Talk:India House

Copy edit
Copyedited as far as end of section 2.2, "The Indian Sociologist". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now to end of section 2.5, "Transformation". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Complete to end of 3.1, "Scotland Yard" --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyediting now complete. I have no knowledge of the subject other than that which I've gained from reading this article, so it probably ought to be rechecked in case I've inadvertently changed any meanings. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this massive help, Cant explain how much I appreciate this. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I've had a breif flutter through and noted a few problems which could be adressed; there are very few sources cited in the introduction to the article, I've selected some of the most prominent; the article needs some more images, in order to break up the voume of text and provide some information; the sources you cite do not provide specific evidence, which they should, especially considering they are web links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the citation issue, I have put down vonPochammer as a reference, but what he actually says is that the house became a "point of support" The problem is I synthesised that from both what is widely known, as well as some of the other info (see eg, indoctrination of previously non-activist Indian students in the Impact section) through the article. I dont know if this is acceptable. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the referencing issue, I have to point out most (except one if I am correct) of the references I have given are books, not websites as you say. However, if you see or feel that the evidence does not support what has been written, I will reword or find a better reference. Please let me know. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have with the references is that they are not specific; a person looking to further their knowledge in this subject, and seeking out the books you mention, would have to search through the entire book to find the cited bits of information. Put the comment from which you have based the information in ' marks after the reference. If you unsure what I mean look at the references of my own article Prehistoric medicine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see what you are saying. But I think the references from Popplewell, Hopkirk and Owen (but mainly Popplewell) do talk about in some detail about the organisation, but most writers focus on the impact and the future impact. I wished to avoid any traces of original research, but I am sure most of the references I have given will satisfy a brief over view, what I have done is piece together the scattered facts. I dont know if this helps. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another comment on references - is it really necessary to have in the list of literature books which are also referred to in the references section? Would it not be better to use the Cite book template in the body of the article for the literature/refs duplicates (naming the ref as has already been done). That way the cited book details will appear in the list of refs, the literature list can be pared down to list only those books etc that are not used in the body of the article as refs, and it can be renamed "Additional reading" or something similar. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment UKexpat. The literature section actually only includes the literature used as reference. ie, none of that is "additional reading". The problem with using the cite book template is that where using the same book for a number of different references, I myself find it confusing and moreover does not indicate (or rather gets lost in the medley) which aspect of the article the focus of book maybe. Moreover, I am not very familiar with using the cite book template, which I am with the harvnb template. Also, I thought it allowes a better template for quoting journals. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Background looked good to me


I think I'll copy the Background section across to the talk page here. I thought it concise and well-written. It gives substance to the idea of nationalism. What is India? What was India? Where does the nation start and stop? This question is still alive in Kashmir.

We don't need a definitive answer on Kashmir, but the overview provided links to articles the curious reader could pursue. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did Kashmir come out from???:D rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL :) Sure, I agree. You see my point too, obviously. It'd have been clearer had I used the past tense.
 * That background section was good. The article without it presumes people know the British were administering a continent called India, not a nation called India. A factor that became all too clear as the British left.
 * I'm not taking sides, by the way, Sri Lanka and India are my favourite cricket teams, New Zealand and England at the bottom of my list. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Background
The void arising from the precipitous decline of the Mughal Empire from the early decades of 18th century allowed emerging powers to grow in the Indian subcontinent. These included the Sikh Confederacy, the Maratha Confederacy, Nizamiyat, the local nawabs of Oudh and Bengal and other smaller powers. Each was a strong regional power influenced by its religious and ethnic identity. However, the East India Company ultimately emerged as the predominant power. One of the results of the social, economic and political changes instituted in the country throughout the greater part of 18th century was the growth of the Indian middle class. Although from different backgrounds and different parts of India, this middle class and its varied political leaderships contributed to a growing "Indian" identity". The realisation and refinement of this concept of national identity fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s.

Comments from Scartol
First of all, kudos for all your hard work here – the article gave me a solid overview of a topic about which I know shamefully little. You've obviously devoted a great deal of time and effort to this piece, and it shows.

I've done a thorough copyedit, which will hopefully assuage the concerns raised at the FAC. Please note that I have not examined the sources, content, or organisation of the article in any meaningful way; I recommend having additional editors review those things before re-submitting it. (As they say, measure twice and cut once.)

Here are some questions and concerns which arose as I did my copyedit. There's no need to reply to each one when it's fixed, although of course if you want to discuss any of them, please feel free.


 * This is not in order of its appearance in the article (like the other comments below), but I'd like to start with it: Under Savarkar, the Abhinav Bharat Society and the relatively peaceful front of the Free India Society rapidly developed into a radical meeting ground quite different from the IHRS. It was wholly self-reliant and under Savarkar's influence... This problem was mentioned at the FAC, and deserves some careful attention: What exactly is the focus of the article? Was the India House a single organisation? A collection of them? An amorphous and constantly-changing group of people loosely gathered later under one name? Nailing this down will make the "It" in the above sentence much less difficult to comprehend. (Also, was the IHRS not "wholly self-reliant"? The article doesn't suggest this, so it may need mention earlier, in some way.)


 * Is "British committee of the Congress" really capitalised like that, or did we miss a C? I see that sometimes it's capitalised and sometimes not. Let's make it consistent throughout.


 * "India House" and "the India House" also appear alternately in the article. Please let's pick one and standardise.


 * Cama herself was a resourceful woman... Sounds like POV. Let's stick to facts, or say: "Cama was described as a resourceful woman...".


 * With the foundations of the IHRS, Krishna Varma began a scheme for scholarships... Does this mean: "After the creation of the IHRS..." or "Using the monetary resources of the IHRS..."? Please change wording to more clearly indicate meaning.


 * The bit about the scholarships seems oddly placed in the Indian Sociologist section. How about moving it to the end of the prior section?


 * It's not sensible to say "The TIS", since the T is for The. It's like saying "ATM machine".


 * ...Valentine Chirol, editor of The Times, accused Krishna Varma of preaching "disloyal sentiments" to Indian students, and demanded his prosecution. Was preaching "disloyal sentiments" a crime? I'd like to have a link to the law he is supposed to have broken.


