Talk:East India Company/Archive 2

British East India Company
This page should be moved to "British East India Company" because that is the proper name. East India Company implies that this is the only East India Company, however there is also a Dutch East India Company. Skycaptain95 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the disambiguation would be East India Company (British), most likely. But I think the British one has a fair claim to be the primary for this one. We just had an RM to move the page, might be a tad soon to go for annother. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To Skycaptain95: No, I'm afraid "British East India Company" is not primary usage in the secondary and tertiary sources. The primary usage, as I have indicated above, in section Page Name, is, by an overwhelming margin, simply "East India Company."  There are five times as many references that refer to the English/British/Honourable EIC as simply "East India Company" as those that call it "British East India Company."  When there is such unanimous primary usage the disambiguation page takes the form of East India Company (disambiguation), which if you notice has the same form as United States (disambiguation) (there are/were many other United States as well, but the page name for the US is simply United States).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS East India Company (disambiguation) was slightly different from United States (disambiguation), I have now fixed it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think about it, I still believe that the East India Company should be moved to a page that signifies that it is the British one because this may imply to some readers that there is only one East India Company. This is not true and saying that this is the "default" or "primary" one is not giving all the facts.


 * -Thanks Skycaptain95 (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, for better or worse, there is a style of naming that is followed overwhelmingly by the reliable sources, including the tertiary sources. Here are three:
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica: lead paragraph: "East India Company also called English East India Company, formally (1600–1708)  Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, or (1708–1873)  United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies.  English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East and Southeast Asia and India, incorporated by royal charter on Dec. 31, 1600. Starting as a monopolistic trading body, ..."


 * Oxford English Dictionary (requires subscription) entry, for "East India," which it obviously describes as obsolete except attributively: "East India": Obs. exc. attrib. Formerly used = (the) EAST INDIES. East India Company: a company formed for carrying on an East Indian trade, especially the English company incorporated in 1600, and described in its charter as ‘The Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies’, which from 1773 exercised political power in the East, and had the chief part in the administration of the affairs of Hindustan, till 1858, when the government was assumed by the Crown. (OED, June 2008, draft version)


 * Webster's Encyclopedia: "Main Entry: East India Co.   Variant(s): or English East India Co· English chartered company formed for trade with E. and S.E. Asia and India, incorporated in 1600. It began as a monopolistic trading body, establishing early trading stations at Surat, ...  In 1708 it merged with a rival and was renamed the United Co. of Merchants of England Trading to the E. Indies. Becoming involved in politics, it acted as the chief agent of British imperialism in India in the 18th-19th cent. ... See also Dutch E. India Co., French E. India Co.


 * Obviously, they are aware that there could be confusion of the kind you describe; why do you think they nevertheless persist? Why do you think the United States page persists in calling itself that when there are other United States; especially, why does BBC link to the one in headquartered in London, when there are so many other BBCs?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS The East India Company page says, right at the top (before it says anything else), "For other uses, see East India Company (disambiguation)." So, if a reader is looking for (say) the Dutch East India Company, they will automatically go to the disambiguation page; however, I do see one point in what you say: an entirely new reader who accidentally stumbles on the page and has no background whatsoever, will likely not know that there were other companies until well into the text. The solution to that problem is not to change the name of the page, but to introduce the fact of the existence of other companies somewhere in the lead.  Let me think about it; will get back soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I've now tweaked the lead. There shouldn't be such confusion even for a rank novice. What do you think? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand what you mean now. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. I think that works a lot better this way.
 * - Thanks Skycaptain95 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that a Scottish East India Company was authorised in 1695 by the Scottish parliament (the Honourable Company - John Keay p182 ISBN 0-00-638072-7). I am not sure whether ship ever sailed or not, but it makes the point that this was an English company, under English law even after the Treaty of Union. Thehalfone (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bantam
I am changing the following: "Initially, however, the Company made little impression on the Dutch control of the spice trade and at first it could not establish a lasting outpost in the East Indies." - The company established a factory at Bantam during the first voyage in 1603, this was finally wound up in 1683. Thehalfone (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Colonial India Sidebar
I have added the "Colonial India" sidebar to the article. I know that this article is not just about colonial India, but since it is the only article that covers the British in India during the years, 1608 to 1757, the template is appropriate, in my view. However, if you don't like it, or feel it should be somewhere else in the article, or not be there at all, please let me know here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom vs. Category:British East India Company
Category:British East India Company is a category within Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom — Robert Greer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

EIC in Japan
For such a lengthy, thorough, and formerly Featured Article, I am astonished to discover no mention whatsoever of Japan. Granted, the Factory at Hirado lasted only about 10 years, but from the perspective of the history of Anglo-Japanese relations, or the history of Japan's diplomatic relations with the West, this is of vital importance.

Hirado, Richard Cocks and John Saris are all deserving of mention. LordAmeth (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias of the article
I find it seriously difficult to believe that the British East India company did nothing wrong worthy of mention in this article over its 250 year lifespan other than the Opium trade with China and the Indian rebellion of 1857, therefore I'd like to put a neutrality is disputed tag on the whole article. I don't personally know very much at all about the East India Company, but some people must know more than me.

Frankly this also applies to the Company Rule in India article. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well rather then just complain about it, write it in! 65.196.214.163 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

EIC : Early Aspirations of Sovereignty ?
Attempt to add a new section on Early Aspirations of Sovereignty in India of East India Company, under the Foothold in India Section were summarily reversed by Fowler&Fowler - flimsy subjective grounds were given : Did the East India Company and some of its earliest Governor Generals have early aspirations of sovereignty in India ? Lets say in late 17th century ? Josia Child has been one of the earlier Governor Generals and he fought a war with Emperor Aurangzeb. He has explicitly noted his motivations for war with the Mughal emperor. Notes : Despatch Book June 9, 1686, vol 91 pp 142, 145 cited in K. N Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760 Cambridge University Press, p 454 ( India Office Records, British Library ) Oskanpur (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Added text quoted below:

As early as 1686, Josia Child, the East India Company Governor, who found himself at war with the Emperor Aurangzeb in 1688, wrote, "[Without territorial revenue] it is impossible to make the English nation's station sure and firm in India upon a sound political basis, and without which we shall always continue in the state of mere merchants subject to be turned out at the pleasure of the Dutch and abused at the discretion of the natives."

