Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abdul Karim (the Munshi)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011.

Abdul Karim (the Munshi)

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) and DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He was an Indian Muslim who became a secretary to Queen Victoria, and influenced her views on India. Described variously as "really exemplary and excellent", "thoroughly stupid and uneducated", and "a sort of pet, like a dog or cat". DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Should mention the original source given in the PBS link
 * Ref 60: check punctuation
 * Ref 64: does the source specify the date of this account?
 * Refs 93 and 94 are identical, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Changes made . DrKiernan (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Comments Support: An interesting article which is well written and engaging. Just a couple of prose queries and things I didn't quite understand. If any of the questions are impossible to answer, that is not a problem and wouldn't prevent my support. And forgive my ignorance as I am not too familiar with this area of history!
 * What is "a vernacular clerk" and how does one differ from an ordinary clerk?
 * I will defer on this to my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Vernacular is an adjective referring to native or indigenous language. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was meaning more along the lines of why not just "clerk"? Was a vernacular clerk a special position (i.e. did most clerks speak/write English?). --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "His father arranged a marriage between Karim and the sister of a fellow worker.": A fellow worker of Karim or his father?
 * They were coworkers at the jail; it's the same either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "At the Queen's request, Tyler suggested Karim." Slightly fuzzy: did the Queen ask Tyler to recommend Karim or did she request a suggestion of who might be suitable?
 * The latter. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "...was beginning to engender jealousy and discontent among other members of the Royal Household...": A little grand? What about "began to create jealousy..."?
 * "...which was composed of individuals who would normally never mingle socially with Indians below the rank of prince." A little clumsy; could it be simplified?
 * "Karim, for his part, expected them to treat him as a member..." What about "expected to be treated"?
 * "approached the Queen's private secretary Sir Henry Ponsonby in outrage at seeing the Munshi standing among the gentry." "at seeing"? What about "when he saw" or "upon seeing". And do we need "standing"?
 * "considerable and meritorious military service": Does it need both adjectives? It sounds a little like a quote.
 * I don't have Basu, but Anand quotes the same letter, and the phrase the Viceroy uses is "very long and meritorious service". I will simplify to "long and good service".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've shifted "good" back to meritorious, because there are separate awards for long and good service; whereas a land grant is an exceptional award for doing something beyond long service and good conduct. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Through July to October..." Maybe "Between July and October"?
 * "...there was little land in government control in the vicinity of Agra...": What about "there was little government-controlled land in the vicinity of Agra"?
 * Is the Landsdown quote about land to show that he disapproved of the grant? It seems a little shoe-horned in at the moment.
 * He disapproved of it very much. He's saying a great hero of the Mutiny only got half what the Munshi's getting, and the old soldier only gets the income for life.  The Munshi is getting a perpetual income or possibly ownership, it isn't clear.    Lansdowne is saying "What has he done by comparison to deserve this?"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lansdowne met both the Munshi and his father privately..." The Munshi's father?
 * Why did Karim's father want so many poisons?
 * I leave this for my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He did not say, or it is not recorded. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "As a fellow woman..." Seems an odd phrase, a fellow woman?
 * "Beginning in 1892, the Munshi's name appeared in the Court Circular..." Does this mean he appeared in every year from 1892?
 * In years he accompanied the Queen, yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "By March 1897, Reid was treating Karim for gonorrhea." This seems to be a little random. Is there a connection with the following sentence? If not, a little context may make it a little less abrupt!
 * My colleague has the source that discusses this incident in greater detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hibbert slips it in as a clause "now suffering from gonorrhea" in the midst of the Cimiez incident, but without directly linking them. Basu directly links the two saying "The news just broken by Reid had provoked this collective display ... The doctor revealed that he had been treating the Munshi for gleet and a relapse of venereal disease." I would prefer to leave it to the reader to make a connection, but the alternative would be to add a sentence after ".. gonorrhea." Something along the lines of "According to biographer Shrabani Basu, the Munshi's infection brought the Household's simmering discontent to a head."? DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would be inclined to spell it out. At the moment, rather than hinting at a suggestion, it seems disconnected (to me, anyway). If a biographer has made the connection, I would use it and go for that sentence. However, I'm happy to leave the call to you on this one as I don't think it's that big an issue and I understand your reasoning. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the "long letter" that Victoria enclosed?
 * My sources don't say what it was. It probably doesn't exist anymore, thanks to King Edward.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Victoria said to burn it after reading. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Privy Purse Sir Fleetwood Edwards and Prime Minister Lord Salisbury advised against it." Advised against the MVO or the knighthood?
 * I leave this for my colleague.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The MVO. DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Victoria was visibly older..." Odd phrasing; obviously she would be older. As the point is that she looked much older, how about she had "visibly aged" or "noticeably older".
 * Why was the destruction/return of the letters so important?