 * ...an admirer of Mazzini and a protégé of Tilak... We should get a short (2-4 words) description of each of these people.


 * His efforts at the time were devoted to nationalist writings, organising public meetings and demonstrations, and initiating the secret society of Abhinav Bharat Mandal. This sentence uses the serial comma, and it's not used elsewhere – I recommend going through the whole article and making it consistent throughout, one way or the other. (In this sentence, I would recommend semicolons between the phrases, since ons is a compound item.)


 * Did Savarkar acquire the house itself when Krishna Varma departed? It would be good to have some info on the legal status of the building itself.


 * It emphasised actions of self-sacrifice by its members which were to be directed towards India. This is unclear. Does it mean the actions advertised in India, or that the members were supposed to be thinking of India while sacrificing?


 * I reworded the last paragraph of "Transformation". Please check to make sure I didn't make anything inaccurate.


 * Why does the article have no image of Krishna Varma or Savarkar?


 * Savarkar's elder brother Ganesh was arrested in India in June that year, and was subsequently tried and transported for life for publication of seditionist literature. "transported for life" is an odd phrase; it implies he was moved around constantly for the rest of his life. Maybe "imprisoned for life"?


 * It was further suggested that Dhingra's intended target was John Morley, the Secretary of State for India himself. Avoid the passive voice whenever possible. Who suggested this? (Indian intelligence sources were the topic of the previous sentence – if they're being referenced here, best to say: "These sources further suggested...")


 * The use of a word like "extremists" in quotation marks signals a POV use of the term. In general, it's best to use a direct quote about how they were perceived at the time: "The arrival of XXX and XXX in London further stirred the matter, since they had been called "[insert quote here]" by the XXX Times."


 * Passive voice constructions like "It is believed that..." are generally not preferred, except in rare circumstances. (See English passive voice.) If the information is now accepted as the true event, just skip over the phrase "It is believed that" – in this case, you can just say: "M.P.T. Acharya was at this time instructed by V.V.S. Iyer and V.D. Savarkar to set himself up as an informer to Scotland Yard..." If someone disputes it, they can go to your source. (Sometimes if the evidence doesn't conclusively point to this as fact, you'll need to add a qualifier, but a word like "likely" or "probably" is still preferable to the passive voice option.)


 * Barkatullah himself had been closely associated with Krishna Varma during his earlier stay in London, and his subsequent career in Japan put him at the heart of Indian political activities there. The uses of "his" are getting unclear here. Please reword to clarify the phrase "his subsequent career".


 * An "India House" was founded in Manhattan... Why is this the only India House in quotation marks?


 * The foundation of the counter-intelligence operation was an intelligence organisation established in London in 1910... Operations are usually not organisations. "the counter-intelligence operation" is confusing at the end of an article which discusses a number of such operations. Could you specify? How about the following:
 * In January 1910 the Superintendent of Police at Bombay was reassigned to the India Office in London, where he established the Indian Political Intelligence Office.


 * ...it was distinct from Gandhian devotionalism, and acquired the support of a somewhat chauvinist mass movement. This last bit is pretty POV. Let's stick to facts. (Maybe: "...acquired the support of a mass movement advocating XXX.")


 * It charted the latter's approach to State, Society and Colonialism... Are these capitalised for a reason? In general discourse they should not be.


 * A number of Spencerian ideas featured prominently in Savarkar's works well into his political writings and works with the Hindu Mahasabha. Unclear. I assume it means "featured prominently in Savarkar's work throughout his career"?

Good luck with the article, and let me know if you have any questions! – Scartol  •  Tok  15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This completely escaped my notice, gimme half an hour to sort through the correctable stuff and I'll clarify anything that can be clarified after that. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Scartol, I'll explain the recommendations I didn't implement, and explain to you afew more things. But I gotta do it tomorrow. Really gotta run. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Scartol's comments

 * This is not in order of its appearance in the article (like the other comments below), but I'd like to start with it: Under Savarkar, the Abhinav Bharat Society and the relatively peaceful front of the Free India Society rapidly developed into a radical meeting ground quite different from the IHRS. It was wholly self-reliant and under Savarkar's influence... This problem was mentioned at the FAC, and deserves some careful attention: What exactly is the focus of the article? Was the India House a single organisation? A collection of them? An amorphous and constantly-changing group of people loosely gathered later under one name? Nailing this down will make the "It" in the above sentence much less difficult to comprehend. (Also, was the IHRS not "wholly self-reliant"? The article doesn't suggest this, so it may need mention earlier, in some way.)
 * I think this has been clarified now.


 * Is "British committee of the Congress" really capitalised like that, or did we miss a C? I see that sometimes it's capitalised and sometimes not. Let's make it consistent throughout.
 * "committee" C capitalised.


 * "India House" and "the India House" also appear alternately in the article. Please let's pick one and standardise.
 * "India House" now.


 * Cama herself was a resourceful woman... Sounds like POV. Let's stick to facts, or say: "Cama was described as a resourceful woman...".
 * Sentence changed as appropriate.


 * With the foundations of the IHRS, Krishna Varma began a scheme for scholarships... Does this mean: "After the creation of the IHRS..." or "Using the monetary resources of the IHRS..."? Please change wording to more clearly indicate meaning.
 * I have explained this now, please let me know if this might still need clarified.


 * The bit about the scholarships seems oddly placed in the Indian Sociologist section. How about moving it to the end of the prior section?
 * Shifted.


 * It's not sensible to say "The TIS", since the T is for The. It's like saying "ATM machine".
 * TIS throughout now, in fact it was probably the last editor who did the hardwork.