From 1668, the Company in Bombay saw itself as sovereign insofar as it represented the English Crown. The Company minted coins in Bombay in the name of the British crown, even though their own coinage acquired limited currency outside the British settlement.

It also established courts of judicature over both European and Indian subjects, a practice that in other parts of India usually had to await the formal grant of nizamat rights.

The British construed every privilege they received from Indian powers, whether rights to territory, to revenue collection, or to use certain honorary title, as the transfer of full sovereign rights.The Scandal of Empire : India and the Creation of Imperial Britain - by Nicholas B Dirks - The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts -2006 - ISBN 0-674-02166-5


 * OK I've reverted the removal, and added citation needed's to the individual points that need citing. Oskanpur - if you could add page numbers and an explicit source for each of your claims that would be great, and that should prevent it getting reverted in future. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS if you can figure it out can you use the Cite book template - if you can't figure it out don't worry - apart from the page number you've given enough information that I can convert the reference into a cite book as I've used it before.
 * Fowler you need to give people time to come up with references, you can't expect people to do it instantly. Please give people time with "citation needed's" so they can add references as required. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS Oskanpur I removed your reference completely as it wasn't clear on which points came from which sources :). You can look through the page history to get it back if you need to. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the source for the quote as I've figured out what you meant :o. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On starting new sections or subsections
This is a former featured article. I'm afraid you can't start a new subsection without discussion here first. Please produce a textbook (signifying a consensus of scholarly opinion) that asserts any of the content that you want to add to the article. That is one reason why we restrict ourselves, for the most part, to textbooks, especially for major assertions. And, no, we don't need to give time to anyone to produce the references. The onus is on them. They need to tell us here first what they want to do and why. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen someone state a Wikipedia rule as a reason for something without at least stating which rule it is - and as you are on a talk page you can easily link to it :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no rule on wikipedia that no new material or section can be added without first establishing consensus. This is a loose practice on well-developed articles, but not universally recognized or followed. A more common procedure is WP:BRD, i.e., to be be bold in adding material that one thinks would improve the article, and then shift to discussing it if the edit is reverted (see also WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE and this comment by Jimbo Wales on different goals that need to be balanced).
 * Whew... now lets get out of the wiki-lawyerly digression and focus on the content itself. ;-)
 * The problem I see with the Early Aspirations of Sovereignty is that it is not only largely unsourced, but also smell of original research. For example the Childs quote is cited to this source, and supposed to evidence EIC's aspirations of sovereignty; however the source makes no such claim, but presents the quote in the context of the relative weakness of EIC's naval capabilities relative to the Dutch and Portuguese forces. Secondly there is the issue of due weight. Roughly speaking a section in this article should correspond to a a chapter in a book-length coverage of the topic. So unless standard texts devote at least a chapter (or substantial portion thereof) on such issues, they don't deserve a section of their own (they may well merit a sentence or two if there is substantial, but briefer, coverage of the topic in reliable sources).
 * For now, I would suggest that we wait add  and/or  tag to the section, and then wait another day for appropriate sources to be produced. If such sources are not added, or if the section needs substantial revision, we can move it to the talk page for discussion, and re-add it to the article when we have consensus on what to say and what sources to use. Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with Abecedare. There is no policy reason why a new section cannot be added to a featured article and it is worth waiting a day or so to see if the section cannot be properly referenced. My guess would be that if there were early aspirations to sovereignty on the part of the East India Company, it should be very easy to find reliable and well respected sources that state that that was the case. Failing that, the section should be deleted. Quoting from WP:NOR, take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS A source was provided for the rest of the content I removed it when reverting so that the sourcing for the whole section could be clarified as no page numbers were given. The source for the quote is supposed just to cover the quote Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I quick-read through the chapter on Sovereignty in The Scandal of Empire : India and the Creation of Imperial Britain and it basically argues that the EIC came to exercise de facto administrative control over its Indian possessions, though it found it convenient to maintain the "fiction" that it acted under the supervision of the Mughal empire and the parliament, who were the ultimate sovereign authorities on paper. I don't think this is a remarkable claim, and the article already makes it clear that the EIC was far from a mere "trading" company. See, "However, it also came to rule large swathes of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions ..." in the lede, or large sections of the article that talk about its military, commercial and administrative activities. I don't see any issue with adding some particularly relevant detail about this topic to the article; but I don't see any sense in introducing a thematic section on this point, while the rest of the article (or, at least the History section) is organized chronologically. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So it should just become part of the "Expansion" section then? Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Josia Child is on Page 170, chapter 5 "Sovereignty" of "The Scandal of EMPIRE" The Scandal of Empire : India and the Creation of Imperial Britain - by Nicholas B Dirks - The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - 2006 - ISBN 0-674-02166-5 ( Josia Child is also mentioned as 1659 Member of British Parliament 1659, in Wikipedia - Petersfield was an English Parliamentary constituency centred on the town of Petersfield in Hampshire. It existed for several hundred years until its abolition for the 1983 general election. Until 1832, it returned two Members of Parliament to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Thereater, its representation was reduced to one member until its abolition in 1983. )

The rest of the para is from the above book of Nicholas B Dirks. The original source is cited in book of K. N. Chaudhari called The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760, Cambridge University Press, page 454.

The original source of Josia Child comments on the war with Mughal Empire under Emperor Aurangzeb, is from Despatch Book dated June 9, 1686, vol. 91 pp 142-145 in India Office Records, British Library.

In addition, C. A Bayly in his "The British Military-Fiscal State and Indigenous Resistance: India 1750-1820 in Patrick Tuck, The East India Company 1600-1858, vol 5 (London, Routledge, 1998 ) p 205.

'C. A. Bayly has noted, "The presumption in the Laws of England that "Turks and other infidels were not only excluded from being witnesses against Christians, but are deemed also to be perpetual enemies and capable of no property."

