Wikipedia

Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India/Archive 5

< Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Vanamonde93 in topic How does 10 supports by editors who know nothing about Indian history and six opposes by editors who do become a consensus to move?
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Section headers

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Section headers should not include links (see the MOS). Also would it not be a good idea to have section headers that reflect the introduction: "Provinces of India, earlier Presidencies of British India, still earlier, Presidency towns". --PBS (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Will fix. I'm assuming that you're not suggesting that (like the intro) we go back in time with the section order, but only that we change the section titles to "Presidency towns," "Presidencies of British India," and "Provinces of India." Am I correct? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. --PBS (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with "Agencies"

The British agencies existed during the same period. It would be helpful to tie both together and explain the relationship.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vontrotta (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 May 2009

Merge?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With British Raj ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of templates for major and minor provinces

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

User:Fowler&fowler undid my addition of templates to this article again. The reasons cited for the undoing are provided in the edit summary are mostly aesthetic. I do not see the same aesthetic problem Fowler sees and I am asking editors/readers to comment on which version they prefer:

Table version [1]
Template version [2]

Other issues like making the table collapsible can be fixed at template:Major provinces of the British in India in 1907. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

THis is article content and it should be in the body of the article, not as some template. —SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Not enough participation in this discussion. I will setup an RFC to attract more neutral editors. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was the consensus of the RfC was not to use the two tables -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I converted two tables of the provinces of British India in 1907 to templates. The templates can replace tables in at least two known articles. Neutral editors are invited to provide support or oppose the use of these templates with a brief reason explaining their position.
* Table version of the article
* Template version of the article Zuggernaut (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose I have nothing against templates, having made a few myself. The table shows administrative divisions of British India and related information. As such, it is an integral part of the text, not some collapsible template (on the side) which requires some input on the part of the reader to access. Consider the corresponding template in Administrative division of India. The information is there right in the text for everyone to see. What Zuggernaut calls "aesthetics," is really readability. When the window width is changed, text slides down the sides of his template, and a reader has to strain to figure out which section of text the template belongs to. Also, I'm troubled by Zuggernaut's insistence on calling the template Major provinces of the British in India instead of "Major Provinces of British India". Given his history of POV pushing on the Talk:India page, where too he is (unsuccessfully) conducting an RfC, and given his complete lack of history of contributing to this page, it is hard not to think that this is more of the same. As a major contributor to this page, I find it odd that his first edit here is the one inserting the template, and, soon thereafter he is conducting an RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
PS Also, in this article, the provinces and presidencies for all the other historical periods (1600–1765; 1772–1857; 1858–1947) are an integral part of the text. So, why should the provinces of 1907, which have more information about governance, be in a collapsible template. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There isn't really any difference between "Major provinces of the British in India in 1907" and "Major provinces of British India in 1907" since the imperialists used the latter nomenclature to mean the British nation in India. I don't care either way and both of the reasons cited by Fowler&fowler«Talk» have been addressed as can be seen in the four diffs below:
  1. Template for minor provinces moved: [3]
  2. Template for minor provinces is now expanded, not collapsed [4]
  3. Template for major provinces moved: [5]
  4. Template for major provinces is now expanded, not collapsed: [6]
And, oh, I have no interest in discussing anything other than content. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The use of "British India" to mean the "British nation in India" is secondary usage and has a completely different meaning than the primary one (i.e. those regions of India under the sovereignty of the East India Company or the Crown). Your use of the secondary term demonstrates ingenuousness or disingenuousness (especially in conjunction with "imperialists"), I'm not sure which. The problem of the template not being centered and the text sliding down its side remains. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually the text sliding down problem has been eliminated and the templates can be centered easily if necessary. Imperial is the normal word used to describe empires of that era. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • See also: Talk:British_Raj#Provinces_templates where the same template is being discussed for another article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd echo all of Fowler's comments on this one. In addition, this is article content, and belongs within the article with local editorial oversight. It is impossible to assess any changes made to the template when it doesn't show up in revision histories for the article. This is a completely unnecessary template that adds no value, rather distracting from the ability to maintain the article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It looks better with template than with tables. Reduces size of article (easier to edit). Can be used in other articles. Easy to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.31.117 (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Curious as to whether there are policies relating to when to use templates versus tables. If I see any, I'd defer to those; however, as it stands, Fowler seems to make the more convincing argument. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Does weak oppose mean you are amenable to change? If so, I would like to point out that templates have been fixed to ensure that none of the problems pointed out by Fowler remain. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assam partitioned in 1947

