Jump to content

Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Top-to-bottom rewrite pasted in from User:Lingzhi/sandbox

After one full year of work and more than 4,200 edits, the top-to-bottom rewrite from User:Lingzhi/sandbox was just pasted in. Jo-Jo Eumerus will create an attribution redirect for full attribution very soon, but thanks are due at least to Ceoil,Clarityfiend,Dank, and Frietjes. From here the article will go immediately (as soon as I am finished typing this) into Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. With luck, it will go from there to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.

Don't panic. Everything that was there previously is still in the article's history. Many passages in the previous version were updated/corrected, including some major problems with POV (because Wikipedia cannot draw conclusions that many scholars disagree with).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Is it OK to blank your sandbox during the process? For the attribution, the history needs to be moved out of your userspace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:Please do whatever needs to be done. Tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
All I can say (yet!) is wow! Having followed the articles sandbox development, can attest to this being a significant achievement. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Gratz on this, Ling. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Ling; I see a few statements around like - The development of railways in Bengal between roughly 1890 and 1910 contributed to the excess mortality of the famine. I get that it indirectly contributed, but the current phrasings are not quite right, too active. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Ceoil. Thanks for all your excellent edits... Sometimes recalibrating to catch fine nuances involves adding more words, which is unhelpful. If you can fix it without adding more words, fine, but I think it is fine the way it is. I suggest just leaving it alone. Thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Lingding do you have a problem? Why did you remove a verified and sourced addition? Before you even came here we had this. You do understand you do not have the right to remove it before we reach a consensus right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.61 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so people can see it: One of the reasons why they did this "update" is directly taken from 1984 Ministry of Truth. Funny how the author says all the parts are included in the new one, when it's pretty easily viewable not true. Only the parts they wanted are in the new version of this article. One of the 'lost' quotes, one of the most important quotes among many other important quotes, which is the product of their "update" of this article, is the quote:

"If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?" Winston Churchill's response to an urgent request to release food stocks for India. [41]

"If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?"

Winston Churchill's response to an urgent request to release food stocks for India. Tharoor, Shashi. "The Ugly Briton". Time.com. Time. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Which the History of Indian Subcontinent have sourced and used for a long time among many others, but suddenly now it's gone from this article? And when the quote has been reinstated, the author removes it instantly. How strange.

Changed the official numbers (1.5 million - 4 million) to "1.5 million - 2.1 million", even though the sources state up to 3.8 million. Changed the whole responsibility of the famine from the english to the indians. Who owned and had controlled india for ages? The british. Who had the full control of india? british.

For anyone to read in the future, this is 'washing hands history' / Ministry of truth.

You should also notice, most of these so called "sources" basically just robotic words on pieces of paper, are almost all of them from "Cambridge"/London-people or the alikes. Didn't see much neutral facts (some sources from both sides). One of the only sources by an indian parliament member, Shashi Tharoor, was removed by these Ministry of truth members.

There is one source though from Time, from a "Shashi Tharoor" which have him saying: "In 1943, some 3 million brown-skinned subjects of the Raj died in the Bengal famine, one of history's worst. Mukerjee delves into official documents and oral accounts of survivors to paint a horrifying portrait of how Churchill, as part of the Western war effort, ordered the diversion of food from starving Indians to already well-supplied British soldiers and stockpiles in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, including Greece and Yugoslavia. And he did so with a churlishness that cannot be excused on grounds of policy: Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet." But this is not included in the new article.

Tharoor, Shashi (29 November 2010). "The Ugly Briton". Time. Retrieved 19 December 2010.