Indeed the British systematically ( and far more than other European groups ) refused to pay forced levies to Indian powers wherever they could get away with it, despite their formal rhetoric of subservience to Mughal sovereignty. Second, the British construed every privilege they received from Indian powers, whether rights to territory, to revenue collection, or to use certain honorary titles, as the transfer of full sovereign rights. Perhaps the first major example of this came in 1717, when the Emperor Farrukhsiyar granted the right to trade freely within Bengal and its dependencies, providing the Company with various tax exemptions as well. As K. N. Chaudhari has written, "In all future disputes with the local governors, the point was repeatedly made that the Company traded in India by right and not by any favor of the imperial officers. ... And yet when the British claimed sovereignty over the myriad chiefs and warlords of the southern countryside, many of whom, had never either ceded sovereign rights nor made tributary payments to the Mughals, they used a formal interpretation of Mughal sovereignty to give themselves the right of general conquest." page 171, 172, Hope this helps, Oskanpur (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is also an issue here regarding the nature of British intellectual resistance to notions of sovereignty in conquered lands and of peoples. This extends to large tracts of colonial, imperial and English history IMHO. Samuel B. Nicholas B Dirks writes on page 172, "Time after time, the British refused to accept that rights in India - like sovereignty itself - were not conceived in terms of simple, uniform, or exclusive proprietory domain. This refusal, of course, was far less about cultural mis understanding that it was about the strategic use of cultural forms to explain and legitimate a relentless pattern of political and territorial conquest." - Samuel B. Nicholas B Dirks analysis of shared sovereignty and notions of proprietory rights in precolonial India - The Hollow Crown : Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom ( Cambridge University Press, 1987 - ISBN 0-472-08187-X, Pudukkottai Princely State ) - Oskanpur (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you've read the original source you need to source where you found the material (as explained in WP:CITE). If you can add the sources for the specific points to the text in the article that would be great :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Samuel B. Dirks? That's Nick Dirks's Ph.D. thesis.  You guys sure you know what you are doing?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also see British soldier in India and British in India, the former majorly written by Oksanpur. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia admins have said that the primary source for this new content makes the relevant points and that the viewpoint isn't particularly controversial. Therefore I don't see what you are complaining about. Eraserhead1 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Oskanpur if you don't know how to format the citations you need to add to the article see WP:Cite Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

this is a developed article, not some random stub. If you want to add material, get consensus, and then get it properly formatted first, and only add it once you're there. Don't add random garbled opinion pieces and then leave it for others to clean up just because you managed to cite some reference. --dab (𒁳) 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been covered/clarified by the Wikipedia admins above :), if Oskanpur doesn't add the references in a few days the content will have to be removed. They do say that content can be added straight away to an article like this - only if it is reverted does it need discussing on the talk page. Eraserhead1 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Ah I didn't know a reference had already been added - there are a couple of other points that will need footnote references too. I've added citation needed tags to those. If anyone can think of any other points in the new section that need "citation needed" tags please add them. Once that is done I guess we should integrate the new content with the "Expansion" section as Abecedare has pointed out. Eraserhead1 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead, I am not sure why comments above are being interpreted as support for the added section. As I stated after reading the newly added Dirks reference, the section is both misplaced and redundant. It also is plagiarised from the books, in that the section simply picked 4-5 sentences from pages 170-71 of the book, seemingly at random, and cut-and-pasted them into a section titled "Early Aspirations of Sovereignty" (the title is pure WP:OR, unsupported by the reference). This is not the way to develop a wikipedia article. I have reverted the addition for now following the WP:BRD process I mentioned earlier. I think we need to discuss the topic here and a clear case needs to be made of what new information is being proposed to be added to the article, and how references on the subject support it, keeping in mind due weight.
 * PS: Note that this is a content discussion and in such discussions wikipedia admins hold no privileged position. So you should ignore that RegentsPark, Dbachmann and I are admins., and simply discuss the issue on its merits. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also instructive to take a look at the reviews of the Dirk's book The scandal of the Empire. William Dalrymple says in NYRB: Dirks "relies principally on the evidence of Burke, who was notably ill-informed about India, and who like Dirks—and unlike Hastings—had none of the relevant North Indian languages." The result is a book that is doubly grounded in polemic, rather than new research, and whose Manichaean worldview is as a result simplistic and reductionist. In addition to this, Dirks's book is, as I wrote, peppered throughout with major factual errors, further undermining its credibility. Another review in the journal Eighteenth century studies by Regina Janes is no less scathing (In the extract below, Marshall refers to P. J. Marshall, the author of The Making and Unmaking of Empires: Britain, India, and America) : Dirks turns Marshall upside down. Ignoring the balance of Britain’s empire (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Americas, invisible Australia), he brandishes empire as intrinsically scandalous and makes India’s oppression the crucible through which Britain re-formed its national image as imperial, obscured its economic motivations, and generated a dangerously influential image of imperial aggression as self-sacrifice. ... Dirks ranges widely, energetically, and passionately through great topics, economy, sovereignty, tradition, and imperial historiography, but there are problems. His grasp of eighteenth-century contexts is often shaky, and he will seriously mislead readers who know little of the limits on Britain’s Indian empire. ... Elementary errors are common. ... The review continues in this vein for two pages, and ends by recommending that readers buy the book for the Gillray cartoon on its dust-cover! Instead of using this book as a source for this article, I suggest that someone start an article on The scandal of empire, where both Dirk's thesis and its critiques can be laid out. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is simply amusing that Abecedare, first makes good use of his administrative privileges, to stub out referenced material, and then playfully advises Eraserhead1 to disregard administrative privileges, and discuss the material only, on the basis of the weight of the content regarding subsection on Early Aspirations of Sovereignty, under Foothold in India section. Abecedare then brandishes media reviews, of people like Dalrymple and issues like knowledge of North Indian languages, to rail at Nicholas B, Dirk in entirety, and in passing, discredit Dirk's thesis on the relation between Sovereignty questions and Imperial Britain. It really is Burke putting on his parliamentary coat once again, as the great protector of Indian traditions and the civilizing mission, to berate Warren Hastings. Are we still in the 18th century ? And no so called elementary errors are noted, though hurled as an abuse with a flourish with all Wikipedian editorial might.