Most of Sylhet district in Assam was included in East Pakistan as a result of its Muslim population. It was therefore 3 provinces, not 2, that were partitioned, and I've edited the article accordingly.93.113.201.93 (talk)

What does "British India" mean? Why isn't the wiki page: "Colonial Nigeria" also called: "British Nigeria" ?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

is "British India" PC for "Colonial India"? is it because 'India' has had so many incoming colonial rulers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.234.70 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I also believe British India is a poor title and it should had been better as "British Rule in India". Shekhar 05:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No, "British India" refers to that part of India under direct British rule. The rest was under indirect rule. 216.8.145.227 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
lots of RS cover "British India -- as in 16,000 citations in scholarly articles published since 2013 at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2013&q=%22British+India%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27 Rjensen (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Maps, maps, maps, 28 maps, that's a lot!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I love maps but 28 maps splashed singly or in galleries all over the article is overwhelming, excessive, weird-looking and not user-friendly. Couldn't we manage with, say, a maximum of ten key maps spread throughout the article (avoiding galleries!) and the others included in one giant map gallery annex at the end?--Lubiesque (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This is really in some sense a timeline page, or a list, showing the geographical evolution of regions under British governance from the early 17th century up until 1947. Without the maps, there will be no clarity about the evolution, since it happened gradually over a long time. If you scroll through the archives, you will see that we had planned to turn it into a proper list, even shoot for a WP:FL run. Let me think about it some more. Perhaps now is the time to do it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2015

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A protected redirect, British India, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this...
#REDIRECT [[Presidencies and provinces of British India]]
<!--There have been two [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] to move [[British Raj]] to here, (see [[Talk:British Raj]]), when there was not a consensus to do so. Please do not move the page, but instead follow the instructions at [[WP:RM]]. -->
  • to this...
#REDIRECT [[Presidencies and provinces of British India]]

{{Redr|from move|mentioned in hatnote|related|printworthy}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The invisible comment is not needed, because move protection has been applied. Template Redr is an alias for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. No protection rcat is needed, and if {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (The categories will also be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.) Thank you in advance! – Paine  22:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You're the "cat's meow", Redrose64! Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  08:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please move British Raj to here ASAP. In common parlance and also in modern cartography and geography British India is the a combination of both the Princely states of India and Presidencies and Provinces of India, the same is corroborated by Oxford dictionary[1] Porus D'Canara (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/british_india

Requested move 29 September 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago50 comments18 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (following post-move objections, see the original statement below). To quote RegentsPark again, "If the term is imprecise, we should have an article outlining the dimensions of that imprecision. Even if it be a sort of extended disambiguation page. It does make sense that we shouldn't redirect British India to this Presidencies and Provinces of British India while also saying that the Presidencies and Provinces are not all of British India." So, there's consensus that the current situation is confusing, with British India and {{Colonial India}} linking here, but "British India" nowhere being defined.
What is not clear, however, is that moving this particular article to British India is the best course of action: it is focused on on administrative divisions of India at the time rather than being a proper broad-concept article.
As I see it, the way forward is to write a proper overview article at British India (or a similar title such as British rule in India) outlining the entire 1612-1947 period and explaining the terminology applied then and now. Moving this one to that title has been rightfully dubbed "shoehorning". No such user (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Original close, withdrawn

Consensus to move to British India. Apart from numerical majority for the move, I've also read through the arguments and their compliance with the relevant policies. I accept that the term "British India" is imprecise and can refer to a long period with varying ruling systems, but then WP:DABCONCEPT clearly applies: Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) [...] the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. This article is not a textbook broad-context article, but is good enough and we have no better one at the moment (perhaps it could be split along the British America/Thirteen Colonies lines as mentioned below). The situation that British India redirects to Presidencies and provinces of British India is against several WP:CRITERIA. There's also a strong argument that it's confusing for the readers (it was confusing for me too until I read up the article and discussion). No such user (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


