Talk:C. R. formula

suggestions from CarTick
Congress and League; C. Rajagopalachari's role;
 * 1) Pls explain the separate electorate for muslims in India.
 * 2) 1937 elections and percentage votings need to be further explained. -- Car Tick  13:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) He considered that in a likely scenario of Japanese invasion India would need the support from the British and hence required the Congress to negotiate with the League i cant follow this.

It is a good effort, has a great theme and has the potential to be a good article some time. In general, it needs some basic copy editing and grammer. The prose is hard to follow in some places as, i believe, it lacks the logical flow. I am not able to make the corrections myself as I havent read much about it myself. -- Car Tick  13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I understand that it would take a lot of effort to fix a very complicated issue without POV of any sort. This is the reason why this had been sitting in my Sandbox for a long time. What makes it interesting for me is that no one agreed on this formula when it was proposed. But eventually in a few year after so much of bloodshed what resulted was similar to the outcome anticipated of this proposal. I'm glad that at least it is now here for anyone to edit and improve rather than sitting my sandbox for eternity. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * i am glad you started the article. you can nominate it for DYK for sure to start with. well, you are right, Rajaji's foresight is impressive. if this can be added to the article lead with sufficient citations, will make the article even more interesting. -- Car Tick  15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The League considered that the Muslims and Hindus of British India made a two separate nation and hence the Muslims had the right to secede from the Indian Union. I still think this is an awkward formulation. same in the parent article as well. -- Car Tick  23:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, since the British Indian army was dominated by Muslims and Sikhs, the government in London was keen to get both these parties to be on its side in the war rather than appeasing the Congress.[17] Eventually with growing mistrust British administration concluded that no progress towards any agreement could be made unless both Congress and the League agreed with each other.[18] notice the gap between the two sentences and how the first sentence leaps to the second one. -- Car Tick  23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah spot on. I will sort that out asap. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 11:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
It has been discovered that this book: Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will be deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN, or the archive after it goes there.  Will Beback   talk    00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Copyeditor - questions and direction
In the section on the Ghandi-Jinnah talks, "America had been pressing ..." Pressing who? The British? Or pressing more generally internationally? Cicero UK (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wolpert, Agrawal, and Jayapalan
There are short footnotes for Wolpert, Agrawal, and Jayapalan but there are no sources for them. If you are a subject-matter expert, please take a look. Perhaps you can repair the citations. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)