So who is discussing content or not discussing content ? Oskanpur (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I see no use of admin tools by Abecedare. Please don't bandy around accusations like that, they are very serious and when they are spurious they do nothing to improve the mood. As stated above, admin status means nothing in content disputes. Also, please note that just because something is a doctoral thesis does not mean it is accepted by academia. Look at Daniel J. Goldhagen, his thesis got published as a book and has come under fire from almost every serious academic in the field (And I seriously doubt we should reference it on the German page to say that until the de-nazification trials post-1945 the Germans were socially predisposed to murdering Jews). I will also say that this 'It can stay a while with no reference' is fine for stubs and what not, for sections in established articles? Not once challenged. The edit was bold, it was reverted, it should be discussed. (PS: Please, can we stop the over-wikilinking of talk page comments? It really makes it difficult to read) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Unreferenced, offtopic ramblings are not really appreciated anyway, but particularly not in well-developed articles. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, not a blog. Moreschi (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, sorry if I misinterpreted your comments as a suggestion to keep the section. My understanding was that you thought the section should stay in its current form until references had be provided and then it should be moved to the appropriate part of the article. Otherwise adding references was going to get really confusing, and to me it seemed like Oskanpur was making an honest effort to add the references. Obviously if it was plagiarism I was wrong about that :o. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oskanpur It is also possible to add new content to articles like this as long as its well-sourced from the start. I added a section on Education to the British Raj article which attempts to show both sides of the debate. The reason I haven't compared the literacy rate in India to Europe in that section is that I can't find a source to back up that claim - even though it is highly likely to be a lot lower in India than in Europe at that time :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead1 - Regarding the comparative sources you are looking for, there are some sources in India. You may like to have a look at the Wikipedia page on Dharampal. Imperial historians like to dub Dharampal as a nationalist historian. One source you may find helpful - The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous India Education in the Eighteenth Century, Biblia Impex, New Delhi, 1983. Reprinted by Keerthi Publishing House Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore, 1995. Maybe one day somebody will succeed in starting a Wikipedia page on Imperial Historiography. I am sure it is not entirely impossible. Oskanpur (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have one on what you term 'Imperialist History'. That type of history is Whig history. There are other teleological groups, but it is the work of the whig historians that is often described as 'Imperialistic'. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Dharampal is another speedy AfD candidate. Sounds to me that he was some version of a Hindu nationalist historian masquerading as a Gandhian. Hindu nationalist historians are different from nationalist historians. Hindu nationalists, among other things, murdered Gandhi. All of Dharampal's books are published by obscure publishing houses in India. There is also all kinds of Facebook type nonsense in that article. His daughter is doing ..., his grand nephew is doing ... and so forth. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoted that on the Dharampal talk page. Eraserhead1 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Honorable or Honourable?
I was in the Museum in Docklands recently and somebody had "corrected" "Honorable" to "Honourable" with a pen on one of the displays. However a book published in 1810 suggests that the spelling was indeed Honorable Gordo (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

East India Company Fine Foods Ltd
It's really good to see dis.........

An Indian now owns Britain 's East India Company The East India Company which ruled India for more than 200 years is now ruled by an Indian Sanjiv Mehta who took over the company for $150 million. But media is not interested in such great news. They were busy in useless Sania and Shoaibآ’s marriage Lets us be the mediaآ…&..Fwd this mail to all Indians...        Sanjiv Mehta, CEO of The East India Company  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.223.176.30 (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody provide more information on the history of the East India Company between 1857 and 2005? Was the EIC dissolved after 1857 or not? Gordianphock (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Companies House This organisation is the East India Company Fine Foods Ltd, founded in 2004. The East India Company of 1600 was dissolved by parliament so, whatever this gentleman bought, is was not the chartered company. I am removing that section and posting it here, pending any other references. --91.13.211.59 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The EIC was owned by about 30 to 40 individuals till 2005, after which it was acquired from these shareholders by Sanjiv Mehta, an entrepreneur born in Mumbai. With new investment, the company opened a store in Mayfair in London in April 2010.

Why was criticism section removed?
Why was it removed? We should add criticism section here.

~rAGU

Hey guys what happened. You are trying protray a company that screwed up millions of people a great company. at least state that they did this guys. Be reasonable.

~rAGU

Shame less Brits ~rAGU

I think we need to write in a seperate thread the truth about the esast india company. about the crime on the indians and other nations.

Bodhisattva2008

It is quite evident that you people are brainwashed by the history textbooks you studied in your school. East India Company was one of the greatest things to happen to the geographical area currently called India and Pakistan. Imagine being ruled by the suppressing native rulers and the feudal landlords! One can see the remnants of those times in remote corners of this place. Every family and female in a feudal landlord's area are within the rights of the landlords and their henchmen. Feudal language to aid to their power. Might was Right. The law and order brought in by the East India Company was a saviour for the people here. Yet, it is not easy to change the mindset of the people as they have innately learned to live in a suppressed and snubbed social environment. For loyalty to one's suppressing landlord was ingrained in the brains.

At the very least, an immensity of young women escaped from the fearful death by Sati. What about the suppression of the Thugges? Well, the modern sales tax people in independent India is reminiscent of the Thugges. Unless another Sleeman comes to save the people here, these modern thuggees will loot the nation white for lending booty to the officialdom.

To say that the native officials of those times were good and helpful to the people is to say a white lie. See what happened to the officials of King Ashoka. It is mentioned in history that they were attacked by the villagers in Taxila, as they went around doing 'good' in the villages. In actuality, they had right over each and every house in the village. The villagers were duty bound to give them whatever they wanted. Maybe including women. (That happens even now, when officials with military powers are given the right over places in modern India). It is said that the 'Great King Ashoka' suppressed the revolt using his army!

As to whether East India Company was a saviour is just a perspective as far as modern Indians are concerned. If you are rich and lolling in the official loot of the nation, then they are a shameful group. If on the other hand, to the underdogs suppressed by you, well then, it is East India Company that gave them a chance to escape your tyranny.

--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion of recent edits promoting retail store
At Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. --CliffC (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Correction
Dear All,

Sanjiv Metha did not buy the company in August 2010, it did not trade in coffee, the company is currently trading a range fine foods, so clearly the editorial needs to be updated in the 2010 section, my suggestion is as follows:

2010 Corporate Organisation Since its dissolution in 1874, a small part of the East India Company survived into a brand name and traded within the tea sector, making a tea called “good strong tea” Sanjiv Mehta, an India-born business man living in Britain, bought up this company and has re-launched it a luxury brand, expanding its range to include fine foods and not restricting trading activity to tea. The goal of the company today is to establish itself as luxury brand operating in many sectors such as porcelain, fabrics and furnishing.