 * ...Valentine Chirol, editor of The Times, accused Krishna Varma of preaching "disloyal sentiments" to Indian students, and demanded his prosecution. Was preaching "disloyal sentiments" a crime? I'd like to have a link to the law he is supposed to have broken.
 * I am not entirely sure what law in particular that Chirol wanted Krishna Varma prosecuted for breaking, but I am going to take a guess that Chirol indicated that Krishna Varma was engaging in Sedition and/or treason by preaching revolution and violence in the Emperor's possession. Note that freedom of press and speech in Britain meant preaching itself was probably not a crime, as may be clear from the fact that a John Morley's approach. TIS couldn't be banned in Britain even after it was banned in India. But the fact that violence was happening in India and maybe linked to SKV's views and works meant he was inciting or engaing in treachorous act. This is my take, but I dont know for sure what law Chirol wanted SKV prosecuted under. That he did press for it, and that too surrounding the latter's work and views on TIS is confirmed by a number of sources. The other thing is that Chirol's 1910 book "Indian unrest" is peppered with the term "sedition" with regards to India and violence, so I think in all fairness, he refers to both radical nationalism (ie, movement for independence, not dominion status- which to him is sedition) and revolutionary violence as a conjugate. But here we're crossing over to WP:OR.


 * ...an admirer of Mazzini and a protégé of Tilak... We should get a short (2-4 words) description of each of these people.
 * I have linked Guisseppe Mazzini in full now, although only saying he was a philosopher is half the story, but I didn't wish to repeat the word "nationalist" since it appears more appropriate to the context if mentioned with Tilak. Let me know if the reword seems convoluted, suggestions welcome.


 * His efforts at the time were devoted to nationalist writings, organising public meetings and demonstrations, and initiating the secret society of Abhinav Bharat Mandal. This sentence uses the serial comma, and it's not used elsewhere – I recommend going through the whole article and making it consistent throughout, one way or the other. (In this sentence, I would recommend semicolons between the phrases, since ons is a compound item.)
 * Let me know if the reword appears appropriate now.


 * Did Savarkar acquire the house itself when Krishna Varma departed? It would be good to have some info on the legal status of the building itself.
 * I dont know any work that discusses the legal status of the house, since all focus on the house as a loose organisation of nationalist societies and individuals. However, I am fairly certain Savarkar did not acquire the house since it would most probably be registered to the IHRS. What the paragraph should imply is that Savarkar emerged the leader among India House residents/members.


 * It emphasised actions of self-sacrifice by its members which were to be directed towards India. This is unclear. Does it mean the actions advertised in India, or that the members were supposed to be thinking of India while sacrificing?
 * I am hoping this is clear now.


 * I reworded the last paragraph of "Transformation". Please check to make sure I didn't make anything inaccurate.


 * Why does the article have no image of Krishna Varma or Savarkar?
 * There is one image of Savarkar in the collage at the very top. I haven't found an image of SKV in PD or has a clear copyright info. I will ask Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan for some help soon.


 * Savarkar's elder brother Ganesh was arrested in India in June that year, and was subsequently tried and transported for life for publication of seditionist literature. "transported for life" is an odd phrase; it implies he was moved around constantly for the rest of his life. Maybe "imprisoned for life"?
 * This is now clarified. I realise this might seem odd, but in (British) India, transported for life is synonymous with incarceration at the Cellular Jail (the infamous Kaalapani).


 * It was further suggested that Dhingra's intended target was John Morley, the Secretary of State for India himself. Avoid the passive voice whenever possible. Who suggested this? (Indian intelligence sources were the topic of the previous sentence – if they're being referenced here, best to say: "These sources further suggested...")
 * Sorted I think.


 * The use of a word like "extremists" in quotation marks signals a POV use of the term. In general, it's best to use a direct quote about how they were perceived at the time: "The arrival of XXX and XXX in London further stirred the matter, since they had been called "[insert quote here]" by the XXX Times."
 * Quotes removed. However, I should point, it was quoted because B.C. Pal is the same Pal as of the Lal-Bal-Pal, and he was more a political leader than a leader of a revolution, which makes him a radical politician than extremist, but the book I used (Popplewell) describes him as exptremist, so hey...


 * Passive voice constructions like "It is believed that..." are generally not preferred, except in rare circumstances. (See English passive voice.) If the information is now accepted as the true event, just skip over the phrase "It is believed that" – in this case, you can just say: "M.P.T. Acharya was at this time instructed by V.V.S. Iyer and V.D. Savarkar to set himself up as an informer to Scotland Yard..." If someone disputes it, they can go to your source. (Sometimes if the evidence doesn't conclusively point to this as fact, you'll need to add a qualifier, but a word like "likely" or "probably" is still preferable to the passive voice option.)
 * I will look through in a day or two.


 * Barkatullah himself had been closely associated with Krishna Varma during his earlier stay in London, and his subsequent career in Japan put him at the heart of Indian political activities there. The uses of "his" are getting unclear here. Please reword to clarify the phrase "his subsequent career".
 * Sorted I think.


 * An "India House" was founded in Manhattan... Why is this the only India House in quotation marks?
 * I am not sure, I think I put it there to emphasise it followed on the footsteps, or rather, literally copied the name, of the London India House. I'll change this in a second.


 * The foundation of the counter-intelligence operation was an intelligence organisation established in London in 1910... Operations are usually not organisations. "the counter-intelligence operation" is confusing at the end of an article which discusses a number of such operations. Could you specify? How about the following:
 * In January 1910 the Superintendent of Police at Bombay was reassigned to the India Office in London, where he established the Indian Political Intelligence Office.


 * Sorted I think.


 * ...it was distinct from Gandhian devotionalism, and acquired the support of a somewhat chauvinist mass movement. This last bit is pretty POV. Let's stick to facts. (Maybe: "...acquired the support of a mass movement advocating XXX.")
 * The "chauvnism" is suggested by the author I referenced. That is too controversial a term or phrase to be put there otherwise. But I though it was also neccessary to have it there to emphasis that it was different from Gandhian practice (which at the end of the day bears on the history and analysis of the Indian independence movement and how or why Gandhi had pan-Indian appeal).


 * It charted the latter's approach to State, Society and Colonialism... Are these capitalised for a reason? In general discourse they should not be.
 * Yes, the terms are used here as nouns, ie the concepts and what have you. I had them wikilinked earlier, but undid them to avoid overlinking.