 * It doesn't say. I think the King feared either publication or blackmail.  He had long experience being on the receiving end of both.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Victoria emerges from this quite well, given the obvious racism displayed by others and her attitude seems unusual for the time. Are there other examples of such an attitude from Victoria and has it drawn comment from contemporaries or historians? Or did she just really like the Munshi? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Victoria had many faults, but she could not abide racism or prejudice of any kind. There are other incidents.  Her support for Peel in the Maynooth Grant controversy, and even her very pointed visit to Maynooth when she went to Ireland.  My colleague has the scholarly bios of Victoria, or at least had them recently, but the smaller-scale books, like the one I used for one or two refs regarding her holidays on the Riviera comment on her dislike of prejudice.  I will work my way through these.  As I have only some of the refs and Dr Kiernan has the others, I'll do the best I can with these and leave him a minimum of cleanup to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done my bit now. Thank you for the thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Combined changes . DrKiernan (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, switching to support. Great stuff! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. I quite like this article and feel sure I'll be able to support its promotion, but the writing seems a bit slack in a few places. Some examples: Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "In December, Victoria practised what she had learnt during an audience given to the Maharani Chimnabai of Baroda." The punctuation (or lack of it) makes it seem as if she learnt the Urdu during the audience, and practised it elsewhere.
 * "... and on 20 August she 'had some excellent curry made by one of my Indian servants. That just doesn't work.
 * "As a result, Victoria wrote to the Viceroy of India, Lord Lansdowne, throughout the first six months of 1889 demanding action on Waziruddin's pension and Tyler's promotion." There's something wrong with the punctuation there, from "throughout the first six months" onwards.
 * "In May 1892, the Munshi returned to India for six months' leave". He didn't return to India for his leave, he returned during his leave.
 * "By 1893, Victoria was sending notes to Karim signed in Urdu. Victoria often signed her letters to Karim as "your affectionate mother ...". How could she sign in Urdu? "Your affectionate mother" isn't a signature in any event.
 * I've amended the example clunky bits. "signed in Urdu" means she wrote out her name in the Urdu script rather than in the Latin alphabet. You can see some of her writing in Urdu here or here. DrKiernan (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still havering, Can you persuade me that in this: "Karim assisted Tyler in organising the trip, and helped to select the carpets and weavers. When Queen Victoria visited the exhibition, Tyler presented her with two gold bracelets as gifts. The Queen had a longstanding interest in her Indian territories and wished to employ some Indian servants for her Golden Jubilee", the presentation of the gold bracelets is in any way relevant to Karim's story? "For her Golden Jubilee" sits uneasily as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to address these concerns by linking Karim to the bracelets and explaining that the Indians were only engaged for the time of the Jubilee initially . DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. Having read through the article a few times now I feel happy in supporting its promotion, regardless of the answer to my question above and my unease at the (to me) strange capitalisation in sentences such as this one: "Following the Queen's death in 1901 the new King, Edward VII, returned Karim to India". It seems very plain to me that "king" in that context is not a proper noun, and neither is "queen", and I'm equally uneasy about the similar use of "Household" throughout the article, but I maybe I'm just being an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy. It's a worthy article nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps we can escape the capitalization issue by re-phrasing to "Following Victoria's death in 1901 her successor, Edward VII of the United Kingdom|Edward VII"? DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would do for me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Images - I believe the licensing tag on File:Queen_Victoria_and_Abdul_Karim.jpg is incorrect. If the author is unknown, his or her date of death is unknown, and given the timeframe we can't automatically assume it was more than 70 years ago (although it likely was). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with you. I'll look into it a bit more.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The image was taken in the Garden Cottage at Balmoral in October 1895. According to Anand, it is from the Royal Archives and the present Queen claims it as copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a number of similar images, but who took them is uncertain.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find a photographer. That does not mean it is unknown however.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag is incorrect, as the photographer is known: it was Robert Milne of Ballater. I'm trying to find his death date. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this, he was still alive in 1946. I think we have a problem, damn it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've used Template:PD-US-1923-abroad instead. DrKiernan (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC) A pleasure to read, discussing a piece of British history about which I was previously entirely uneducated. A couple of minor comments above, but nothing that impedes my support of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Travels and Diamond Jubilee - "that whenever he was called to examine the Munshi's wife, a different tongue was presented for his inspection" As in when she opened her mouth for him to inspect the interior? And why would they have switched women every time?
 * Same section - "Nothing was ever proved". Proven?