I do not belive the above is promoting the company, and my apologies if this has been taken the wrong way, but the above is accurate. Please update as you see fit, but I do request that you get some of the facts right. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article is about the defunct East India Company that once ruled large swathes of India. An existing store that shares the same name is not germane to the article (there are likely many such entities). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Regents Park, you are correct in terms of the purpose of the article being about the historical company, but it does not address the incorrect information posted in the 2010 paragraph, which unfortunately remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entire paragraph. So there is no incorrect information any longer. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hameedalkhersan (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

ADVISORY: Potential for POV pushing for the near future, vigilance requested.
Just as an FYI there is reason to believe that this article may soon experience some less than accurate edits by POV pushing persons. Note this possibility is merely my personal opinion based on the fact that this and similar articles could result in efforts by some historical revisionists wanting to discredit Mr. Hartman's viewpoint. It doesn't hurt to simply say; "'Head's up and eye's open chaps!'" :) 66.97.213.202 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

VEIC
Is there any information about the name and its use of "VEIC" ("Vnited East Indian Company") ? &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of slavery?
In the article Slavery Abolition Act 1833 it is mentioned that after the 1833 Act slavery was allowed to continue in the territories and possessions of the East India Company. I'm looking at the article to find out when it was outlawed there, but there's not a single mention of slavery. Can anybody enlighten us? 86.42.18.235 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Try here; not sure what you'll find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.143.133 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Revival section Added
I added a new section regarding the revival of this company. It's small with two paragraphs. Kindly expand it. -BW60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betawarrior60 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No! We've been here before. Previous inclusions of this "revived" company were removed on grounds of conflict of interest HLGallon (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

original flag needs to be added ?
I suggest this flag of the East India Company, used from 1707-1801, be added to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_British_East_India_Company_(1707).svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.68.35 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Keay's book
I was surprised to find John Keay's book on the East India Company missing from the references. Is it just by chance or is Keay not considered a reliable source? AshLin (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he's a popular historian, who's written a bunch of popular history books on India. He's sort of in the same class as William Dalrymple.  In other words, OK, but not as reliable (in my opinion) as an academic history text author.  But no reason why it can't be added to the references here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Have added.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Fowler&fowler. AshLin (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sanjive Mehta
The Infobox lists Sanjive Mehta as one of the key people, but there is no mention of him anywhere in the article.

If this article is limited to the defunct East India Company, the information about the modern company should be removed from the Infobox. utcursch | talk 15:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on this, this is about same company not new company and we cannot have two article for same company. KuwarOnline Talk''' 16:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it be the same Company? The Company was dissolved 150 years ago.  How can anyone buy the shares?  That is ludicrous.  Please provide a reliable source.  In fact for such a major claim provide a couple of reliable academic sources; otherwise, your chances of getting the edit in are smaller than a snowball's chance in hell.  I have accordingly rolled back your edits.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mehta's store has its own Wikipedia page: The East India Company Fine Food Limited. Please help improve it.  It's in shambles.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Fowler and Utcursh. These are two different entities. Anything more than a dablink is undue.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article says about East India Company not anything else. Please read this article KuwarOnline Talk''' 14:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said it is not a reliable source. Britannica (2011) says, "The East India Company's commercial monopoly was broken in 1813, and from 1834 it was merely a managing agency for the British government of India. It was deprived of this after the Indian Mutiny (1857), and it ceased to exist as a legal entity in 1873." You'll need some reliable academic sources that say the historical EIC is still alive.  The Mehta guy is an obscure Indian diamond merchant who is attempting to sell knick knacks.  His knowledge of the historical EIC is shallow, for he claims EIC brought marmalade and port to Asia.  EIC never traded in either item.  It was British and other European businessmen who imported those items to India to provision the burgeoning British presence there.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS In fact, I'm sure there are a bunch of other EIC coattailers.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS The website "www.eastindiaco.com" already belongs to a restaurant: East India Company Restaurant.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS There's also the East India Company Tandoori.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PPPS There are 38 other East India Companies. Mr Mehta apparently is a Johnny Come Lately at the scene.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PPPPS There's even an Honourable East India Company that's been carrying on for 19 years.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PPPPPS I've now added the speedy deletion template to The East India Company Fine Food Limited. There's no reason why one among forty companies with EIC in their name should be rewarded with a Wikipedia page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * timesonline.co.uk is not reliable source? that kind of really funny to hear, anyways please read the above reference and think then reply KuwarOnline Talk''' 20:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Timesonline may be a reliable source in this case. However, note that the source says that the company was dissolved in 1874. That Mehta is trying to revive the name of the company is a titillating piece of information but it is not relevant to the dissolved company. If the new company is notable in its own right, then an article on that company is where this information should go. --regentspark (comment) 20:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article reads more like an advert than a serious piece of journalism, and a subscription is required to search for or read other articles on the same subject. It can be challenged on grounds of fact, or at least imprecision. (The Times failed to define what they meant by "dissolved". In common legal usage, that means the business has been formally wound up, and one cannot buy shares in it.) Corroborating sources are required. HLGallon (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted lead
User:Haldraper has just (11 Jan 2012) heavily pruned the lead section on grounds of "cut undue and unreferenced bits and tidied up for readability". I'm loath to revert because I agree the previous version had become over-long and convoluted. However, I think s/he's thrown a lot of babies out with the bathwater, on subjects which may interest many readers: for example on the different names of the company, on the union of the two companies in 1708 etc. Many of these points should be reinstated, if not in the lead then somewhere in the body of the article. This is likely to be a time-consuming job to do properly, and I haven't got time myself at the moment, so I'm copying the whole of the previous lead here in the hope that someone else may be inspired:

The East India Company (also known as the English East India Company, and, after the Treaty of Union, the British East India Company) was an early English joint-stock company that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies, but that ended up trading mainly with the Indian subcontinent and China.

The Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1599, making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies, the largest of which was the Dutch East India Company.

The Company was granted status as a limited liability business.

After a rival English company challenged its monopoly in the late 17th century, the two companies were merged in 1708 to form the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly styled the Honourable East India Company,  and abbreviated, HEIC; the Company was colloquially referred to as John Company, and in India as Company Bahadur (Hindustani bahādur, "brave"/"authority").

The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, saltpetre, tea, and opium. The Company also came to rule large areas of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits; it effectively functioned as a megacorporation. Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858.