Tharoor, Shashi (2003). Nehru: the invention of India. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 978-1-55970-697-1. Retrieved 20 December 2010.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action." - Ian Fleming

  • Thank you for your comments. You have mentioned several things; I hope I can persuade you that your opinions regarding the rewrite are mistaken. Firstly, and I must say this with extreme emphasis, the article does NOT "[Change] the whole responsibility of the famine from the english to the indians." Very much the opposite: the article struggles very sincerely to avoid taking either side, because Wikipedia is not allowed to choose among sides in a debate among historians. The article presents all sides. Period...
  • The introduction sections establish that the situation was extremely tight even before the war, due to overpopulation, land-grabbing, and ownership fragmentation caused by inheritance laws.
  • After that, the war takes front and center.. This was a wartime famine, first and foremost. The wartime decisions regarding "denial policies", "prioritised distribution", monetary inflation and denial of imports are presented as having a huge impact. I hope the article never comes within a hundred miles of saying "THESE WERE THE CAUSES", but the evidence is laid out in detail and at length...
  • To be painfully honest, if anything, a casual reader could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that it was absolutely and certainly Britain's fault. That's because all the evidence in that direction was meticulously recorded at the time that it happened, but the countervailing evidence was (regrettably!) NOT recorded (much) at the time.
  • For example, one way that it might be "not primarily Britain's fault" would be if it were mainly the fault of the fungal outbreak. But alas, as the article describes at length, the collection and quality of the rice production statistics were terrible, horrible, no good, and very bad. If the famine was caused by fungus, that fact can never and will never be proven. The statistical data just does not exist... Another way that it could be "not primarily Britain's fault" would be if the grain dealers.. including in particular M. M. Ispahani Limited... were guilty of ruthless large-scale profiteering that robbed grain from the mouths of their fellow Indians. There is much anecdotal evidence etc, but zero-point-zero hard proof. So the final tally: evidence pointing in Britain's direction was carefully gathered and preserved. Evidence pointing at fungus == Padmanabhan (1973) and nothing else. Evidence pointing at heartless, thieving profiteering is all and only vague and anecdotal (extensive, but anecdotal).
  • As for the 3.8 million death total [that would be from Greenough (1982, pp. 299–309)], you've just got to read Maharatna (1992), Maharatna (1996) and Dyson & Maharatna (1991). The evidence, including newly-discovered government records, is analyzed exhaustively. Just go read them. As Ó Gráda (2007, p. 19) points out this reflects scholarly consensus.
  • Finally, the Churchill quote. As I mentioned, this article tries not to take sides. See for example how the shared opinion of Collingham and Mukerjee that the refusal of shipping was punitive and racist is balanced against a rather detailed quote by Tauger defending Britain. The article states very clearly that many historians etc. think Churchill's bitterness and racism prolonged and worsened the famine, and left millions to starve. That point is very clearly stated. Was Churchill's attitude toward Indians racist? Certainly later in his life (I dunno about his younger days) the answer is "yes". But... he was also faced with the Battle of the Atlantic, and with the needs of D-Day. Mukerjee and Collingham think the denial of imports was punitive and racist; Tauger and others think it was wartime logistics... So... adding a pyrotechnic and extremely inflammatory quote by Churchill will put a finger on the scale in favor of one argument over another. It will tip the balance of the article. It will clearly and obviously bias readers against Churchill. It seems obvious to me at least that that is your desire and goal (and Mukerjee's and Collingham's), but it should not be the article's. Heck, Mukerjee and Collingham might be completely right, but there are legitimate arguments in the other direction, and Wikipedia cannot and must not take sides in any direction.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • [redacted childish name-calling]
  • 1) The above behaviour is not an acceptable way of dealing with fellow editors. Don't insult or attack editors and don't cast aspersions about their motivations/agendas. 2) It is obvious from your comments that you have a strong bias against Churchill. This does not preclude you from editing or contributing on this (or any other page), but, is something you should be mindful of when doing so. I can render no opinion on the quote being discussed as I am not familiar with it. We take a Neutral point of view and give due weight to credible and reliably sourced viewpoints regardless of our opinions on them. More widely-held viewpoints should receive greater presence than minority ones, but, they will be presented regardless. 3) I fail to see how writing an article, which now has double the sources and nearly triple the citations than it did previously, is journalism. In fact I don't see what journalism has to do with this, I think you're trying to accuse Lingzhi of doing original research. This does not appear to be the case, but, I'd have to check each of the more than 380 citations to say speak with absolute certainty about it. For now consider me at 99.9% sure that there is no original research being conducted. I am guessing, Lingzhi, that you intend to take this to FA? if so, it will be rigorously checked over by multiple parties. Till then, if this is an unresolvable issue, get outside input and build consensus. These insults are pointless and will not result in a desirable outcome. Please stop. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude please note copy/paste of huge chunk verbatime from POV website just moments ago; I reverted.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, how is this not journalism; The British War Cabinet is holding meetings on a famine sweeping its troubled colony, India. Millions of natives mainly in eastern Bengal, are starving. Leopold Amery, secretary of state for India, and Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wavell, soon to be appointed the new viceroy of India, are deliberating how to ship more food to the colony. But the irascible Prime Minister Winston Churchill is coming in their way. Not to mention, poor English. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • [redacted childish name-calling]