 * A number of Spencerian ideas featured prominently in Savarkar's works well into his political writings and works with the Hindu Mahasabha. Unclear. I assume it means "featured prominently in Savarkar's work throughout his career"?
 * Well, I dont know how to describe this, but Spencer's thoughts only find prominence in Savarkar's written works, and the Savarkar did not embark (as far as I am aware) on a political career. He associated with the Hindu Mahasabha strongly, but this was by not his only or even central works. If you can suggest a better phrase, I'll be happy to put that in place.
 * My concern is with the phrase "works well into..." I think my proposed revision works, but I'll leave it up to you (or a third opinion).– Scartol  •  Tok  14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this does justice to the effort you put into this article. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're joking – you're the one who's put in all the effort. =) These repairs look good. I de-capitalised state, society and colonialism, because – discussed as concepts or not, they really shouldn't be capitalised. The Manhattan India House is still in quotes – intentionally? (Without a short explanation why, this may still throw some readers. I recognize that perhaps it wasn't an official satellite organisation, but I feel that it needs a bit of explanation.)


 * I worry that the "chauvanism" claim might be flagged as POV – how about "of a mass movement frequently described as chauvanist"? Otherwise, all systems appear to be Go. Good luck with it, and let me know if you have any other questions. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments
I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead says Scotland Yard began investigating India House aftert the assasination, but the Indian Home Rule Society section says detectives investigated it then (much earlier). The Culmination section also says investigations began in 1909 before the assasination. Which is it?
 * In the Savarkar section, it says in the second sentence of the section An admirer of the Italian nationalist philosopher Giuseppe Mazzini and a protégé of the radical Indian leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak,[4][34][35] Savarkar was associated ... then the last sentence of the same paragraph says He kept in touch with the movement in India through his brother Babarao Ganesh Savarkar; through him, Savarkar's work was discovered by the extremist Indian Congress leaders of the time, including B.G. Tilak. Tilak is linked both times (overlinked - delink the second one). More importantly, these sentences seem to contradict each other - did Savarkar show up in London as a protege of Tilak, OR did Tilak discover Savarkar through his work there? I think maybe Tilak knew him before, then learned of his work at India House, but if this could be made clearer, that would be helpful
 * Is it "Abhinav Bharat Society" or is it "Abhinav Bharat Society"? Both are used
 * In American English, outhouse can mean "latrine" - is this what is meant in The outhouse of India House was converted to a "war workshop" where chemistry students ...?
 * Is overtaken meant or taken over in By 1908, the India House group had overtaken the London Indian Society, the largest association of Indians in London ...? They do not mean the same thing.

Reply to Ruhrfisch
I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it
 * The lead says Scotland Yard began investigating India House aftert the assasination, but the Indian Home Rule Society section says detectives investigated it then (much earlier). The Culmination section also says investigations began in 1909 before the assasination. Which is it?
 * I am not sure how to clarify this. The 1909 investigation was one in particular, and a very thorough one, which ultimately led to unravelling of the organisation. The ones before that were more surveillance. I cant find the best words to describe this, but India house was definitely noticed by Scotland Yard as early as 1907 (per text)
 * I reread the lead and it seems clearer now, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Savarkar section, it says in the second sentence of the section An admirer of the Italian nationalist philosopher Giuseppe Mazzini and a protégé of the radical Indian leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak,[4][34][35] Savarkar was associated ... then the last sentence of the same paragraph says He kept in touch with the movement in India through his brother Babarao Ganesh Savarkar; through him, Savarkar's work was discovered by the extremist Indian Congress leaders of the time, including B.G. Tilak. Tilak is linked both times (overlinked - delink the second one). More importantly, these sentences seem to contradict each other - did Savarkar show up in London as a protege of Tilak, OR did Tilak discover Savarkar through his work there? I think maybe Tilak knew him before, then learned of his work at India House, but if this could be made clearer, that would be helpful
 * Savarkar knew Tilak in India, and in fact the latter was responsible for Savarkar being able to obtain Krishna Varma's scholarship in the first place. What the sentence should imply is that Savarkar's works in London "found their way" to Tilak in India through VDS's brother. I'll try to clarify this, but alternate phrases welcome.
 * Again it now reads much better - I think the problem before was "discovered", which implies he did not know of him or his work before. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it "Abhinav Bharat Society" or is it "Abhinav Bharat Society"? Both are used
 * It should be Abhinav Bharat, I'll rectify this in a few minutes.
 * In American English, outhouse can mean "latrine" - is this what is meant in The outhouse of India House was converted to a "war workshop" where chemistry students ...?
 * I didn't know this. I think here it means something similar to a shed, or rather, a small building adjoining the main building. Other terminology will be welcome.
 * Outbuilding is fine - I looked up "outhouse" in an American thesaurus and it listed latrine ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is overtaken meant or taken over in By 1908, the India House group had overtaken the London Indian Society, the largest association of Indians in London ...? They do not mean the same thing.
 * Both are factually correct, I'll think of a better way to put this forward.
 * Again this reads better now with overtaken in the first sentence and taken over in the second, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
Hello, this one just failed due to some copyediting issues. I was sad as it was a fascinating read and so close. I will ask a person or two to see if they can help, and hopefully it can be renominated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now copy-edited the first four paragraphs. Pretty much every paragraph needs to be extensively rewritten. There is lots of good information here, but the style is too convoluted, with too much passive voice and needless and awkward phrasing. It resembles the style of undergrad seminar regurgitation of textbooks. I'll be happy to continue this as a favour to Casliber when I can. Until the prose is properly polished, this should not return as an FAC.

To the editors who have contributed to this: I knew nothing of this topic and I found it very interesting and well-referenced and deserving of FA in its substance. Eusebeus (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful comments and contributions. The article may have to be edited a bit per the comments especially in the last FAC. Nonetheless, cheers guys rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions and concerns following GOCE copy-edit of October 7-8, 2015
In response to a request for a copy-edit at Wikipedia, I have finished going through the article India House once. As I read through it once more, I will leave some questions and concerns here.

1) The first sentence of the article starts:


 * India House was an informal Indian nationalist organisation...