Following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873. The East India Company often issued coinage bearing its stamp in the regions it had control over.

The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the British Government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company's position. Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for over 250 years.

GrindtXX (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The East India Company?
There has been several East India companies (Dutch, English, French, Danish, etc). en.Wikipedia has an international readership and I really think the title should be changed to "English East India Company" to make it clear from the outset which one of the East India companies we're dealing with here (as I'm neither a Briton nor an Indian, it was not clear to me until I started reading the article).

As an example, John Keay's great book is titled: "The Honourable Company, A History of the English East India Company".--Lubiesque (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * um... Good point. I guess it omits the "English" because historically most sources were written by British authors. That said, the Dutch East India Company is normally referred to as the VOC and the others are pretty obscure. I have no axe to grind either way but it's likely to cause issues if the article is moved. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 16:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. Agree with you re John Keay, excellent author, his book "China" is also superbly written.
 * It's by far the most common usage in English, and therefore there's no need for us to disambiguate. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Plus, the "East India Company" is the official name of only this company. The others are called "X East India Company" colloquially:
 * Swedish EIC - Svenska Ostindiska Companiet
 * French EIC - Compagnie française pour le commerce des Indes orientales
 * Portuguese EIC - Companhia do commércio da Índia
 * Danish EIC - Dansk Østindisk Kompagni
 * Dutch EIC - Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie
 * utcursch | talk 02:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is standing custom with the English: Royal Air Force, The Tolkien Society, Royal Society for this or that. It might if you were generous be attributed to the assumption that non-English organizations would be using their own languages, not English; but it annoys the dickens out of Yanks (and to lesser extent Canadians, Enzeds, and Aussies). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This would almost be true, except that the companies are of course named after countries, not languages, hence why this custom actually has no effect on "Yanks" or any of the others. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Is initial capital in pounds sterling?
The "Founding" section has the following statement in its second paragraph:

Two years later, on 24 September 1598, another group of merchants having raised 30,133 in capital, met in London to form a corporation. Although their first attempt was not completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval, bought ships for their venture, increased their capital to 68,373, and convened again a year later.[5]

The numbers are presumably in pounds sterling. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcaretto (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin of East India Company's flag
Why is it that that article says "it is argued that the EIC flag was inspired by Majapahit Empire's flag"? Is there any doubt that it isn't inspired? I find it poignant that there is no such qualification when indicating the relationship between the East India Company flag and the US Stars and Stripes. Why is that one connection is not written in the same language with tendentious and biased qualifications like "it is argued that..."? Why the double standards? Or perhaps this is a question of Wikipedia has some unstated policy that doesn't recognize any local (Malaysian/Indonesian) scholarship as a reliable source on this issue and are waiting for a English speaking person to come out and write a completely redundant English language book or article on this topic (redundant since the matter is not scientifically contested, there is no doubt that the Majapahit Empire flag became the EIC flag, just as there is no doubt that the thirteen colonies Stars and Stripes were carry overs from the EIC flag. Loginnigol (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that wikipedia is not an attack on Malaysian or Indonesian scholars. The "double standard" which certain corporate and revisionist editors seek to promote is primarily "intellectual" clan-mentality, secondly most wikipedia editors are based in the usa, and they have a certain lack-of-comprehension of corporate history which pre-dates their "revolution". With regards to both the East-Indian companies incorporated in England as well as Amsterdam, they are regarded as corporate behemoths which were essential to the incorporation of the thirteen colonies. Also, it is noticable that there is a double-standard in that the early Islamic uprising against corporate exploitation in Indonesia is not included in the Jihad article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense
QUOTE: Indian fleet END OF QUOTE

What is this 'Indian fleet'? At best it would be Moghal ships. Mughals cannot be identified with India or Indians, unless all south Indians are defined as animals, and not humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.240.218 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone has replaced the "Founding" section of this page with advertisements for a podcast.
Hello. Is there any way for accomplished wikipedia editors to revert the changes made to the "founding" section of this page on the 8th of December? Mainly, the edits that replace a concise overview of the formation of the East India Company with what appears to be a bizarre rant that is poorly formatted, overtly long and heavily biased against the East India Company. Furthermore, it contains advertisements for a podcast, which as far as I'm aware is forbidden.

Can someone please revert these changes?

Ernie Smith (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ganj-i-Sawai
There may well have been a relative of the Grand Mughal on the Ganj-i-Sawai. But it is not known for certain, or known who it might be. What is the point of saying that "there is no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue". No one suggested that it was!Royalcourtier (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bengal famine: to little information?
Shouldn't there be more information, preferably a whole section for the Bengal famine of 1770? It was the most deadly natural disaster in recorded history, killing 10,000,000, and it was caused by the East India Company. I realize the article does mention it, but shouldn't there be more? -Garet (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To the extent that it wasn't entirely a "natural" disaster - at least some culpability for it can be attributed to HEIC's forcible destruction of food crops for opium production, not to mention their increasingly oppressive taxation - I would agree that this would make good material for the currently sparse "legacy and criticism" section. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The famine was not "caused by the EIC"Royalcourtier (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909080353/http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc009.htm to http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc009.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909081557/http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc013.htm to http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/Docs/history/primarydocs/Political_History/ABKeithDoc013.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Digitisation of EIC archives
This British library blog post may be of interest:


 * http://blogs.bl.uk/untoldlives/2017/01/major-new-digital-resource-for-the-india-office-records.html