What you are doing is simple newday white washing of history. You try to drown the small bits of great truth and importance and to-the-point quotes and phrases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.184.126 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I had no idea you had been working on this for so long. I have barely skimmed through, but I can tell the article is being written with care. Congratulations. It's funny, but yesterday I was rummaging in the attic and found some India famine-related pictures, including some from a book on the Bengal famine, written in its raw aftermath in 1944, by a Kalyani Bhattacharyee, (and dedicated to Indian revolutionary Bina Das). I've added the pictures to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule, whose text I will be working on next. To be sure, the pictures seem to be some genre of nationalist popular art, picture-book art, perhaps, but I wonder if they might add to this article. Here they are: File:BengalSpeaksLastPicture.jpg, File:BengalSpeaksEatingOnTheStreet1943.jpg and File:BengalSpeaksStarvationFatalityBengalFamine1943.jpg. The first one has a Bengali caption, which I've asked for help with translation at WT:INDIA. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Images as shaping POV; other image considerations

@Fowler&fowler: As your comments on the MILHIST A-review make clear, you think the Famine is "only obliquely related to the war". and you believe highlighting the war is a POV. You explicitly stated both hose things. But logically, removing all war images is simply another form of POV. The reason I reverted your edits wholesale is to correct this POV.

  • As for the famine images, I have a couple better ones which I will try to upload in the next 2 or 3 days. I am busy. We can discuss these images one by one, in the next few days.
  • As for the technology etc., the technology underwent very nearly zero-point-zero changes from 1900 through 1943. All images of boats etc. are legitimate. I will try to find the relevant quote soon but very vey busy right now.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Apparently, you are not very busy to revert the edits I had made to add pictures from my own private copy of Bengal speaks!, pictures that are appearing on the internet for the first time. I doubt that you have better pictures; if you had them, you wouldn't have uploaded the sorry ones with bogus licenses in the first place. As for the POV bit, no I don't have that POV, as my reply there makes clear, and don't try to simplify what I said. Let me repeat again what I had written: "When I said it is "only obliquely military history," I was referring to the contrast between 1 and 319. Any one who claims it is essentially military history has to explain the contrast in the keywords of the sources. To point to 'a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility.' is not to imply that 'it was not a wartime famine.'" I saw what poor, off-base, pictures you had uploaded. We had a British pilot on the border with Afghanistan, at the other end of the Indian subcontinent from Bengal where the people were wilting ... I have reinstated my images. We can discuss one by one what image is appropriate. I will advertise on some other relevant Wikipedia fora as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