I'm puzzled by this. So you're saying "India House" was an organization? Later, the house is described as a mansion: India House "India House is a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London", and you say it had accommodations for thirty students. To me, it was a house (actually, a mansion) that housed students and was a meeting place for at least one organization. In fact, the third sentence of the lead starts, "The building..." India House sounds like a building to me. Is this wrong?

Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph in India House is:


 * India House was soon transformed into the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement in Britain.

This suggests two things: 1) that India House was a building, not an organization, and 2) that it was originally a residence and later a center for political activity ("the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement").

2) The second sentence of the lead is:


 * With the patronage of Indian nationalist lawyer Shyamji Krishna Varma, its home in a student residence in Highgate, North London, was launched to promote nationalist views among Indian students in Britain.

Again, I wonder whether you are confusing the building with the organizations that used the building. Depending upon how you answer my questions above, "its home" may have to be changed, too. But definitely, "its home...was launched" doesn't make sense. Actually, wasn't the building originally obtained to house Indian students – India House: "When inaugurated as a student-hostel in 1905, it provided accommodation for up to thirty students", and then it became a center of politics (I won't go into detail here since it's all in the article) when the organization(s) started meeting and conducting activities there? Or are you saying that right from the beginning it was intended to be a center for the radical groups that used it, and housing students was only incidental? Regardless, you've got to fix "its home...was launched".


 * rueben_lys In this sentence, "With the patronage of Indian nationalist lawyer Shyamji Krishna Varma, it was launched to promote nationalist views among Indian students in Britain," I see you removed "home", so now it says, "It was launched..." It's still not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. What was launched? The first sentence of the lead says it was a residence. We don't normally say "a residence was launched". We use "launch" with: a ship, a rocket, an initiative, or a program. Perhaps you mean a certain organization was launched. If so, you need to make clear what organization was launched, and, with "an organization", "launched" is all right but "founded" or "established" is better. If you mean the residence (which is what it was at the beginning, right?), then I would use "established". But you've got to make it clear what "it" is. Don't use "it". Use a noun or name of an organization. Also, for your replies, you don't have to use bold italics. You can just use regular font. Indent one space using one or more colons and/or use a "bullet" (with an asterisk). Corinne (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

3) In the section India House, the first paragraph begins as follows (I've numbered the sentences for ease of discussion):


 * (1) From its very inception, the Congress sought to shape public opinion in Britain in order to achieve support for Indian political autonomy. (2) The British Committee of the Congress published India, a periodical which featured moderate (or loyalist) opinion and provided information about India tailored to a British readership. (3) The British arm of the Congress also established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament to influence policy directly. (4) This British Committee of Congress was successful in calling the British public's attention to issues of civil liberties in India, but it largely failed to bring about political change, prompting socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate a more radical approach.

The second sentence begins, "the British Committee of the Congress". The third sentence says, "The British arm of the Congress...established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament". The fourth sentence starts, "This British Committee of Congress". It's not clear to what that last phrase refers. Does it refer to what's at the beginning of the second sentence – "the British Committee of the Congress" – or does it refer to what's in the middle of the third sentence: an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament? If it refers to what's at the beginning of the second sentence ("the British Committee of the Congress"), then maybe the two sentences should be one right after the other. It it refers to the "Indian committee" in the British Parliament, then the phrase should match that more closely.

Also, parts of the content of the fourth sentence:


 * This British Committee of Congress was successful in calling the British public's attention to issues of civil liberties in India, but it largely failed to bring about political change, prompting socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate a more radical approach.

seem awfully similar to the content of the second sentence (italics added):


 * The British Committee of the Congress published India, a periodical which featured moderate (or loyalist) opinion and provided information about India tailored to a British readership.

Perhaps there is a way to consolidate these two sentences to avoid any repetition. If not, and they're both about the same committee (see just above), then at least the sentences should be one right after the other with no information about something else coming between them.

4) Later in that same paragraph is the following sentence:


 * Nationalist leaders in India (such as Bipin Chandra Pal, who had led the agitation against the Bengal partition) and Indian students in Britain criticised the committee for what they perceived as its cautious approach.

I wondered what you thought of adding the word "overly" before "cautious approach" to indicate they thought the committee was too cautious:


 * Nationalist leaders in India (such as Bipin Chandra Pal, who had led the agitation against the Bengal partition) and Indian students in Britain criticised the committee for what they perceived as its overly cautious approach.

5) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House is the following sentence:


 * Funds received by Indian students as scholarships and bursaries from varsities helped the organisation.

I think "varsities" should be explained and/or linked. Not everyone will know what this means.

6) The last sentence in the second paragraph in India House is the following:


 * The close relationships established with these movements by Krishna Varma later influenced the activities and alliances of India House, both in Britain and abroad.

I think this sentence, without any illustrative details or examples, doesn't really say much. I think it needs a few examples, or don't mention it at all, at least not here.

(To be continued.) Corinne (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

7) The first sentence in the section India House begins:


 * The umbrella organisation of India House, which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society and its relatively peaceful front the Free India Society...

Unless I missed it, this is the first time in the article that you use the phrase "umbrella organization" in reference to India House. So, when you say "which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society, etc.", the reader is left wondering, "What was it before this?" You need either to use that phrase earlier in the article (and say what it was, or included) or explain here what it included before additional groups were included. Otherwise, you need to remove the word "now".

8) The next sentence in that section is:


 * Unlike the latter, it became wholly self-reliant in finances, organisation, as well as ideological mores.

(a) It's not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. Does it refer to "the umbrella organization" or to "India House"? Likewise "it in the next sentence.

(b) Also, I can understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to finances and organization, but I find it more difficult to understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to "ideological mores".

(c) Finally, it's not completely clear what you mean by "ideological mores". The word "mores" means customs, ways of doing things in society. It's not usually associated with political ideas.

9) Later in that same paragraph you have this sentence:


 * The Sunday night meetings were selected for lectures by Savarkar...

I don't understand this. I don't understand "The...meetings were selected for lectures".

10) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph in India House is the following:


 * The deliveries of weapons to India included, among others, a number of Browning pistols sent through Chaturbhuj Amin, Chanjeri Rao, and through V.V.S. Iyer when he returned to India.

The addition of "through" before "V.V.S. Iyer" makes the adverbial clause "when he returned to India" apply only to Iyer. Does that mean that the other two did not return to India? If so, then how could they have facilitated the transport of weapons to India? As you can see, this sentence needs some attention.

11) The last paragraph in India House is:


 * By 1908, the India House group had overtaken the London Indian Society (LIS), established in 1865 by Dadabhoi Naoroji, until then the largest association of Indians in London. Subsequently, India House took over the control of LIS when, at the annual general meeting that year, members of India House packed the gathering and ousted the old guard of the society.

Although the two sentences are probably about two different things, the use of "had overtaken" in the first sentence and "took over" in the second might make the reader think that the two sentences are saying something similar but with different words. Also, "had overtaken" is not completely clear. Does it mean "had overtaken in numbers of members", or membership, or does it mean "took control of"? If it means the first one, then I would add some words to clarify it.

12) The first sentence of the second paragraph in India House is:


 * In the aftermath of the assassination, India House was rapidly shut down.

The last sentence of that paragraph is:


 * TheParis Indian Society gradually took India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism on the continent.

I don't see how the Paris Indian Society taking India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism could have been gradual, given that India House was "rapidly shut down". You need either to delete "gradually" or give a brief explanation as to why it was gradual and not immediate.

13) In the section India House, I see "V.V.S. Aiyer". Is this the same person whose name is spelled earlier in the article as "V.V.S. Iyer"? This needs to be resolved and all spellings of the name made consistent.

14) Also in the section India House, we read:


 * C's reports noted that Savarkar's speeches grew increasingly strident and called for revolution, widespread violence, and murder of all Englishmen in India.

Earlier in the article you have the exact same words as the part after "noted that". Do you really want to say the same thing twice?

15) The next two sentences are:


 * In the following weeks, Savarkar was barred from joining the bar due to his political activity. These events led to the assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie.

It is not clear to what the phrase "These events" refers to. Savarkar being barred from joining the bar is only one event. Also, would Savarkar's being banned from joining the bar lead to an assassination? Is there any connection between the two events?

16) The first few sentences in India House are:


 * The police brought strong pressure on India House and began gathering intelligence on Indian students in London. These, along with threats to their careers, robbed India House of its student support base. It slowly began to disassemble...

In the third sentence, it is not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. What slowly began to dissassemble – India House or its student body?

17) The last sentence in that section is:


 * India House gradually ceased to be an influence in Britain.

Again, I don't understand the use of the word "gradually" here. It seems to me that the change took place in a fairly short amount of time. If you agree, you might remove "gradually" and write, "In a fairly short amount of time, India House ceased to be an influence in Britain."

18) In the section India House, we read:


 * Political discontent was at the time growing steadily among this group, especially those in touch with Indian professionals and those studying in depth the philosophies of European liberalism.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "in touch with Indian professionals". Were these Indian professionals in Britain or Indian professionals in India? Were these mainly Indian students who were "in touch with" Indian professionals? Why say "in touch with" if the professionals were in Britain? Were Indian professionals in Britain so distinct from the students? Did the professionals have such a great influence over the students? I don't know, it's just a little hazy to me.

19) In the first paragraph of India House, you start off with several sentences that seem like statements of fact. You don't say who said, or believed, them. Then you have a sentence that starts, "Others, however, disagreed with these views." When I read that, I had to go back to see what "these views" were. I thought "What views?" I think you ought to start off by saying that some people (who?) thought India House had a lot of influence (instead of simply presenting them as facts -- the first three or four sentences). Then the contrast introduced with "Others, however, disagreed" would make sense.

I see now that I had not gotten to the end of the article on my first reading. I will continue working on it tomorrow. Corinne (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

-
 * Thankyou Corinne. Allow me to address your points individually:

''"1) The first sentence of the article starts:


 * India House was an informal Indian nationalist organisation...

I'm puzzled by this. So you're saying "India House" was an organization? Later, the house is described as a mansion: India House "India House is a large Victorian Mansion at 65 Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, North London", and you say it had accommodations for thirty students. To me, it was a house (actually, a mansion) that housed students and was a meeting place for at least one organization. In fact, the third sentence of the lead starts, "The building..." India House sounds like a building to me. Is this wrong? "''

I have now changed the lead to make this more clearly, let me know if there is clarity on this now.

Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph in India House is:


 * India House was soon transformed into the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement in Britain.

This suggests two things: 1) that India House was a building, not an organization, and 2) that it was originally a residence and later a center for political activity ("the headquarters of the Indian revolutionary movement").

'::As above.'

2) The second sentence of the lead is:


 * With the patronage of Indian nationalist lawyer Shyamji Krishna Varma, its home in a student residence in Highgate, North London, was launched to promote nationalist views among Indian students in Britain.

Again, I wonder whether you are confusing the building with the organizations that used the building. Depending upon how you answer my questions above, "its home" may have to be changed, too. But definitely, "its home...was launched" doesn't make sense. Actually, wasn't the building originally obtained to house Indian students – India House: "When inaugurated as a student-hostel in 1905, it provided accommodation for up to thirty students", and then it became a center of politics (I won't go into detail here since it's all in the article) when the organization(s) started meeting and conducting activities there? Or are you saying that right from the beginning it was intended to be a center for the radical groups that used it, and housing students was only incidental? Regardless, you've got to fix "its home...was launched".

'::I hope the reworded intro clarifies this now.Please let me know.'

3) In the section India House, the first paragraph begins as follows (I've numbered the sentences for ease of discussion):


 * (1) From its very inception, the Congress sought to shape public opinion in Britain in order to achieve support for Indian political autonomy. (2) The British Committee of the Congress published India, a periodical which featured moderate (or loyalist) opinion and provided information about India tailored to a British readership. (3) The British arm of the Congress also established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament to influence policy directly. (4) This British Committee of Congress was successful in calling the British public's attention to issues of civil liberties in India, but it largely failed to bring about political change, prompting socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate a more radical approach.