Presidencies and provinces of British India → British India – I don't at all understand why this article has such a wordy title. Isn't it simply about British India? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Fowler:Those hatnotes are extremely confusing to someone who isn't already familiar with the history of British rule in India. An uneducated readers will have no clue whatsoever which of those links they should use to learn. And learning is what we're supposed to be about. Our readers expect that they can type in British India and get the history of British India - all of it, not just some of it, and they shouldn't have to know anything about it from elsewhere before they read about it here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • British West Indies, British North America, British Guyana were British Crown colonies. India was not, (again, emphatically not). There is a reason why that Victoria's regnal name was Victoria by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India. Do you understand the exception? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That's not correct. India was in fact considered by the British to be the jewel in crown. [7] LearnIndology (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Huh? What does an Empress of India wear if not a Crown? But a Crown colony is something else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
British India ≠ British Crown Colony of India. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is about the Presidencies and Provinces of British India, not about British India. Historically, British India has three components. Company rule in India when the East India company ruled over parts of India. Presidencies and provinces of British India, the parts of India that were directly under the suzeranity of the British government. And, Princely states in India, the nominally self-ruled kingdoms that were controlled by the British. Moving this article to British India is factually incorrect, though an overview article that explains all this may not be a bad idea. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The plurality of citations refer to this as "British India".[8] They do not refer to it, and no other encyclopedia including New World, Pears, World Book, Grolier, Britannica, etc., has an article on "Presidencies and provinces of British India". Where this was a crown colony or not doesn't determine the common name used, which is "British India". All of the other articles on Wikipedia like British Ceylon, British Malaya, British Honduras, and many many more are named according to this standard and this should be no exception. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
British Malaya was more like the British Raj and not British India, as its own page says clearly in the second sentence. If we are to follow the precedent in your example, should we move British Raj to British India as well?
And New World? Is it now lifting text from Wikipedia? For it has copied my own words from the British Raj page of 13 years ago! See here. And compare with this WP edit of 2007-2008 when we were still conflating "British Raj" and "British India." And Pears Cyclopaedia? Is it still around? I thought it had died in 2017.
The conventional divisions of the British Empire were: United Kingdom, Dominions, Crown Colonies, India. (See here) India was unique. India was not British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Pears had indeed kicked the bucket in 2017. What a pity. I used to like it. It was more like and almanac than enclopedia. Still, I mourn its loss. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
PS Oh, but it never did have a page on "British India." See here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The article is about British India, and even the current title demonstrates that. There's no reason to have a wordy title when a shorter and clearer one makes more sense. LearnIndology (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
To pick up on what RegentsPark has said, British India is an imprecise term for which this page is a good approximation, but not an unambiguous one. This page is precise though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Several other editors expressed before, the current name will just confuse readers. Even the opposition has stated, that even notable news outlets have confused the terms. Wikipedia is a user friendly website, as mentioned in WP:Readers First. It is very important to maintain that. Tessaracter (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"British India" is an imprecise term, and I have now clarified this in the lead. It was not unambiguously used for any one thing. For instance, it was used as a synonym for "the British in India" during the period 1612 to 1757 when the Company towns, or outposts, were tenancies. That means the EIC had leased these from the local Indian rulers. But its best approximation is this page. The top of the page does point to British India (disambiguation) for the various uses for which the expression has been employed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support On Wikipedia, we clearly need to follow Occam's razor. Presidencies and provinces of British India is logically equivalent to British India, and the name British India has been consistently named by many RS as a widely used name that had come into use before 1900s. Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
What is clear is this: (a) "British India" is imprecise. (b) This page is precise (so, obviously, it cannot be logically equivalent to BI). (c) The ordinary readers, writers, and publishers, including e.g. a Pulitzer prize winner from the NY Times do not know what British India is, mostly confusing it for British Raj. (d) I would like to ask all the "support" voters here: Was Surat in 1705 in British India? Was Madras in British India in 1720? Was the British Residency in Delhi before 1857 a part of British India? Was Bangalore in 1820 a part of British India? Was it so in 1890? All in all, this page is the best approximation, especially for the period 1858 to 1947. But there are notable exceptions and it is best not to simplify the picture or sweep the anomalies and outliers under the rug. When a name such as "British India" is redirected, a reader is warned, and they examine the page information in the front/top matter more carefully. A straightforward move will give the wrong message, especially when (I wager) most Wikipedians do not know what constituted British India and what did not Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If "British India" is being used to cover the periods before and after 1858, then it is not being used in a clear and consistent way but as a shorthand. For that reason, the present title is clearer in its scope. Srnec (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly, as mentioned by several editors who commented earlier. Our first concern is to maintain accuracy and not to confuse the readers. Wikipedia policy, mentioned in WP:Readers first is absolutely clear in this. The current title is nothing but confusing for those who are not familiar with the subject. As others point out, let us not confuse the readers. We at Wikipedia provide the research needed for people to further their knowledge, not to confuse them. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    Um. Our first concern is to maintain accuracy, unfortunately for your argument, the current title is the accurate one. British India, though a simpler title, is actually inaccurate. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    British India is an accurate title for an article, but it sounds like there is some real disagreement on whether it's an accurate title for this article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Oiyarbepsy: Since you proposed the move, please tell me what British India is, and then I'll tell you all the exceptions. In other words, that article will become an unfocused dab page in prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy: Sorry about that. That wasn't fair of me. We are trying to build better. Give me a day, and I'll give some examples here of the complications. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It's complicated is not a reason to avoid an article, and in fact, makes it far more important to have an article. After all, we have special relativity Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