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of a well sourced sentence
We have had users complain of a racist, western bias earlier. Now, with this edit you have removed a well sourced sentence. Please explain!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The objectionable text was "They also raised a private army that was mainly composed of Indian sepoys and conquered the whole of South Asia, operating as a quasi-governmental force in controlling and enslaving the native population". First, I do not regard the source as wholly reliable; it is a tertiary review of a book, not the book itself (which, although the Guardian article suggested should be available by now, has apparently not yet been published). Second, the Guardian text makes no mention of "the whole of South Asia" nor of the highly emotive term "enslavement", so in my opinion the source may be accurate in itself but is being improperly used. Finally the edit summary of "making this summary more correct and truthful" is itself WP:POV and unencyclopaedic. Please be aware that any accusation against me of racist bias will result will be regarded as a personal attack and will result in an instant report to the administrators. HLGallon (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not here to make personal attacks (I am a Dale Carnegie fan). I am just reminding you that we have had users complain that this article has a Western, racist bias (see the section titled, "Article very biased, ignores company's racism, sexism, brutality" above). Can we work on balancing this article without an edit war? I don't know who added the "enslavement" word, but instead of removing the whole sentence, I suggest you make the sentence acceptable according to the rules of Wikipedia (or let me do it with that reference)!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies for taking what was probably too abrasive a tone in my first response. I have re-read the Guardian article. My mistake, the author of the excerpts is Dalrymple, which makes the article a preview, rather than a review. However, it is still not a complete work, rather it is a disjointed assembly of separate chapters and sections, so I would still not use it as a reliable source in the absence of the complete book. (It does appear from the limited extracts that Dalrymple is emphasising the company's rapacity and lack of morality with regard both to Indian rulers and states and the British establishment, rather than any aspect of racial discrimination inside India, though this aspect may be more apparent in the complete work.) With regard to the earlier section dealing with "Article very biased etc.", it is not always helpful to accuse historical persons or bodies of violating present-day conventions, or to merely complain without making constructive edits. As regards the suggested edits, I would remind everyone that the article's lead section should summarise the main body of the article; it should not introduce novel topics not present in the main body or even at variance with it. That said, I will see what can be done, once I have re-read other sources e.g. Dalrymple's earlier works, and others suggested in the bibliography. HLGallon (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps before we get too bogged down in the lede, we should work on splitting and developing the "Legacy and criticisms" section in the body, which has been tagged as needing expansion for over 2 years. GrindtXX (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will wait for you to do that (to use Dalrymple's quotations in this article). Is it okay to add the quotation by Justin Sheil in the introduction/lead of the Sepoy article here in this article?
 * Update: I have been in touch with the publishers (Bloomsbury), asking for a publication date for the book. No reply yet. Pending a reply, I will not be using the Guardian article as a source. Other editors are free to do so, if they wish. HLGallon (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do it? I am sure you will do a good job! Are you willing to take it up as a challenge? I have copied a sentence and it's reference from the article on Macaulayism already!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I observed that the Boston tea party and American revolution is not mentioned here. Shouldn't we mention it in this article?
 * You would need to explain the relevance. HLGallon (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel we should use this also as a reference in this article! What do you say?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * requires subscription. HLGallon (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't! Please check again, the FT article doesn't need any subscription. &mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I googled it, it didn't ask for a subscription, but on following the link, it does. You only let me/us know what to do about it!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the matter in the section titled, "Tea trade to 1767" in the Boston tea party article and let me know if we can use it here (I want you to use it in a way you deem fit, so that we can avoid an edit war). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dona-Hue (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead
A block quote in the lead is almost always inappropriate and unnecessary, per WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:LONGQUOTE, and WP:LEAD. There is nothing in the quote used that is uniquely pertinent or indispensable in itself, and it should be summarized or paraphrased as described in the policies cited. (It is also ungrammatical as currently presented.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was grammatically correct until an IP made this edit. Can you paraphrase Dalrymple's quotation without removing it?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Given that this is an opinion of a single historian using phrases like "dangerously unregulated" and alleging that Clive was "an unstable sociopath," inclusion in the lead gives it undue weight. In addition, WP:QUOTE states, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful." Even paraphrased, putting such an opinion in the lead lends it undue weight and gives the impression WP endorses that view. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, adding this material to the first paragraph, or in the lead at all, gives it undue weight. It does not adhere to the dispassionate, neutral tone required by WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, and places content in the lead that is not in the body of the article, in violation of WP:LEAD. Please review these policies and gain consensus for adding such language to the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are so enamored of this pointed quote. Where you have placed it now is a complete non sequitor, a hundred years of narrative before we are even introduced to Clive. The view stated is completely undeveloped or elaborated upon and solely from one writer. I don't think the quote has any place in the article without further support and development, and certainly not until a place in the narrative when Clive is at least alive. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630085209/http://www.plantcultures.org.uk/themes/empires_landing.html to http://www.plantcultures.org.uk/themes/empires_landing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

HEIC should not redirect here
I predict the majority of people will now be looking for High Efficiency Image File Format, the default camera photo format in new iPhones. HEIC is one of the file extensions used. --David G (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on East India Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330215843/http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/trading/booksgifts1.html to http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/trading/booksgifts1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330065505/http://www.eicships.info/index.html to http://www.eicships.info/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

NCERT Textbook History.
The article seems to be a rewriting of the NCERT (Indian government school text book) History. The contents might be copyrighted.

Now, who can remove the whole nonsense and write something fair and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D382:85D2:D9BC:7E1B:9240:64CF (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Capital in 1613-16
There is a mistake in the chart of the capital of the first voyages - in particular the "block" of the four voyages of 1613-16. The listed number £272,544 is not the "total invested" for 1613-1616, but rather the joint amount invested in "ships and provisions" for those four fleets (that is, £272,544 are the four rows in the fourth column taken together, not the four rows of the first column.). The first "total invested" column should be £106,000 for 1613, £107,000 for 1614, £107,000 for 1615 and £109,000 for 1616. So the "total invested" for the four fleets of 1613-16 should be £429,000 (= £111,499 bullion exported + £78,017 goods exported + £272,544 ship & provisions). This what the Mill citation refers to: Mill. There is some citation to some "Baldwin, Cradock & Joy" in the article, but no actual work is cited, so can't follow that up for consistency. Would someone care to make the changes in the table? Walrasiad (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"International trade"
I updated the industry field to reflect the fact that the type of "trade" that the HEIC engaged in was done via illicit means (smuggling, bribing, and other forms of crime). That is no longer "trade", it's crime. I added a citation from a British source.