New images

  • @Lingzhi: I have added a number of pictures (added later at 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) these had half-tone effects and were magnified at full resolution to correct them. These were later corrected; see my post below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)):
    • In the section on the military build-up in Bengal in 1942 and 1943, I have added a picture of half a dozen American soldiers in Calcutta in 1943, File:AmericanSoldiersCalcutta1943.jpg to accompany the text, "At the same time, hundreds of thousands of troops poured into the province from various countries, especially the United States, the UK, India, and China. Calcutta was the main resupply base for American troops fighting in China, and its grassy Maidan park the airfield for transports flying over the Himalayan mountains." Lingzhi had a picture of a British pilot in Risalpur, in the Northwest-Frontier Province, on the border with Afghanistan, at the other end of the Indian subcontinent and 1,500 miles from Bengal. The picture was taken sometime between 1941 and 1945. I have removed that picture.
    • I have added File:WomanDeadFromStarvationBengalFamine1943.jpg to accompany the text, "In the first wave, victims of pure starvation filled the emergency hospitals in Calcutta and accounted for more than half of deaths in various districts. Deaths by starvation occurred most notably through November 1943; many victims on the streets and in the hospitals were so emaciated that they resembled "living skeletons". (This has been removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) ) Lingzhi had a generic picture of smallpox patient from the CDC in Atlanta File:Smallpox child.jpg with photo caption, "This child is showing the pan-corporeal rash due to the smallpox variola major virus." If we were looking to be educated äbout smallpox, we could go to the smallpox page and see the same picture there. The CDC picture has no information of location, year I have removed that picture.
    • I have added File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg to accompany the text, " social disruption was deep and widespread: families disintegrated, with cases of wives and children being abandoned," What did Lingzhi have in its place earlier? A non-free artistic sketch of a man's corpse being eaten by scavenging animals File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg, which I moved to artistic depictions section.
    • I have added File:BelongingsSoldAwayBengalFamine1943.jpg, which has its own caption, "people had to sell away all their belongings, cattle, utensils, tins from the roofs of houses, implements etc. In short, every thing which could find a purchaser was sold away." The picture and caption are eerily resonant, both visually and textually, to the text in the section: " First, they reduced their food intake and began to sell jewelry, ornaments, and smaller items of personal property. As the distress continued, ... the items sold became larger and less replaceable – livestock, farming tools, the roof or doors of the house." This, Lingzhi had the gumption to revert. Go figure.
    • I have added a picture of scavenging animals eating undisposed human corpses, File:BengalSpeaksJackalsVulturesEatingCorpsesBengalFamine1943a.jpg These pictures are from my own copy of a book, are in public domain, and are appearing on the internet for the first time. This accompanies the text, "The bodies were then picked over by vultures and dragged away by jackals. ... The sight of corpses beside canals, ravaged by dogs and jackals, was common." There was no picture before; there was a artist's non-free sketch, referred to above, which was only a stylized illustrative of the grim scenario.
    • I have added the picture File:OrphansWhoSurvivedBengalFamine1943.jpg (of orphans who survived the famine) to accompany the text in the next section, "In addition to the tens of thousands of children who were orphaned, many were victimised by their own mothers and fathers. They were sold for trifling amounts of cash or for unhusked rice ... Children were abandoned by the roadsides or at orphanages, dropped down wells, thrown into rivers, or buried alive." (There were no pictures in the section before.)
    • I have added File:MotherWithShredsOfClothingAndChildCalcutta1943.jpg to accompany the following text in the section, "Cloth famine:" "Another severe hardship of the crisis – the "cloth famine" – left nearly the entire population of the immiserated poor in Bengal naked or clothed in scraps through the winter."
    • Finally, I have added File:FatherSonCowRummagingFoodBengalFamine1943.jpg (of a father and son, not to mention a cow, rummaging for food scraps on the street, to accompany the text, "Large scale migration led to the abandonment of the utensils and facilities necessary for washing clothes, preparing food, and taking care of other necessities of life. Many of those who migrated to the cities simply drank contaminated rainwater from streets and open spaces where others had urinated or defecated"