That's right and I agree Oiyarbepsy. It makes zero sense to have an article called "Presidencies and provinces of British India" without having an article called "British India". LearnIndology (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy:? I said British India is imprecise. That means it lacks precision, that it is couched in indefinite terms, it is vague, which special relativity is not. Why don't you create a short page in your sandbox on what ou think is British India is? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Corrected ping. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: @Oiyarbepsy: I think Oiyarbepsy has a good point. If the term is imprecise, we should have an article outlining the dimensions of that imprecision. Even if it be a sort of extended disambiguation page. It does make sense that we shouldn't redirect British India to this Presidencies and Provinces of British India while also saying that the Presidencies and Provinces are not all of British India. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: I am creating a summary of the year-long discussion in 2008 and 2009 that created the present consensus. A huge huge effort it was. In fairness to Xn4 and Strawless, they offered some cogent content-based reasons. These present nominators are offering nothing but some general-purpose Wiki-sense arguments. Anyway, you might be surprised by the huge, huge, amount of time we spent. I even wrote a "British India" dab-in-prose page with a new side-bar/template. I had forgotten all this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I fully agree, hatnotes are confusing to new readers. My support is based on this well written statement for a simple title: Those hatnotes are extremely confusing to someone who isn't already familiar with the history of British rule in India. An uneducated readers will have no clue whatsoever which of those links they should use to learn. And learning is what we're supposed to be about. Our readers expect that they can type in British India and get the history of British India - all of it, not just some of it, and they shouldn't have to know anything about it from elsewhere before they read about it here. I could not have summarized it better myself. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If it is a place being ruled by the British, what does "British India" mean in the title of the book Business, Race, and Politics in British India, c. 1850–1960 (recall, India became independent in 1947).
  • If it is the geographical region of this page, which existed between 1602 and 1947, what does "British India" mean in the book: Aryans and British India; Aryans is a reference to a migration/diffusion of people/language in the mid-second-millennium BCE.
  • If it a place? What does it mean in the book: Who Was Who in British India? (The first return in the Google Search says: "Over 5,000 entries on the British men and women who played a significant role in British India" Does that mean Gandhi, Nehru, or the Nobel Prize winners Rabindranath Tagore and C. V. Raman were not Who in British India if we are to redirect this article to British India; after all they lived in the Presidencies and Provinces of British India.) The funny thing is that the Who's Who contains people who never stepped foot in India, British or non-British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC) PS @Oiyarbepsy: Please write an article on what you think "British India" should be about and present it on this talk page in the manner that I did in discussion of 2008 and 2009. If it not a significant content fork of this article, we could move your article to British rule in India which currently redirects to British Raj; it could be a great overview article. @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I want to thank Oiyarbepsy for bringing up this RfC. I was planning on bringing this issue up again: [9] This title is extremely concerning for three reasons. First, even the opposition has stated, and noted by others, that without an article for British India, even well-known media have incorrectly used the wrong term. Second, we need to take into account WP:UCRN -- in this light, changing the name is a must. Third, we don't even have an article on British India, yet we have an article for "Presidencies and provinces of British India"? This is very concerning and not how things should be done. No wonder there is so much misunderstanding. Those three cases alone should make this RfC go with those of us who have voted "support." --1990'sguy (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "British India" is not only a vague term but also a casual term connoting in anachronistic fashion a kind of ownership which the British never had in India, as they did in the settler colonies: 13 colonies of the US, Canada, British South Africa, Australia or New Zealand. They spent time in India to be sure, in many instances doing stalwart work, but down to the last man and woman alive, retired in Great Britain. Their children were born there, but at the age of five, six, or seven, sent to boarding school in Britain. In all the great famines of the 19th or 20th centuries, in which tens of millions of Indians died, there is not a single instance of a Briton dying of starvation or of succumbing to malaria or cholera in a weakened state brought on by malnutrition. The nominator says, "Isn't (this page) simply about British India?" And I keep asking, "So what was British India? Please tell me." I've been asking everyone to write that page on this talk page, even a barebones one, so we can examine what precisely is being proposed. Have you seen a "British India" page on Britannica?? There's not even a remote acknowledgment of the term there. But there is a "British Raj" page written by the historian Stanley Wolpert.
  • A If you want to redirect "British India" to a dab page and lock down the redirect:
  • British India refers chiefly to :
  • Presidencies and Provinces of British India
  • It can occasionally refer to the "British in India," i.e. the British people with the experience of having lived in India (whether in a sojourn or in domicile)
  • It can occasionally refer to the segregated neighborhoods in which the British lived in India or the society that they created therein.
  • It can occasionally refer to the "British people involved in the enterprise of India."
  • It can inaccurately refer to Company rule in India
  • It can inaccurately refer to British Raj
I'm happy to support that.
But to expand the "British India" dab page one word beyond what I have proposed above is to create highly POV content forks against which there is a clear precedent on this page, stated by the admin Philip Baird Shearer who oversaw the last year-long discussion in 2008 and 2009, and by the arbitrator and admin Nichalp who was a part of that discussion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We need a dab page at the least because, otherwise, this is going to come up again. If British India redirects here then, as the simpler version, it appears appropriate. A dab page will capture the complexities of British India and make it clear that no one detailed article fits the term exactly. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a specific page which details Princely States / Provinces.

