that give geographical meaning to the Raj. (Famines did not all strike British India; they struck princely states as well. See Timeline of major famines in India during British rule.)
• Transformations in Schooling: Historical and Comparative ... - Page 69 K. Tolley · 2007 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 69 This could still shape, in turn, the way the state approached education in the Raj even though the emphasis was on the transmission of ideas rather than the building of schools. The official connection between education and the state ...
• The Cult of Imperial Honor in British India - Page 64 S. Patterson · 2009 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 64: ... voice for Indians in the Raj, but the Rowlatt Acts undercut the hard-won advances being made toward self-rule. India was unfortunately being rewarded for its loyalty during the war with an increasingly despotic government determined ...
• The Last Lion Box Set: Winston Spencer Churchill, 1874 - 1965 Paul Reid, ‎William Manchester · 2012 FOUND INSIDE: Boothby himself agreed with Clemenceau's observation that Englishmen and Indians in the Raj “do not mingle at all.” Had the picnickers of 1885 included English families, the congress might have remained a frolic.
• Routledge Handbook of the History of Colonialism in South Asia Harald Fischer-Tiné, ‎Maria Framke · 2021 FOUND INSIDE: Anthropometry was not the only form of race science in the Raj prior to the First World War. Another key site for racialised understandings to flourish – and, indeed, one with much more practical immediacy – was medicine.
• Arc of the Journeyman: Afghan Migrants in England Nichola Khan · 2021 FOUND INSIDE: The coastal village of Rottingdean near the city of Brighton was home to the colonialist Rudyard Kipling (1897–1902), the British writer born in the Raj
• Bizarre London: Discover the Capital's Secrets & Surprisesbooks.google.com › books David Long · 2014 FOUND INSIDE 1963—Kim Philby Born in the Raj to British parents, Philby became a communist while a student at Cambridge in the 1930s. Recruited as a Soviet agent at that time, he secured a position with the British Secret Intelligence Service, ... (clearly, therefore, not all born in the Raj had British parents; that's the assumption here)
• The Times, London https://www.thetimes.co.uk › article Jun 24, 2020 — Deepak Lal obituary. Leading economist who grew up in the Raj and became an unlikely defender of the British Empire.) He was not someone who was born to British parents,
• The Dambuster Who Cracked the Dam: The Story of Melvin ...books.google.com › books Arthur G. Thorning · 2008 FOUND INSIDE: Gibson was born in India in 1918, the son of a British official, and grew up in the Raj the family were used to having numerous, deferential servants and in due course Guy was sent home to England to boarding school, ...
• An Immigration History of Britain: Multicultural Racism ... - Page 288 books.google.com › books Panikos Panayi · 2014 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 288 ... to the whole of the British population, rather than simply those who had lived in the Raj. From the 1960s new developments in the Indian restaurant menu emerged in the form of Tandoori, followed by Balti during the 1980s.
• Conversations in Postcolonial Thought - Page 86books.google.com › books K. Sian · 2016 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 86 The idea was to try to catch that generation of Englishwomen who lived in the Raj and to explore the stereotypes that were popular in fiction and also films like Passage to India and Heat and Dust. We also wanted to engage with women ...
• Spicing up Britain: The Multicultural History of British Foodbooks.google.com › books Panikos Panayi · 2008 FOUND INSIDE Those few Indians who opened up the first establishments during the nineteenth century usually catered for native Britons, especially people who had lived in the Raj or those with a taste for the exotic. The first Indian restaurant in
• Revolutionary Feminisms: Conversations on Collective Action ...books.google.com › books Brenna Bhandar, ‎Rafeef Ziadah · 2020 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 78 ... Times and Telegraph for British women who had lived in the Raj before 1946 and we got loads of replies . People really responded - it was as though no one had ever asked them about that period of their lives , and they really wanted ...
• An Immigration History of Britain: Multicultural Racism ... - Page 288 books.google.com › books Panikos Panayi · 2014 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 288 Those British people who lived and worked in the Raj from the eighteenth century liked the products which Indians ate. These dishes were, however, overwhelmingly vegetarian, but Britons wished to continue eating meat, leading to the ...
• The Fishing Fleet: Husband-Hunting in the Rajbooks.google.com › books Anne de Courcy · 2012 FOUND INSIDE Families that lived and worked in the Raj for generations – rather than spending a greater or lesser amount of time there – almost unconsciously developed certain patterns of behaviour. Although they clung to the attitudes and customs ...
• On Chapel Sands: The Mystery of My Mother's Disappearance as ... Laura Cumming · 2021 FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 63 Like many ex-officers, Captain Green stayed on in India, running a trading business in the Raj. Its legacy survives in our family even today. The Indian cotton sheets he brought back as a present for Veda in 1920 became my parents' ...