The second sentence begins, "the British Committee of the Congress". The third sentence says, "The British arm of the Congress...established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament". The fourth sentence starts, "This British Committee of Congress". It's not clear to what that last phrase refers. Does it refer to what's at the beginning of the second sentence – "the British Committee of the Congress" – or does it refer to what's in the middle of the third sentence: an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament? If it refers to what's at the beginning of the second sentence ("the British Committee of the Congress"), then maybe the two sentences should be one right after the other. It it refers to the "Indian committee" in the British Parliament, then the phrase should match that more closely.

Also, parts of the content of the fourth sentence:


 * This British Committee of Congress was successful in calling the British public's attention to issues of civil liberties in India, but it largely failed to bring about political change, prompting socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate a more radical approach.

seem awfully similar to the content of the second sentence (italics added):


 * The British Committee of the Congress published India, a periodical which featured moderate (or loyalist) opinion and provided information about India tailored to a British readership.

Perhaps there is a way to consolidate these two sentences to avoid any repetition. If not, and they're both about the same committee (see just above), then at least the sentences should be one right after the other with no information about something else coming between them.

Again, let me know if there is clarity and structure.

4) Later in that same paragraph is the following sentence:


 * Nationalist leaders in India (such as Bipin Chandra Pal, who had led the agitation against the Bengal partition) and Indian students in Britain criticised the committee for what they perceived as its cautious approach.

I wondered what you thought of adding the word "overly" before "cautious approach" to indicate they thought the committee was too cautious:


 * Nationalist leaders in India (such as Bipin Chandra Pal, who had led the agitation against the Bengal partition) and Indian students in Britain criticised the committee for what they perceived as its overly cautious approach.

'::I think this is a very welcome suggestion, I have changed the section accordingly.'

5) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House is the following sentence:


 * Funds received by Indian students as scholarships and bursaries from varsities helped the organisation.

I think "varsities" should be explained and/or linked. Not everyone will know what this means.

'::I accept your point, the sentence has been changed to say "universities".'

6) The last sentence in the second paragraph in India House is the following:


 * The close relationships established with these movements by Krishna Varma later influenced the activities and alliances of India House, both in Britain and abroad.

I think this sentence, without any illustrative details or examples, doesn't really say much. I think it needs a few examples, or don't mention it at all, at least not here.

'::You are probably very right, this has now been deleted.'

(To be continued.) Corinne (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

7) The first sentence in the section India House begins:


 * The umbrella organisation of India House, which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society and its relatively peaceful front the Free India Society...

Unless I missed it, this is the first time in the article that you use the phrase "umbrella organization" in reference to India House. So, when you say "which now included the Abhinav Bharat Society, etc.", the reader is left wondering, "What was it before this?" You need either to use that phrase earlier in the article (and say what it was, or included) or explain here what it included before additional groups were included. Otherwise, you need to remove the word "now".

Much as "the West" describes certain values, society, people, economies, etc. I hope the reworded lead, intro and the section in question itself clarifies your query. Please let me know.

8) The next sentence in that section is:


 * Unlike the latter, it became wholly self-reliant in finances, organisation, as well as ideological mores.

(a) It's not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. Does it refer to "the umbrella organization" or to "India House"? Likewise "it in the next sentence. '::As above.'

(b) Also, I can understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to finances and organization, but I find it more difficult to understand how an organization can become self-reliant with regard to "ideological mores".

Please let me know if this is clearer.

(c) Finally, it's not completely clear what you mean by "ideological mores". The word "mores" means customs, ways of doing things in society. It's not usually associated with political ideas.
 * As above.

9) Later in that same paragraph you have this sentence:


 * The Sunday night meetings were selected for lectures by Savarkar...

I don't understand this. I don't understand "The...meetings were selected for lectures". '::As above.'

10) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph in India House is the following:


 * The deliveries of weapons to India included, among others, a number of Browning pistols sent through Chaturbhuj Amin, Chanjeri Rao, and through V.V.S. Iyer when he returned to India.

The addition of "through" before "V.V.S. Iyer" makes the adverbial clause "when he returned to India" apply only to Iyer. Does that mean that the other two did not return to India? If so, then how could they have facilitated the transport of weapons to India? As you can see, this sentence needs some attention.

Please let me know if there is clarity.

11) The last paragraph in India House is:


 * By 1908, the India House group had overtaken the London Indian Society (LIS), established in 1865 by Dadabhoi Naoroji, until then the largest association of Indians in London. Subsequently, India House took over the control of LIS when, at the annual general meeting that year, members of India House packed the gathering and ousted the old guard of the society.

Although the two sentences are probably about two different things, the use of "had overtaken" in the first sentence and "took over" in the second might make the reader think that the two sentences are saying something similar but with different words. Also, "had overtaken" is not completely clear. Does it mean "had overtaken in numbers of members", or membership, or does it mean "took control of"? If it means the first one, then I would add some words to clarify it.

'::The sentence is now reworded.I hope there is clarity now.'

12) The first sentence of the second paragraph in India House is:


 * In the aftermath of the assassination, India House was rapidly shut down.

The last sentence of that paragraph is:


 * TheParis Indian Society gradually took India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism on the continent.

I don't see how the Paris Indian Society taking India House's place as the centre of Indian nationalism could have been gradual, given that India House was "rapidly shut down". You need either to delete "gradually" or give a brief explanation as to why it was gradual and not immediate.

I will try and clarify this in the next hour.

13) In the section India House, I see "V.V.S. Aiyer". Is this the same person whose name is spelled earlier in the article as "V.V.S. Iyer"? This needs to be resolved and all spellings of the name made consistent.

'::Sorted.' 14) Also in the section India House, we read:


 * C's reports noted that Savarkar's speeches grew increasingly strident and called for revolution, widespread violence, and murder of all Englishmen in India.

Earlier in the article you have the exact same words as the part after "noted that". Do you really want to say the same thing twice?

Now sorted.