British America and Thirteen Colonies have a separate distinct page, no? TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fowler&fowler's summary of the RfC and discussion in 2008-2009 that led to this consensus

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here were the notable stages of the discussion:

  • Stage 0 (early Sept 2008):
  • At that time and a few months before, "British India" was being redirected to British Raj (See e.g. PBS's post, but Xn4 had intermittently redirected "British Raj" to "British India" or edited "British India" as an independent article ( here)
  • "Presidencies and provinces of British India" in the long name did not exist, but had "Provinces of India" (here) and "Presidencies of British India" (here) did.
  • A page "British Empire in India" was being redirected to British Raj ( here), and another page
  • "British rule in India" was also redirected to British Raj (here)

Vontrotta, and TheBlueKnight and Umar Zulfikar Khan. (Xn4 and Strawless) wanted a stand-alone article.

  • Stage 2: Discussion and different proposals
  • By 28 September 2008 Vontrotta and RegentsPark wanted British India to be redirected to British Raj (here). but Xn4 and Strawless disagreed. By the end of October I complained it was taking too long.
  • 28 October 2008, admin PBS offered a compromise: move the current article into user space. Then move British rule in India to here and modify it so it is a true dab page for the term "British India" ([Talk:Presidencies_and_provinces_of_British_India/Archive_2#A_possible_compromise here])
  • 29 October 2008, arb Nichalp weighed in, "I'm strongly opposed to having content forks" i.e. independent article on British India ([Talk:Presidencies_and_provinces_of_British_India/Archive_2#View_by_Nichalp here]), continuing, "I suggest the following breakup:
  • "British Rule in India" that details the arrival of the British in India up to 1950, when India became a republic. The article also contains a summary of the following articles:
  • "British Raj" [scope 1858 - 1947] with a strong focus on governance and rule
  • "Company Rule in India" [scope 1757 - 1857] with a strong focus on the expansionist programmes of the Company
  • British India be redirected to British Raj
  • An additional article can detail the relationship between the suzerain states of India and the British.
  • I told Nichalp that "British India" was different from "British Raj", in response he withdrew the redirect idea and wrote a short stub/dab-in-prose explaining "British India" ( here)
  • (Early November 2008) I expanded Nichalp's idea into a short article) There was some back and forth, Nichalp and RP came aboard and Nichalp considered it to be A class, suggesting we consider FAC.
  • (9 November 2008) There was talk about creating a sidebar.

....

  • Xn4, Umar Zulfikar Khan and Strawless were banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and for attempting to create a false consensus.
  • (March 2009) PBS moved my stub with sidebar into mainspace (here) and titled "British India" (to be continued when I'm feeling less exhausted. Please do not edit) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My word, how exhausting to wrap my mind around these sequence of events. Kudos to @fowler for his patience.

I understand the difference between the Company Rule and the Crown Rule but unfortunately most Indians don't. Most Indian text books will say "The British Ruled India for 200 years" not drawing a distinction between the EIC and the Crown.