Please do not write in this sub-section as I will be adding more examples

Responses to the examples above

Response from PadFoot2008:

• Additional note: According to the Colonial Encounters in the Age of High Imperialism by S.B. Cook, pg 165, British Raj can also mean "the British–run Government of India", which explains many of the sources provided above.

• WP NOR states that "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented". This rules out many of the sources. Most of them are not even related to India.
• In Rebels for the Soil, Raj could be referring to the era too: "Tamines in the British Era appeared with terrifying frequency (Notice how the source say "people of the subcontinent to refer to the Indian population rather than "people of the Raj")

• In The Last Lion Box Set and Routledge Handbook of the History of Colonialism in South Asia, Raj probably refers to the colonial government in India (or the community consisting of the mainly British ruling elite in India).

• In An Emigration of History of Britain (though not directly related), has two usages with the first definitely referring to the colonial government in India or the community made up of British colonial administrative officers in India. (Those who had "lived in the Ray" in this book were all British), Raj can also refer to the the community made up of the ruling elite primarily British in India.

• 'Conversations in Postcolonial thought is a set of 12 interviews, and the interviewees might not be experts or historians, so it's isn't a reliable source

• Revolutionary Feminism obviously refers to the period (for example, British women who had lived in the Victorian Era).

• On Chappel Sands is a "novel" not an historical expertise or anything. You can not use novels to prove historical facts.

• The Fishing Fleet appears to be a biography of some sort, so it's an interesting case. It is again not written by a historical expert, thus shouldn't be a reliable source. Anyways, here too Raj appears again to refer to the community consisting of primarily British ruling elite in India. Note that the book says that "men outnumbered women four is to one in the Raj". Do you that India ever had such an extreme gender ratio?

@PadFoot2008: I don't want to be blunt, but your edits are now veering to the disruptive. If you don't call off your anachronistic quest on the Raj-related pages, you are very likely looking at administrative action. I don't want to sound paternalistic, but I've told you many times to cut your teeth on small, disregarded, pages instead of dickering about inconsequentials in the lead sentences or infoboxes of much trafficked ones. I've seen people such as you before. Their arc on Wikipedia has not been productive for them nor for Wikipedia. And if your interest truly is the Raj, please read some basic books on it (such as the textbooks in the bibliography or in that of the India page) cover to cover. Pinging @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, Johnbod, and Joshua Jonathan: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler I apologize if you find any of my edits disruptive, but as far as I'm aware I've completely stopped editing Raj related pages that could cause great resentment or opposition since the start of this discussion. If you're talking of previous discussions or edits before ethe beginning of this discussion, I apologize, I was a novice then and didn't have much of an experience then. I have gained some experience now and so I'm trying to get a consensus again. I've done my research and hadn't found a single source (both reliable and other sources) that refer to British Raj as "India during British rule" or in a geographical sense before this.

Also, can you please reply/give a counter argument to my arguments? PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler.

PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Mussulman term

@Johnbod, you have reverted my edit which changed the archaic term Mussulman to the newer demonym Muslim. According to Oxford Dictionary, Mussulman is an archaic term [1][2] And this article is written in British English. You also wrongfully marked it as rvt vandalism. Crainsaw (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we are quoting an old census, and should use the terms they do. Its not like Mussulman is considered offensive, it was just the term then. I did not "mark it as vandalism" - I would have used rollback if I had. Gute nachte! Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Where‘s the consensus? Could you link it, and the term ‘‘Mussulman‘‘ is still outdated, I‘ll be starting a new rfc. Crainsaw (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the archives, I didn't find any mention of the term Mussulman, or the applicability of the term. Was it some consensus on the wider usage of archaic terms on certain articles? Crainsaw (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No, of course not. It's about authenticity when older sources are used - so we also have Brahminism in the first table, but Hindu and Muslim are the usual terms used in the article. You seem to have a talent for grasping the wrong end of the stick. It's very premature to launch an Rfc. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod but we have to use the newest terms, right? And I'm relatively new editor, sorry if I don't yet understand everything. Crainsaw (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't, when effectively quoting from older sources. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

And who decided that policy? Was there some consensus? Crainsaw (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:EDITCON and WP:BRD. The right thing to do now is argue your case here and aim to convince others to your view. When and if you do, the change can be made. The wrong thing to do is to keep reverting. That's edit-warring for which you'll eventually be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa As per the 3RR rule, you have maximum 3 reverts on an single page in 24 hours, when Johnbod reverted my edit, I immideatly came to the talk without reverting, it's been more then 24 hours since his last reply, after which I reverted because he didn't link a single consensus, guideline, ir policy as to why the archaic term mussulman should be kept. As far as I can tell, I didn't violate any policy or guideline Crainsaw (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, you did, by edit-warring. You need to consider my points above, which you seem to ignore. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The definition of edit warring is "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts", I reverted only 1 time. Crainsaw (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. and Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring. I've given you the formal edit warring warning on your talk page just so there is no misunderstanding. Don't revert again unless this thread shows consensus agreeemnt DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, Johnbod, why did revert my edit changing the archaic term Mussulman to the newer demonym Muslim? Above, you said "we are quoting an old census", then I asked you to link me the consensus, you didn't, then I looked through the archives of the talk page and didn't find a single comment focused on whether to use the archaic "Mussulman" or the newer demonym Muslim. Then I asked you whether it was some broader consensus on RFC maybe? Then you replied with, "No, of course not. It's about authenticity when older sources are used", a complete contradiction of your original statement "we are quoting an old census", and then I asked you which Policy, Guideline, or Consensus decided that, and you didn't reply for 24 hours, after which I reinstated my original contribution changing Mussulman to Muslim, and you reverted it [3], and in the edit summary you said "rvt - see talk. it's been patiently explained to you, but you don't seem to take it in.", where's the explanation? Crainsaw (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If the cited source says "Musulman" then replacing that with "Muslim" is WP:SYNTH. The answer is to find a better source. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in this dispute, I think that it makes the most sense to use the term “musulman” as it was the term used at the time, however, Imho a workable solution that addresses both editors grievances would be to include [sic], or a similar indicator that could better convey its status as anachronistic after “mosulman”. Cheers Googleguy007 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Even better, simply include a note (I’m not sure the exact wikimarkup of how, but it’s a small letter that looks similar to a citation) clarifying that mosulman is an anachronistic term. Googleguy007 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The previous table already has "Mussulman (Muslim)", which I think is enough. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod I'm still waiting for you to link an "old consensus", guideline or policy which requires the use of archaic words over newer ones. Crainsaw (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

What, specific to this use here, or more generally? I don't know what German wp is like, but (even on this page) we don't have specific policies or consensus for everything (is it possible you are confusing census and "consensus"?). You should look at the history to see how long this usage has been in place, and read and ponder the comments of other experienced editors here. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply asking why we must use the old terms, is it a norm, something in MoS, guideline, or something else? Because if we're allowed to use old terms, might as well start using thou instead of you, Demesne instead of region or domain. And yes, I was confusing census for consensus, my mistake. Crainsaw (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Googleguy007 I agree with your solution, maybe we should write something like "Musulman (Old Persian and Indic term for a Muslim) Crainsaw (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The point is, it was the standard English term at the time, which is why the census used it. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I have a good argument, as I've linked above this article is written in British English, you've argued that the term "Mussulman" was standard English at the time. But the according to the Oxford Dictionary 1933 edition, Musselman, is an obs. term, which is short for obsolete according to the dictionaries abbreviations section. You can read the dictionary for free on the Internet Archives here and you can view the abbreviations to that edition here. So that means the term Musselman has to be removed from the 2nd table under Religions about the 1921 section, since words don't become obsolete in that short a period of time, as for the first. As for the table about the 1891 census, I was able to access the Hobson-Jobson dictionary through some means, I cannot share the link to you because of reasons, but you can find the dictionary on the internet if you know where to look. That dictionary is the dictionary for Indian English, and said "Mussulman" is a term coined by the French for Indians who follow the Sunni sect of Islam (1903 ed.). And I also accessed the Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1894 ed.) through some means, which said the "Mussulman" is an Arabic Mohematan (Mohematan is also an archaic word for a person who followed Muhammed, the founder of Islam). Crainsaw (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