15) The next two sentences are:


 * In the following weeks, Savarkar was barred from joining the bar due to his political activity. These events led to the assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie.

It is not clear to what the phrase "These events" refers to. Savarkar being barred from joining the bar is only one event. Also, would Savarkar's being banned from joining the bar lead to an assassination? Is there any connection between the two events?

I can't think of any clarification I can offer as both are mentoined in the preceding sentences. Perhaps you can offer a better structure?

16) The first few sentences in India House are:


 * The police brought strong pressure on India House and began gathering intelligence on Indian students in London. These, along with threats to their careers, robbed India House of its student support base. It slowly began to disassemble...

In the third sentence, it is not clear to what the pronoun "it" refers. What slowly began to dissassemble – India House or its student body?

Please let me know.

17) The last sentence in that section is:


 * India House gradually ceased to be an influence in Britain.

Again, I don't understand the use of the word "gradually" here. It seems to me that the change took place in a fairly short amount of time. If you agree, you might remove "gradually" and write, "In a fairly short amount of time, India House ceased to be an influence in Britain."

'::Done.'

18) In the section India House, we read:


 * Political discontent was at the time growing steadily among this group, especially those in touch with Indian professionals and those studying in depth the philosophies of European liberalism.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "in touch with Indian professionals". Were these Indian professionals in Britain or Indian professionals in India? Were these mainly Indian students who were "in touch with" Indian professionals? Why say "in touch with" if the professionals were in Britain? Were Indian professionals in Britain so distinct from the students? Did the professionals have such a great influence over the students? I don't know, it's just a little hazy to me.


 * Done.

19) In the first paragraph of India House, you start off with several sentences that seem like statements of fact. You don't say who said, or believed, them. Then you have a sentence that starts, "Others, however, disagreed with these views." When I read that, I had to go back to see what "these views" were. I thought "What views?" I think you ought to start off by saying that some people (who?) thought India House had a lot of influence (instead of simply presenting them as facts -- the first three or four sentences). Then the contrast introduced with "Others, however, disagreed" would make sense.

'::I'll take two hours to clarify as this will introduce some new material to the article that I had deliberately ommitted to keep it within size.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)'

 Did you see these comments? Corinne (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC) rueben_lys As I said above, you don't have to put your replies in bold italics. You can use regular font. Just indent your reply one more space from the left using a colon. Also, you don't have to copy each comment of mine before you reply. You can either type your reply right after my comment, or use the numbers and reply to all of my comments at the end. I've just made a few more minor copy-edits to the lead, but I've got to ask you about something. The last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:


 * As key members of revolutionary conspiracies in India, they went on to be the founding fathers of Indian communism and Hindu nationalism.

20) There is a little ambiguity in the use of the pronoun "they". The reader might wonder whether "they" refers to all of the men named, including Savarkar, or just to the last group named after "others included". If "they" refers to all of the men, including Savarkar, I would change "they" to "all of these". Corinne (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

21) The second sentence in India House is:


 * The emerging economic and financial power of Indian proprietors brought them increasingly into conflict with the British Raj.

I wonder whether instead of "proprietors" you would consider either "merchants" or "business owners". Corinne (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

22) The fourth sentence in India House starts:


 * They also established an "Indian committee" in the British Parliament to influence policy directly...

It's not clear who "they" is. Does "they" refer to "the socialist" mentioned in the previous sentence or to the members of "the British arm of the Congress"? I recommend not using the pronoun ("they") and instead using a word or phrase that says clearly who you mean. Corinne (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break - Additional comments following GOCE copy-edit
23) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House are the following sentences:


 * The IHRS was available "to Indians only", and it garnered significant support from Indians – especially students – living in Britain. Funds received by Indian students as scholarships and bursaries from universities helped the organisation.

(a) Regarding the first sentence, it is not clear in what sense "the IHRS was available 'to Indians only'". Perhaps this should say, "Membership in the IHRS was open to Indians only." Corinne (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(b) Regarding the second sentence, you say "Funds...helped the organisation".

Can you say how? Did students donate part of their scholarship money to the IHRS? Corinne (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(I made some changes to my comment because I realized I had mixed up IHRS and India House.) Corinne (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

24) I have some questions about the last section of the article, India House:

(a) In the second sentence, you mention "Gandhian devotionalism". I did a search of the term "devotionalism"; it led only to a list of articles, and I wasn't sure if any of them were appropriate for a link. I looked at the Mahatma Gandhi article itself, and only found one reference to his idea of devotion, Satyagraha. I looked at that article, and it seemed to be appropriate. I wonder if you would like to link "devotionalism" to the article Satyagraha.

(b) You'll see that I added a little to the sentence that starts "Further" to make it clearer. (You can change "theories" to "ideas" or "concepts" if that's better.) However, I notice that in those last sentences of the paragraph, you mention Spencer three times: "Spencerian theories", "Spencerian doctrines" and "Spencerian ideas". I wonder if you could consolidate some of the material to reduce the mention of Spencer by at least one (if not by two). Also, you mention the influence Spencer's ideas had on his own ideas several times. I wonder if you could consolidate those, or at least not mention the influence as much. If you need help doing this, let me know, and I'll work on it. Corinne (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Corinne. Allow me to start by saying thanks for the massive work you just undertook (and completed in such a short space of time). Your help is much appreciated. On the issues you raise.

23) How did the funds available to students help the organisation? This is not clarified, but I imagine student's donated a part of their funds to IHRS. I'm afraid this is not spelt out in as many words in any of the literature, but this is the general indication from the literature that is available.

24 a)You are correct, and this is now linked. 24 b) I see your point, and the paragraph has been reworded. Let me know if the structure is good.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Potential image of Safranski's bomb
This is a request for comment more than anything else. There are low resolution annotated images of the drawings and constructions of the much talked about Picric acid bomb that Safranski taught Kanungo, chiefly from website linked to Aurobindo. These are annotated images with Bengali markings. Given the current world situation and thoughts, would such an image added to this article be deemed inappropriate or in poor taste? My oersinal thoughts were low resolution truncated images should be acceptable for encyclopaedic value. Comments please.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)