Talk:Quit India Movement
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quit India Movement article.|
|This article is written in Indian English (colour, realise, travelled, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|WikiProject India / History||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 9, 2006, August 9, 2009, August 8, 2010, and August 8, 2012.|
Despite this, Gandhi went on protest 21-day fasts and maintained a superhuman resolve to continous resistance. How much is that? POV-warning, as I see it. -FredrikM
I am removing the NPOV tag in Contributions to India's Independence heading since no argument is made here in favour of why it is thought that it not NPOV. Referenced sources used for the factual depiction of erstwhile and present day conclusions of the movement's success or failure.Ranam 16:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to be completely rewritten - otherwise, it's a poem for Indian nationalism. It's obvious that the British saw this campaign as an attempt to stab them in the back while fighting for national survival against the worse tyrannies in history. Idiotic pronouncements of Gandhi notwithstanding, it would be interesting to imagine the prospect of India under the "benevolent" rule of the Japanese. I wonder how successful civil disobedience would be then.
Will a knowledgeable person please provide sources for the following paragraph? Otherwise, it will have to be removed or substantially shortened.
The British swiftly responded by mass detentions. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, bombs were air-dropped and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of resisters and innocent people were killed in police and army firings. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets, and establishing parallel governments. The British sense of crisis was strong enough that a battleship was specifically set aside to take Gandhi and the Congress leaders out of India, possibly to South Africa or Yemen, but such a step was ultimately not taken out of fear of intensifying the revolt.
Sincerely, 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See James L citation in the reference section.Rueben lys 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Many things about this seem shaky, especially the claim that 'innocent' people were killed in 'firings.' I would think that a better word should be substituted for 'firings.' Also, I would think that persons in the immediate area of a riot are not really innocent, they would have been trying to leave otherwise. Protestors, on the other hand, even if breaking an unjust law, are still not 'innocent.'TaylorSAllen 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What's up with reference #7? It's supposed to be historians' views on why the movement failed, instead it's spam, or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remus.suciu (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View?
I was just reading through this article and it felt as if I were reading a piece of propaganda. It seems to portray the INA as if they were innocent children betrayed by the Japanese. Can someone more objective and less involved than myself please rewrite this with NPOV. sheep21 10:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just read through your edits, first of all, the INA is not the topic of this article, Quit India movement is. Secondly, your edits are extremely PoV and perhaps you need to balance that yourself, surely if you've taken the effort to write in the article, you can set aside views in favour of facts. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- INA references were in here when I arrived, I mearly pointed out that they were traitors for fighting against the Crown hand in hand with the Japanese, hell Bosse even went to Germany at one point... The article was heavily PoV in the opposite direction before I put anything in, I just wanted to give another perspective. TBH i cant see what the INA has to do with Gandhi's Quit India movement anyway. EDIT: Regarding the message you left me, I have removed no citations, this entire article was the same large block of text before I arrived aswell. I admit my edits are PoV but the rest of what you wrote on my wall is false Sheep21 05:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to go into the entire patriots and traitors argument here. You have admitted your edits are PoV, that'll do. FYI, edits should abide by WP:NPOV. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- So will you admit I did nothing to the structure of this article or too the references, I admit POV violation but will you now also admit I did nothing to the rest of the article. I do not like being made out to being a vandal. Of course they should abide by WP:NPOV but did you care to see how baiased this article i was when i found it. Also,in my entire editing of this article I changrd one too two sentances. Regardless of your views the INA were traitors to the Crown & the Indian Empire and fought against those who remained loyal on many occasions. This is fact.
sheep2 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think you;ve misunderstood the purpose of my message and reversion. I am by no means saying you're a vandal, and in all honesty, I am very happy to presume that you're acting in Good faith. What I am saying is that your edits should be neutral.I have seen the previous version, and in fact some of the changes were made by myself in my early days in wikipedia, and I will admit that it maybe biased, because nobody helped NPOV it, and I am still struggling to NPOV it and other articles. The thing is INA is a very emotive issue which is a subject of considerable historical scholarly work even today and its role and views on it and its founder has changed considerably over the last fifty years. Hving said that, INA is not the topic, Quit India is, but the common theme is the Indian independence movement. I think if you focus on that side, instead of ascertaining who was traitor and who was a patriot, that'll help the article. If you want help, there's a number of excellent editors in WP:INDIA, most notably User:Fowler&fowler (who I believe may have views similar to yours, but is a great editor and thorough knowledge bank), and User:RegentsPark who I dont really know that much. Good luck, and please do not think I am trying to put you off, patronise you, or bully you. If you wish to discuss anything leave me a message. :) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"prudence of humanity"
What is this phrase supposed to mean? Could someone rework the concluding paragraph?
File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:QuitIndiaMovement.jpg)
Another NPOV article On India
None of these statements written as fact have citations, British rule of India had never been described as 'tyranny' yet these articles are not challenged or if they are challenged someone comes along and removes the tag without addressing the most blatant NPOV statements. Until all the highly charged, negative statements as fact have citations the article should keep the tag. Twobells (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)