What a waste of effort! The original OED, the volume with "M" published in 1908, does NOT say "Mussulman" is archaic or obselete. It gives no fewer than 17 variant spellings, and defines it (A, as a noun) simply as "A Mohammedan". The quotations cited go up to 1888. The etymology mentions numerous languages, in Europe beginning with Aragonese in the 12th century. No sectarian or geographical restriction is mentioned. Meanwhile "Muslim" has simply "See MOSLEM". Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean this edition, where it says "Muselman obs.", above it is the word "Musellim" which has other variations, but it's a synonym for Muselman. And I also have another argument, since this page is written in British English, we must use the latest Standard British English terms. Crainsaw (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again! I used (my own copy) of the "Compact" edition, which reprints the original edition, plus later supplements, and is obviously the appropriate one for here. As I say there is no hint of WP:ENGVAR differences. What you link to above is a later Supplement, which only lists changes and additions. This is a very different matter from the actual OED (whose history you need to understand). This just says that a different spelling from that used in the article is obselete. It does NOT say the word itself is. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARCSPELL we have to use the latest terms unless we're quoting "Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances " I'd also be interested in the title of your dictionary because I found the "1908 M edition" online Crainsaw (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"outside quotations except in special circumstances" is the relevant bit here. The article uses "Muslim" in plenty of other places, but not here, as the table is in effect an extended quotation. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? My book is the Compact reprinted edition of the "Oxford English Dictionary", the full thing - see the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Since when is a table an extended quotation? Crainsaw (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

When it takes all its content from another source. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I admit I was wrong. Guten Abend! Crainsaw (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we end this now and change the name from Mussulman to Muslim? Crainsaw (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No, since consensus is clearly against you, can you please drop the stick. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa It's not Synth, because I did nkt reach a conclusion, I just replaced to two terms which mean the same thing, Synth is "A and B, therefore C" it's used when citing sources and making them into paragraphs but with your own interpretation which the authors did not state. Crainsaw (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You've reached a conclusion the the words mean the same thing using a different source to the cited source. That's WP:SYNTH. DeCausa (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

[4]. Is it still WP:SYNTH? And according to WP:NOS, it's not WP:SYNTH if the reader understands what the sources are trying to say, but is just differently written on Wikipedia, and the term Mussulman was accompanied by (Muslim), which told the reader they both mean the same thing. Crainsaw (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• They called it "Musalman" that's why we are doing the same. Editorkamran (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  But this page is written in Standard British English, you can't use an American source and then also change the spelling to the American English Variant. Crainsaw (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The original OED (see above) lists 17 spellings, without suggesting any American/British differences. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Editorkamran Why did you remove the word Muslim here? [5] and why did you mark it OR? It's not OR since Mussulman was never a Standard English term, and as per WP:TRANSCRIPTION it isn't orignal research to translate words. Crainsaw (Talk) 10:34, 18th June 2023 (UTC)

Its because we are not supposed to use alternative terms unless supported by the source.