This is my suggestion - Let British India be one short page which divides the eras and mentioned associated names with that era. I hope this is constructive and helpful TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

How does 10 supports by editors who know nothing about Indian history and six opposes by editors who do become a consensus to move?

Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

I see this to be nothing but an awful page move done in the middle of the night as it were. The title "Presidencies and provinces of British India" was chosen after a year-long RfC in 2008 and 2009, the discussion presided by admin @Philip Baird Shearer: and steered by arbitrator (now retired) Nichalp. I will also post at WT:INDIA where the knowledgeable editors are completely unaware of this discussion; indeed I myself had forgotten because I did not think it has a chance. I am on vacation now. Contrast this presumptuous closing by an editor, @No such user:, with no history of any contribution to Indian history with PBS's considerate, inclusive, shepherding of all the participants into achieving a consensus. The new page title, "British India," is not only historically inaccurate, but it also speaks to the worst kind of British irredentism, which is apparently still alive and well on Wikipedia. Not to mention that some brand-new editors (most likely sockpuppets of banned Wikipedia editors) who have a personal gripe against me (as exhibited in other discussions across WP in August, September, and October) have voted in support. I am frustrated. This move is awful, just awful, disastrously awful. Pinging some admins, seasoned India and Pakistan editors, : @Vanamonde93, Doug Weller, Drmies, Titodutta, Sitush, Bishonen, RexxS, Kautilya3, Saqib, RegentsPark, Abecedare, and SpacemanSpiff: Please do something. I am on vacation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please come down and assume good faith. You're throwing wild accusations around, constructing a "personal gripe against you", seeing "sockpuppets of banned Wikipedia editors" and accusing people of "worst kind of British irredentism". I'm a disinterested user who has closed hundreds of requested moves so far, and I'm helping clean long WP:RM backlog. The RM discussion above was open for nearly two months. I don't count votes at all, but I understand (and share) astonishment at the previous title by the original poster's and several other editors', and I did not find your arguments sufficiently persuasive in the discussion. I've left a longish closing rationale, but it seems you're currently too upset to even notice it, let alone understand the reasoning. No such user (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It is actually six opposes. LearnIndology is one of those new editors who has been opposing me here there and everywhere, along with Zakaria. Look at their history. See how many times they have been warned. See here. Do you know anything about Indian history? Page titles are not only about Wikilawyering. You've caused inestimable damage to WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Fowler, I don't know about British irredentism, but "British India" is a perfectly well-understood term for those of us from the subcontinent. It was a state and a country, which has now fissured into three countries, and hopefully no more than that. I am not all that fussed about the technical distinctions between "British India" and "Indian India" (i.e., "princely India"). What is of concern is the messy border we inherited from British India, which is currently taking up 90% of my time on Wikipedia. The "Indian" India's border was apparently more messed up than that of "British" India. So if there is a big distinction, that is where it is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
If that is the case, @Kautilya3:, you should be supporting British Raj --> British India as well. A little silly don't you think? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No, "British Raj" should be "British Indian Empire", this is English Wikipedia. "Raj" is not an English word. It fails WP:COMMONNAME. Raj is a Hindi term, not an English word. Even today or yesteryears, "Raj" never became part of the English lexicon like "shampoo" or "juggernaut". LearnIndology (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) 
Yes, the two pages can be merged into one and then we wouldn't have this problem. "British Raj" is not an Indian term in any way, despite a Hindi word being part of it. Indians never use "Raj" in English in this sense. If they do, it would be only to demean the target (cf. "Hindu Raj", "Muslim Raj", "Congress Raj" etc.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And, @Kautilya3:, will you be requesting all the historians and economic historians of colonial India (Indian, British, American, and Australasian; some in their graves) to change "British Raj" to "British India" in their writings as well? Off the top of my head, I can count many who make a distinction between "British India" and the "British Raj" (the latter meaning not only "British controlled India," which "British India" does not, but also the period of dominion (e.g. "He was born during the Raj"; you can't say, "He was born during British India.". The Raj can mean the government in power ("The Raj had a great interest in tea" means something quite different from "British India had a great interest in tea."). "British India" can mean the "British in India" (i.e. those domiciled or longlived in India, which "the Raj" never did): Here they are: Thomas R. Metcalf, Amiya Bagchi Christopher Bayly, Sumit Sarkar, Eric Stokes, Barbara D. Metcalf, Sugata Bose, Judith M. Brown, D. A. Low, Tirthankar Roy, Stanley Wolpert, P. J. Marshall, Ayesha Jalal, Percival Spear, Irfan Habib. You are not making a good argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The move is certainly a problem - I'm afraid I didn't see it, or I would have opposed. It is pretty clear that most contributing had not read the article, & thought they were talking about the material covered at British Raj. It might make more sense to move that to "British India" and restore the old name (or another) here. I don't think the current situation will last long. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The move is supported by consensus. The WP:COMMONNAME is "British India". It makes no sense to have an article about the provinces of British India without having an article on British India itself. Discussing the provinces of British India in an article about British India is the best solution and together we have reached that goal. LearnIndology (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The common name for what, though? What most people think of as "British India" fits better with British Raj (a term nowadays less familiar to people outside South Asia and Britain I think) than with the content here. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, British Raj is the British Indian Empire. British Indian Empire is British India (provinces) and Princely states (Indian rulers under British paramountcy). So, British Raj is British India + princely states. Raj is just a Hindi word for “rule”, it just confuses non-Hindi speaking readers. British Raj is basically British Indian Empire (British India + princely states). LearnIndology (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I'm perfectly familiar with the vocabulary, thank you - unlike I think most participants in the RM discussion, many of whom pretty clearly didn't see things this way. So there's no need to be patronizing. In fact the meaning these days of both British Raj and British India is a good deal more flexible than that, and probably always was. This article needs something in the title to convey that a) it only covers parts of India, and b) it covers the history of the administrative divisions and not much else. "British India" does not do a) for a broad readership, especially outside the subcontinent, nor b) for anyone at all. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This post by LearnIndology typifies the quality of the discourse that has enabled this page move, the evidence to the contrary in scholarly sources notwithstanding, or for that matter the OED entry "British Raj" entry, some of whose phrasing they took from us in April 2009. See the Talk:British Raj page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the following LearnIndology? Chopped liver?

