Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Copied here from User talk:Xn4

I appreciate your edits to British India; however, the move (from the redirect to the British Raj) to an independent page will need to be discussed on the Talk:British Raj page first. There have been many discussions there on this very title, and, I'm guessing, the various discussants would like to be informed before such a move is attempted.

Meanwhile, I have corrected the lead sentence in British India; the term was used for British regions in India under Company rule as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Please see dab page: British rule in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have an obsession with keeping everything to do with British India within an article called British Raj. I don't agree with you. 'British India' is both an authentic term which deserves to be defined at its own page and a topic which merits some coverage. "British Raj", on the other hand, is still a colloquialism, nowhere satisfactorily defined, except post facto on the basis of the uses it's put to, which are decidedly muddled. I certainly agree with you that 'British Raj' is not an exact equivalent for 'British India', a term which has real significance. In any event, the subject of the British in India is so vast that any attempt to force it into only one page would be contrary to policy. Xn4 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please hold on to your day job (whatever that is) and refrain from analyzing my obsessions. You might not agree with me, but it still doesn't give you the right to undo a redirect that has stood for at least two years. I'm not a big fan of British Raj myself (preferring Crown Rule in India instead), but the consensus on the Talk page has been to keep the British Raj title. But if you want to play hard ball, that's your prerogative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also see OED on-line edition has clarified its definition of "British Raj" in view of the language of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you wrote anything on this page, I'd seen some of your insulting edit summaries, such as "rv undiscussed and inaccurate copyedit by Xn4", and I notice others have complained about this abusive style on your talk page. If you're in the habit of handing out such 'plain speaking', then I'm afraid you need to learn to take it. You've linked above what you say is the OED online definition of 'British Raj': "Direct rule in India by the British (1858-1947); this period of dominion." That sounds authentic to me, and it's a meaning I'm happy to agree with, but it clearly doesn't include the meaning that 'British Raj' becomes the country itself, a geographical area. The idea (which you certainly seem to promote in your comments above, please tell me if I've misunderstood you) that 'British Raj' should replace 'British India', which ought to be a redirect to 'British Raj', is potty, and it would remain potty even if a thousand Wikipedia users agreed with it. Xn4 (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was polite to you (see my first post above); it was you who chose to talk about my obsessions. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. When I gave back to you in the style you were comfortable dishing out, you suddenly began to complain about my abuses. Okay. Whatever.

You might be happy to agree with OED's meaning, but that meaning itself has been changed in light of Wikipedia's lead; for example, as recently as May 2008, OED didn't have the "period of dominion," only the "rule." Now it does. That is a direct consequence of Wikipedia's language, which has remained the same for almost two years. The OED explication in smaller font is an even more direct use of Wikipedia's lead.

No one is saying that British Raj is the same as British India. Only that here are problems with the term British India. 1) It is ambiguous. It was applied to regions of India governed by the British from 1765 to 1947. Those regions kept changing especially during the first half of British rule, Company rule in India). In North-Central India, for example, British India in 1785 included only regions around Benaras; in 1812, it included the Ceded and Conquered Provinces, in 1835, the North-Western Provinces. By 1856, all of what was to become United Provinces of Agra and Oudh was a part of British India. Which British India are we talking about? And, if it is one of these four, what are we going to say there that is not already said in the page: Company rule in India. It is you who seems to be suggesting that British India is about regions governed by the British from 1858 to 1947. No. It encompasses a much bigger time period than that. 2) A British India page would not be about geography either; the geography is treated in the India page or Geography of India page. The page would be about how British India was governed (political, administrative, historical) or about how life was lived in British India (social, economic). All those topics belong to the British Raj page or Company rule in India page. British India, then, merely becomes a term to describe certain regions of the Raj, either the Company's or the United Kingdom's. I don't see why that term needs a separate page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS There is nothing abusive about "rv undiscussed and inaccurate copy-edits." They were both undiscussed and inaccurate (the latter by your own admission that the term goes back farther than just the 1920s, as you had stated in that edit). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your confrontational language. This should be a grown-up discussion of the relevant articles, and no more than that. Xn4 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)