@Johnbod: You should self-revert here because we don't know what really the British considered as "Muslims" in the census of 1891. They called them "Musalman" and we should do the same instead of using the terms that were not used in the original census table. Editorkamran (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CSIOR and WP:COMMON, it's common sense that Mussulman is a Muslim, and common sense isn't original research. Crainsaw (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No it makes no sense. There are countries who does not recognize Ahmadiyyas as Muslims which proves that not everyone agrees over what is a "Muslim". It is necessary to stop generalizing here. Editorkamran (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The census is self reported, meaning the British census officers came, and asked you about stuff such as your religion, and you were free to choose. That's how every census works, unless people are officially registered with a religion, do you think any country with 300 million people had the capacity to register everyone's religion? Especially a poor colony. Crainsaw (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No. That's your own analysis and it is not relevant per WP:OR. Editorkamran (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Feeling ran so high over the return of religion in the Punjab that some exterior castes, asked by one party to register as Hindus, by others as Sikhs, and even as Moslems, declared themselves Ad Dharmi or "adherents of the original religion," whatever that may be. You either registered your religion yourself at the local census office or with the local census taker, or the census taker asked you your caste and then classified you according to what religion you caste belonged to. (I don't know how, but they had a caste index where each caste was organized by religion) Crainsaw (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It's totally clear - and don't forget these are the terms which the individuals being counted chose to describe themselves (from a limited list, and perhaps after discussion with the census-taker). So what "the British considered" isn't really the issue. See the OED evidence above, and the comment below. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

OED has nothing to do with the 1891 census. We shouldn't be using the terms that were not mentioned in the census. Editorkamran (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just gone back to the source. Although the quoted page (46) is correct, it is numbered within just one report amongst many in the book. It you open the PDF on page 683 you will see the following: The diversity of India's numerous races and religions is too well known to require more than the briefest comment here. In 1921 216,734,586 people were listed as Hindus, 68,735,233 as Mussulmans, 11,571,268 as Buddhists, 4,754,079 as Christians, 3,238,803 as Sikhs, 9,774,611 as animists. The table is effectively a paraphrasing of this and follows the original language. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Does anyone have access to Gottschalk, Peter (2012), Religion, Science, and Empire: Classifying Hinduism and Islam in British India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-195-39301-9, which might serve well as a WP:SCHOLARSHIP-compliant secondary source that considers both censuses, including their terminology? NebY (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need that.

First I have the greatest respect for Johnbod going back to the first decade of this century, as they well know. (Like EF Hutton, when Jb speaks people listen.) So, I suspect they are using the term in demography tables, not in the text.

But let me offer my 2c for the text usage first. There, "Mussulman" or "Mohammedan" would be considered dated terms. WP policy for due weight is in WP:TERTIARY, in particular the note about text-books, as they are vetted for weight. I checked the following books:

• Asher, C. B.; Talbot, C. (2006), India Before Europe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-80904-7
• Bose, S.; Jalal, A. (2011), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (3rd ed.), Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-77942-5
• Brown, J. M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9
• Copland, I. (2001), India 1885–1947: The Unmaking of an Empire, Longman, ISBN 978-0-582-38173-5
• Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0
• Ludden, D. (2014), India and South Asia: A Short History (2nd, revised ed.), Oneworld Publications, ISBN 978-1-85168-936-1
• Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1
• Peers, D. M. (2013), India Under Colonial Rule: 1700–1885, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-88286-2, retrieved 13 August 2019
• Robb, P. (2011), A History of India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2
• Sarkar, S. (1983), Modern India: 1885–1947, Delhi: Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-333-90425-1
• Stein, B. (2010), Arnold, D. (ed.), A History of India (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6
• Wolpert, S. (2003), A New History of India (7th ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-516678-1
• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8
• Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/9781316276044, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2, LCCN 2018021693, S2CID 134229667

All use only "Muslim."

Now to the question of tables. This can be tricky as we want to make sure that the table is describing the religious group that we describe as Muslim today. Perhaps: Muslim ("Mussulman") would be best. After all we favor the MKS system meter-kilogram-second and parenthesize the FPS (foot-pound-second) when my grandfather's Layng's Arithmetic, Blackie, ca 1930s has: "If the value of matting 2 ft 3 inches wide at 1 s. 3 d. per yard which covers a floor of 16 ft wide is 3 pounds, 14 shilling and 6 pence, how long is the floor?" But there might be some other point being addressed, so I would defer to Jb for that. I'm pinging some other cognoscenti @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, and Doug Weller: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

{{refend}