  • I would very much hope that Lingzhi will not revert the addition of these sourced, public domain pictures which speak to the context with as much precision as any set of pictures can do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fowler&fowler: Those images are blurry and long-distance, plus you have removed all British military images (one because it wasn't in Bengal). Well, these are in Chittagong. Are they acceptable?: here. I suppose I like the top one the best, but any that focus on several airplanes rather than high-ranking officers are probably OK.... Oh, I didn't upload all those images with "bogus licenses"; you kept the only two I uploaded. But there are better ones... see Sunil Janah...If we are willing to argue that "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation, as per the Copyright Act 1911".. even though his website has many many "Respect my copyrights" notices... Mayhaps Nikkimaria might venture an opinion on that...   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not impressed with these changes. I agree with Ling re long distance and blurry. Can we please go back to the original, well thought out, images. I don't have the appetite to argue the toss over each one; for fear of black hole verbosity. My vote is for restoration. Ceoil (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Not blurry, I had magnified them to get rid of the half tone effects, which I now have. I've answered you on the Milhist page. In any case the one's I got rid of either didn't have valid licenses, or were wildly off-base. The valid ones I left in. Good night :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm really busy today too. I can work on images tomorrow. The most important thing is getting British military photos (but I think Ceoil may have added some already). Other considerations are: 1) how much information does it add? Long-distance shots that are dark brown do not add too much. 2) Licensing. A big big problem. But more tomorrow thanks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi:@Ceoil: The grayscale (black and white) is an easy fix. I've done that now. They are now in grayscale. They are not long distance shots except for two where the subject is a big scene. Here they are: File:FatherSonCowRummagingFoodBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg, File:OrphansWhoSurvivedBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:MotherWithShredsOfClothingAndChildCalcutta1943.jpg, File:BelongingsSoldAwayBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:BengalSpeaksJackalsVulturesEatingCorpsesBengalFamine1943a.jpg
  • They are better than than pictures such as File:HMS Cornwall - 1942 - WWII.jpg, which were in the article, which I have removed. The Sunil Janah pictures can't be used, there is no proof, for any given picture, that it was published before 1-1-46. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Where did you find the attribution of these images? I immediately recognized the child fleeing beside the road. You've got it attributed to James Jarche, but that's incorrect. It's George Rodger, whose son I believe still holds the copyright. See here (you may have to scroll down 6 or 7 pages to 38 I think)... Are other images incorrectly attributed as well? Can you prove their sourcing (provenance)?20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't mean the Chittagong planes were incontrovertible. I meant the correction of the provenance on "Burmese Indian refugees flee along the Prome Road into India, January 1942" is incontrovertible. I'm afraid it has to go. In fact, it should actually be deleted, but I would rather get hives on my nether parts than spend time at WP:FFD or WP:AFD or XFD.... s for the boat, it doesn't matter what their carrying. The British commandeered/destroyed every boat they could lay their hands on, if it was big enough to carry 10 people. Every boat. They could get.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Do you mean, "is not incontrovertible?" You have to take it up with the Imperial War Museum. It clearly says the photographer of the official photograph is James Jarche. Here is the picture again: File:Burmese refugees flee along the Prome Road into India, January 1942.jpg. On the other hand for Rodgers, we have only a Life magazine spread. In war time all sorts of pictures taken by all sorts of people get published. The copyrights are sorted out later. I need a clear proof, such as we have at IWM (which even has a Jarche catalog number for the picture) that Rodgers took that picture, which btw in Life is only half the picture. As for the boats, I know the history. A picture of a straw boat from 1905 does not cut it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
      • So what you're saying is that Life will say "This is a photo series by George Rodger" and then put a photo by someone else/anyone else in there? Plus any [adjective deleted; sensitive ears] boat will do, F&F. You should know that. It says "capable of carrying more than 10 passengers". And that's all it says. You're being a bit difficult for no reason.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Like I said take it up with the Imperial War Museum or the British Government, which regards it as an official photograph. Like I said, a picture of a straw boat from 1905 does not cut it, as an illustration for the Bengal famine of 1943. There is a Commons picture File:Overcrowded ferry boat on Meghna River, Bangladesh.jpg from 1975, which is closer temporally to 1943 than 1905 is. It is also similar to the steamer ferries the better-off Indians took when the evacuated Rangoon for Chittagong and beyond in India. So, should we put that in too? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You keep talking about "temporally". I keep telling you: there was little or no technological change. Seriously. Especially in agriculture, but presumably also in boats. A boat in 1905 is a boat in 1945. In fact, a boat in 1905 is closer to 1945 than 1975 is.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • NO it is not a good illustration even of general boat traffic on the Bengal waterways. I'm sure I can easily find one much better. Hold on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • And here is a picture from 1975 of country boats on the Meghna river that I've just uploaded on Wikipedia. You may use it to illustrate boat traffic on the Bengal waterways. File:Country boats on the Meghna River.jpg It also disprove that 1905 is closer to 1942 than 1975 is. Like I said you may use it. At least it is more relevant to the subject at hand. It is in color. It is a good picture. It will also inform the reader that even the small boats can carry more than ten. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fowler&fowler: I do like the telegram image, by the way. Good work on that.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Lingzhi: Thanks. Btw, I've emailed some people in India, requesting that they go to one of the major libraries (National Library in Calcutta, or the Nehru Memorial Library in Delh) and get the microfilm images of the famous spread in the Statesman, August 1943. Let's see what they come up with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • That would be the best news ever. By the way, Amrita Patrika Bazaar, the Hindusthan (Hindustan) Times and People's War (that would be Sunil Janah) published similar photos. I have seen several blotchy, almost indistinguishable photocopies of photocopies of many of these, but never crisp clear ones (aside from the one atop the article). I had a very, very extended conversation (many emails exchanged) with Sunil Janah's son about his father's photos. I believe I even helped him find a purchaser; not sure how that turned out. [I certainly connected him with a legitimate purchaser]... He never came flat out and flatly stated that he didn't want them used under a Fair Use license, but I think he hinted. I probably should never have brought them up; it was probably wrong of me. I repent.. Thanks... OH! I emailed george Rodger's son too about the photo of the child running by the car. Now... he flatly (but politely) said "No I have copyrights", which I took to mean "No don't use them." And... he never very specifically referred to the fleeing child. I am not saying "he didn't mention it specifically , so we can use it, even tho it's his" (that would be dishonest logic). I am saying... it is possible that you are right and that specific photo is not his father's, but many others in that magazine spread were, and he meant "Whichever ones of those are my father's, don't use them." My interaction with him was something like three sentences.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
      • :) Yeah, the children of the photographers, especially 75 years later, don't always have the same perspectives. For one, they probably get asked these questions a lot, by writers, researchers, .... Very interesting though. I did find pictures from the Statesman in Richard Stevenson's book, but they are not attributed there by publishing date, only the name, and the publisher is iUniverse, i.e. more or less self-published. I've downloaded those pictures, just in case the Statesmen microfilm ones are poor quality, but nonetheless give us a fix on the publishing date, and in case, we find a few weeks later the pictures are no longer available. Incidentally, in Stevenson's book your infobox picture is a little bigger, ie it is not cropped. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi: Btw, why are you using fair-use for the infobox image? We have it on good authority that it was published on August 22, 1943 (per what's his name's Hunger book, in which the publication Statesman and date of publication is mentioned). That means it is in public domain in India, (because, per Indian copyright law 1911, 1943 + 50 = 1993, has come and gone). It is also in public domain in the US, per {{PD-India-URAA}} which shows up on Commons only, not on en.wikipedia, but says, "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in India (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and it was in the public domain in its home country India on the URAA date January 1, 1996." (In conjunction with PD-India, the warning sign etc disappears.) In other words, it needs to have been published before 1996-50 = 1 January 1946, which this picture certainly was. I thing you can remove fair use and add PD-India and PD-India-URAA. Do this in Commons though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