From the OED search "British Raj": Showing 1-2 of 2 results in 2 entries Widen search? Find ‘British Raj’ in: » phrases (2)» definitions (11)» etymologies (0)» quotations (10)» full text (16) View as: List | TimelineSort by: Entry | Frequency | Date 1. British Raj in British, adj. and n. View full entry ...(see raj2)....

2. British Raj in raj, n. View full entry1857 ...spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (18581947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use:... I will desist from giving the long entries to avoid infringing on their copyright. Seriously, please don't waste people's time with false assertions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @No such user:, I am concerned that you have given the precision argument far too little weight in your closure, and far too much weight to arguments that make no reference to the topic of this article, only to the scope of a putative overview article. The absence of an overview article is not sufficient to shoehorn this article into that role when it has a clearly more limited scope. I would ask you to reconsider. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no dog in this fight, but the correct venue to dispute the move is WP:Move review. -- Calidum 18:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a large part of the problem is that this rather dry article on the history of the administrative divisions was not watchlisted by most editors active on Indian pages, & therefore most of the contributors to the RM discussion were new to Indian history and seemed to think they were commenting on the central page on "British India", which this is not. It was unfortunate, and probably a mistake, that "British India" redirected here, rather than British Raj (though that only covers 1858 onwards). I only saw the complaint by F&F about the result on the India-related noticeboard. I don't think the debate itself had been notified there, which would have brought out more editors who know the field. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vanamonde that the closer hasn't properly weighted the arguments (though, frankly, that's not so easy to do in the first place). One possible solution is that the closer withdraw their close and keep the discussion open longer. (I'm a little busy with holiday celebrations - family only, I assure you - or I would give a longer comment!) --RegentsPark (comment) 22:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That would certainly be a way forward, allowing the discussion to be properly advertised, and so me and others who didn't see it to contribute. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I am certainly amenable to undoing the close, but note that the discussion was open for two months; and it was advertised at WP:RM and automatically at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts. Since the Move Review is backlogged as well (and I don't see what long-term useful outcome it may produce), I suppose I'll just undo it reclose as "no consensus" given the post-move objections.
        @Vanamonde93: The absence of an overview article is not sufficient to shoehorn this article into that role when it has a clearly more limited scope – I agree with the general statement, but clearly more limited scope is in the eye of the beholder. This article's lead gives an overview of British involvement between 1612 and 1947; its sections briefly address scope of every phase; British India redirected here; and finally, it is linked from {{Colonial India}} sidebar in a manner that indicates it's a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article. Such setup is rather confusing, and the discussion is best summarized by RegentsPark's comment If the term is imprecise, we should have an article outlining the dimensions of that imprecision. Even if it be a sort of extended disambiguation page. It does make sense that we shouldn't redirect British India to this Presidencies and Provinces of British India while also saying that the Presidencies and Provinces are not all of British India.
        In retrospect, something needs to be done. Moving this article was something but I understand that it appears to be "shoehorning". No such user (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
        • @No such user: I agree that the structure and the way the navigation is set up is confusing, but I'd suggest that the way to address that is to have a comprehensive discussion about that, rather than a move request. A long-standing problem we have is that the regulars often do not involve themselves with more gnomish things like navboxes, DABs, and redirects (something to which I please guilty); and so they're often a mess. I think the best way forward is for you to amend the closure to "no consensus", or to reopen the discussion, after which one of us can initiate another discussion about how to solve the navigation/overview issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, Vanamonde and RegentsPark. I agree that this a dry page. I agree also that there are various problems.