Retinoblastoma (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Origins of the East India company"
Why does this article incorrectly say initially with Mughal India? Clearly later in the article it states Indonesia and Java as the inital point of trade. This is clearly incorrect and conflates mainland India with insular India (as Indonesia was once known). Could someone correct this who owns the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:D431:8072:BD0A:6B60 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No one owns this page as all edits are collaborative. Please provide a reliable source for your information. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read the page in question, the origins section of the page clearly states Malacca and the Early voyages section states Bantam and Moluccas. from this page its clear Lancaster's destination was the Moluccas. Any historian of worth will inform you that cloves are only available there (as well as Nutmeg). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lancaster also reiterates the same statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:19BB:C1B3:3034:41DC (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please state what you wish to be changed in the format of "change X to Y" and provide a reliable source. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No. If you won't read the page then there is no point in discussing it further. Why did you answer the question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4B8F:C800:1588:59E6:A:34BF (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you too scared to provide a source? Don't fear; perhaps we can help? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Article very biased: ignores company's racism, sexism, brutality
The article is shocking and clearly biased. Not one mention of the enslavement of blacks, the racism against blacks that most of the members of the company had, the discrimination against females (sexism), the inhumane treatment that most natives that encountered the company workers received, the genocide that the company participated etc. Truly a biased article in favor of the company and ignoring the historic truths.Would an article on Wikipedia dare mention Hitler's SS and not mention the genocide and blind violence? No. But when it comes to the core companies, principles that created and enriched Great Britain, America and Europe, articles tend to be biased and ignore racism, sexism, etc. We need to improve this article and teach the truth otherwise we help to perpetuate racism, sexism, blind national and only make greedy corporations more powerful. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:A0FF:B99F:8D6:BBB0 (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is not "shocking": it describes the Company's development and activities in a neutral tone. There is a section on Legacy and criticisms, with a tag saying that it "needs expansion" (and, probably, splitting). If you would like to do some work on that, with appropriate references to reliable sources, you would be very welcome to do so. Drawing crass comparisons with Nazism does your case no good at all. GrindtXX (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The only thing that is "shocking" is how fast you are jumping to conclusions about the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:B058:E300:51E8:C63D:5C54:6F4D (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This article is not neutral by any stretch of imagination. A vast area and time is spent on technical aspects of the Company, while the real impact of the Company on peoples' life or the impact of it on an entire subcontinent is not even mentioned. Instead a small area is set aside for "Legacy and Criticism". This is a disproportionate and lopsided characterization of the East India Company and sadly it is defended by certain authors hiding behind the mask of another technicalities. There is nothing wrong in comparing the the impact of East India Company and later the British Raj with the Nazi regime. What Nazi's tried to do in a few years, the EIC and Raj accomplished over 300 odd years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.112 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet why was so much effort put into this neutral tone regarding the East India Company when none of it reflects criticism at large? Clearly the company was responsible for so much that was wrong yet nothing has been discussed. You argue someone else should do this- why havent the authors who know so much about the rest of it not willing to discuss it? This itself is indicative of western bias and racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.14.224 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a huge Wikipedia history reader and after reading this article I have to agree that the tone regarding the deaths of millions is rather diminutive. I would argue that by minimizing these deaths we are not taking a neutral tone. When 10 million people die we can't put that as a footnote in history. In order to maintain neutrality while still giving light to these deaths, there should be a small section covering the famine detailing East India Companies Role in the deaths. We may also look at other similar issues such as the Soviet famines, the Congolese genocide, Native American Genocide, or the Holocaust for further reference on how to cover these issues with due gravity. 47.154.80.252 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the complaint: "- why havent the authors who know so much about the rest of it not willing to discuss it? This itself is indicative of western bias and racism." As an American, let me suggest that the problem might be due to our piss-poor education of both missing and highly biased school curriculum and common mythologies which includes American Exceptionalism, textbooks from our corporatocracy with strong influence of regulatory capture in its broadest and deepest senses. I suspect the British who presumably are "the authors who know so much about the rest of it," are only somewhat better off. Our history textbooks are a joke in this context. "History is written by the victors."   So what are you going to do about that?


 * In Orwell's famous prophetic novel; "1984," —Who remembers what Winston Smith's job was? Take care!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:B596:626E:D7:4B38 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

May be it should be mentioned that it was the English East India Company that saved millions of enslaved populations who had been kept as sort of domestic cattle by the higher classes of South Asia. Check books of those period such as Malabar Manual, Native Life in Travancore, Travancore State Manual.

It is not wise to write history by reading crap Indian academic textbooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:210:1EB4:C1C4:5A3E:64BE:FB18 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Could be crap history generally seen in Wikipedia pages connected to South Asia
In English rule period books, the term English East India Company is seen used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:210:1EB4:C1C4:5A3E:64BE:FB18 (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was only in 1707 that the Act for better Securing the Duties of East India Goods was introduced at the first session of the spanking new British Parliament. Leutha (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Mughal Emperor Jahangir...
... died in 1627, so any mention of him after that year is probably erroneous (maybe mentioning Jahan instead?), and should be taken into mind, IMO. Impfireball (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider Shah Jahan, fifth Mughal emperor, reigned from 1628 to 1658.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Did he?
In 1634, the Mughal emperor Jahangir extended his hospitality to the English traders...

Seriously doubt that, since he died (and, thus ceded reigning, in 1627)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.12.210 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Consider Shah Jahan, fifth Mughal emperor, reigned from 1628 to 1658, sucessor to Jahangir.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Non-Survival of the Company beyond Disestablishment
I have come across a coin dated 1936 from Kinnar State which purports to be East India Company issue & seems to have been a non-currency religious token. It could be a mistaken date or not Christian dating or it could be a fake but it suggests that the company may have continued operation in independent states in which it had established good relations with the local political establishment. I've only found Kinnar as an alternate to Hijra or Transgender & suspect Kinnaur may be the modern equivalent. The Mahabharata mentions the Kinnara (Horse-Man or Centaur) tribe & their state. I confess I am perplexed. 101.164.87.162 (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Ian Ison

Technically, the EIC was never completely disestablished, as from time to time various investors have attempted to use the corporate brand and trademarks to start businesses. There was a "Banana Republic" clone under that name in the 1980s and '90s in Southeast Asia, and after it went bankrupt, another group started a tea company which is apparently thriving...that is according to their website at least. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Technically the EIC was never completely disestablished" is false - it was dissolved by statute of the UK parliament in 1874. The fact that various modern companies have "attempted to use the corporate brand and trademarks (sic) to start businesses" just means they are using the name - not that the company was still established.  Registration of trademarks in the UK only began in 1875 but the company had ceased to exist the previous year. What is it about this that spawns so much need to believe the EIC still exists? - it doesn't.  Maybe some of these modern companies are thriving and that's fine but they have zero historical connection with the EIC other than that they decided to re-use the name/ designs Zymurgy (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)