My memory is poor (blank in fact), but I think there must have been some reason why I believed it was not PD in the US. The Chittaprosad img forex is not PD in the US because it was never published in the US (was hidden in a bank vault in fact) until a very few years ago.... Alas, you have hit on a topic of great personal discouragement to me – image licensing. I will spare you the full version of a box full of paragraphs of my soapbox rant, but let's say I am weary weary weary weary weary weary weary weary of Wikimedia's blithe, cheerful, deliberate, uncaring refusal to help on this issue. Wikipedia is just too huge for such.... We don't care. We don't have to care. We're WikiMedia. <end condensed version of rant>  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Haha. Well the easy solution is to not pay attention to Wikimedia and soldier on. But that may be easier said than done. I don't have much experience in taking them on. But I could upload the uncropped version of the infobox image (from Stevenson's book) but with the PD-India etc licenses and start my own journey to Wiki martyrdom. No worries, I won't change the actual infobox image, maybe just place it on this talk page so that it will show up in the Wikimedia sniper's scope. Maybe I'll scan the image from the book itself, rather than from Google books. With some images, I have found scanning them from the actual book at very high dpi to be better because I can then apply some filters to take out the noise and eventually sample down to the image size. But one has to be careful to not overdo it. Will keep you posted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That's not exactly what I meant. You probably won't have any problems...   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you mean licensing an image from (say Getty etc) by paying a fees? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(←) No. I mean for example the disagreement you and I are having over the fleeing boy. I say it's in a Life journal with the text "photos by George Rodger" and so it's George Rodger. You say it's in IMW with text "photo by James Jarche", and so it's Jarche, and Life were a bunch of inaccurate slackers. So who is right? And a million other research questions. I say WikiMedia should hire a domain expert to train a handful of volunteers to sort out these questions. What do we have instead now? We have 1 person (Nikkimaria) who checks all licenses. What if she quits? I have seen 1 other sig on img checks, but very rarely. WikiMedia gets paid boatloads of money. The people who keep the servers up are certainly earning their keep. But may God forgive me if I suggest: most others are being paid to produce nothing. Nothing but feel-good jibber-jabber that benefits no one. Do we need a five year plan that disappears into nothingness.? Do we need a dozen technological "improvements" that no one asked for and that do not work? And etc. Rant rant rant. It makes me sound like a crank. But spit in one hand, and add up all Wikimedia's concrete contributions in the other, and see which hand fills up first.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, over the years I've certainly heard arguments in support of more professionalism in Wikipedia, whether in the form of more image license evaluation by trained volunteers , which seems harmless, or for some other task. I'm leery about arguing for professionalism, because somewhere in the back of my head I have the sneaking suspicion that Wikipedia has survived mainly because it is driven forward by rank amateurs. As you must know, there have been attempts in the past at creating Wiki-like-pedias in which some restrictions of quality standards were imposed on the "anyone can edit" bit. None of these pedias, however, survived. As I said, the trained volunteers would be a net good, but then someone might ask for trained grammarians, trained creative writers for promoting "brilliant prose," and before long these trainees will have turned into image Nazis, lexical Nazis, syntactical Nazis, etc and Wikipedia would find itself standing with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. I 99.99% agree with you. I agree about grammar. I agree about research (forex, anyone with a good bachelor's degree or an excellent high school diploma and very, very large amounts of perseverance could've done what I did with this article). I agree about image creation (we have many artistic people and skilled photographers). But image licensing is the one area where I disagree... I once asked Nikkimaria how to determine whether or not an img was PD. The process was very involved. There were 2 or 3 or so (I don't remember) specific databases you have to chase down. They were difficult to use... each database was a pain ... even for me.. and I have been down two different detail-oriented, research-oriented career paths... and then there's all the legal bits. I know we have nice little tables and charts, and many people eager to look at the charts and offer their version of an answer to a specific question... but... yeah, it's the img research bit that is the real obstacle.... chasing down an image's actual status. Even if we know who made an img (which you and I have discovered together is not always as straightforward as it might seem), do we know if the photographer or the publication originally have copyrights? More importantly, have the rights been renewed or have they lapsed? And so on...It's just too much for volunteers (especially the database bit).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bengal_famine_of_1943/Archive_5&oldid=1088791927"