Zones of British governance in India, whether initially in the form of tenancies (granted by sovereign Indian rulers, such as the Mughals) or later of sovereignty (gained as a result of British conquests), had existed from 1612 to 1947. "British India" can apply to all.

With time, the British began to rule regions in India both "directly" (after annexing them) or "indirectly." Indirect rule began during Company rule in India when subsidiary alliances were signed allowing Indian rulers to retain control of internal affairs but only after ceding the defense, communication, and foreign affairs to the British. It became the model of British rule elsewhere in the non-European empire (southeast Asia, Africa).

Just before the Indian rebellion of 1857, most of India was under direct or indirect British rule. After the rebellion, especially after Victoria's Proclamation to the rulers and people of India, this dyarchy became formalized. The regions of indirect rule—commonly named "Princely States" (the terms "King" or "Queen" were reserved for the British sovereign)—were guaranteed by the British Crown (they could not be annexed for a more direct rule by the British); the regions of direct rule or crown rule (presided by a Viceroy) became the main ground of British direct intervention in India (whether of infrastructure: railways, roads, telegraph, canals, bridges, buildings (both functional and ostentatious), law and order, and so forth. This latter India was sometimes called "British India."

So Kashmir was never in British India, was never referred by the British to have been so (for it would have insinuated a disregard for Queen Victoria's personal guarantee to the Indian rulers); neither were Hyderabad, Mysore, the states of Rajputana, and 500 other Indian states, whose fabulously rich princes were educated at Eton and Harrow, Cambridge and Oxford, played polo and cricket, bought Rolls-Royces, ... but did not do much else.

With the passage of time, however, especially of post-colonial time, "British India" has acquired increasing meaning as a sociological term describing the lives, mores, customs, language, of the British in India. Thus the "language of British India" is the English spoken by the British in India in adaptation to their environment (whether by directly importing words from Indian vernaculars (e.g. "jungle," "dungaree," "pyjamas,")) or by creating neologisms (e.g. "hill station," "tiffin)). However, the language of British India never means "the language(s) spoken by Indians in British India," i.e. the Indians living in regions of India directly administered by the British. These are the kinds of issues that get in the way of a simple page move of the "regions or administrative units of governance," i.e. "Presidencies and provinces of India" to "British India," which is a loose-knit term of several meanings, some still evolving.

I should add that despite my initial outburst at @No such user:, for which he has my apologies, my bigger gripe is against the Wikipedia page move process that allowed some editors to walk off the street and begin a page move cold, in the dead of night, without the courtesy first of a talk page post, let alone an RfC, or a post at the talk pages of WikiProjects India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. How does Wikipedia allow that? That process is demented. But no hurry. The page has probably long needed fixing. It will eventually get there.

Spurred by RegentPark's post, I had better start making the cranberry sauce. My responsibilities for the American ritual tomorrow, commonly rendered obscene in its modern observance, but perhaps saved this year by COVID, are that (I have the cranberries), chestnut stuffing (I have the chestnuts), and taking care of the cats—one of which is not doing so well, needing both steroids and isolation, the rest of which might leap up on the table, and all of which have wild cousin ancestors which roamed the woods here at the time of the Pilgrims mysterious appearance 400 years ago. So they know what the merry-making is worth. That quadricentennial is on December 18. All the best to everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidencies_and_provinces_of_British_India/Archive_5&oldid=1265683073"