 * Thanks for the support and praise. There is no reason.  It shows the bigotry of Reid, even though he was not the worst by any means.  Even if the Munshi had the clap, that was far from unusual in India, or even among British soldiers stationed there, or for that matter at Aldershot.  I think either proved or proven would be acceptable and will wait for my colleague's view on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I thought Reid was examining her to see why she wasn't able to conceive? What does this have to do with tongues (I'm assuming this means the actual tongue, not some Victorian word for another body part that I'm not understanding) and gonorrhea? Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that in Victorian times women were examined by doctors only through clothes, and I remember reading that Reid never saw Victoria naked while she was alive (he did momentarily while laying out her body for burial). As these women were veiled, the only part of the body that Reid could see was the tongue.  Well, the hands as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it clearer as "Dr Reid never saw Mrs Karim unveiled, though he claimed that whenever he was called to superficially examine her, a different tongue was protruded for his inspection."? DrKiernan (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another option is to shift that sentence into the "Land grant and family matters" section, so that it becomes unlinked to the bit about conception difficulties. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the examinations weren't related the conception difficulties? The way it is currently written, I thought I understood that he was trying to fix this problem. It would probably be best to either shift this sentence or make it clear that the infertility and the examinations were not related. I also like the proposed rewording. Dana boomer (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed proved to proven, but I have no strong opinion either way. Thanks for the support. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For the convenience of the reviewing delegate, current status is three supports, no opposes. image check done, source check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments: We didn't learn this stuff in history at school! Well, well. I have a few comments for consideration:-
 * In the lead:
 * "Karim was one of two Indians selected to be sent to Britain to become the Queen's servants" reads as though she only employed two servants. Perhaps "...to become servants to the Queen".
 * "...which caused angry arguments between her and her attendants". This doesn't seem plausible – the Queen having "angry arguments" with her attendants? It was a deferential age, much more so than now, the image of Victoria having a heated argy-bargy with her flunkeys just doesn't ring true. Maybe there was anger and dissention, but it would surely have been suppressed on their part.
 * So sayeth the contemporary primary source. Clearly, much of the conflict was not known at the time outside Court circles.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Early life: some dates (or at least years) would be helpful in the first paragraph
 * Added two. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Royal servant: "After he complained that he had been a clerk in India..." Can you clarify to whom he complained?
 * Household hostility: "She expressed reservations on the introduction of elected councils on the basis that Muslims would not win many seats because they were in the minority, and urged that Hindu feasts be re-scheduled so as not to conflict with Muslim ones." The context of this sentence would be clearer if we had previously been informed that Karim was a Muslim.
 * Land grant and family matters:
 * "On 30 October, the Munshi left Balmoral for four months' leave in India, travelling on the same ship as Lady Lansdowne, and Lord Lansdowne telegraphed the Queen to let her know that a grant of land in the suburbs of Agra had been arranged". Did both of these separate events take place on 30 October? Even if they did, this is surely not a case for an "and" conjunction - the statements are too disparate.
 * Yes, both events were on the same day. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lady Lansdowne met his wife and mother-in-law..." First mention of a wife? When did he marry?
 * It is mentioned in the final sentence, first paragraph, Early Life section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Travels and Diamond Jubilee:
 * "Victoria had arranged for a female doctor to examine the Munshi's wife in December 1893, as they had been trying to conceive without success." - "they" is awkward here.
 * Ponsonby wrote, "[the Munshi] happens to be a thoroughly stupid and uneducated man..." Where, or to whom, did Ponsomby write this?
 * The offhand and unelaborated reference to Karim's gonorrhea is a little strange.

I look forward to supporting when these have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of the female doctor, the complaints, the early reference for Muslim, and the Indian servants in addition to my above comments. The others I'm going to have to leave to Dr Kiernan and they implicate Basu which he has and I don't.  Possibly the Ponsonby quote is in Anand, I will dig for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, found it. It is on pages 76 and 77 of Anand, in a 27 April 1897 letter from Fritz Ponsonby (at Cimiez) to Sir Henry Babbington-Smith, the Viceroy's Private Secretary.  "We have been having a good deal of trouble lately about the Munshi here, and although we have tried our best we cannot get the Queen to realise how very dangerous it is for her to allow this man to see every confidential paper relating to India, in fact to all State affairs.  The Queen insists on bringing the Munshi forward, and if it were not for our protest, I don't know where she would stop.  Fortunately he seems to be a thoroughly stupid and uneducated man, and his one idea in life seems to be to do nothing and to eat as much as he can."  It then goes on to discuss Rafiuddin Ahmed, and asks Babbington-Smith for clippings from "Hindoo" papers that might be helpful in making the arguments to the Queen.  I added "in late April"--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the gonorrhea, I think Wehwalt has a more skeptical opinion of this than I do, and would like to see it moved to a footnote. Whereas I would prefer to see it integrated somewhere in the text. How about moving "who was treating Karim for gonorrhea" to the sentence two paragraphs down "Reid appears to have joined with the other Household members..."? DrKiernan (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that we note that the information, such as it is, comes from Reid. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who else is a diagnosis going to come from if not from a doctor? Three of the biographies mention it without qualification, or much expansion, in two cases as an aside and in one case as an integral driver of the story. In adding it the three ways I have done, and the five I've suggested, I'm simply following the sources. I'm not in favor of cutting it, but I'm prepared to consider alternate drafts. DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an "according to Reid" is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A few of my points still outstanding:-
 * Can you indicate where it is specifically stated that Karim was a Muslim? This should be explicit rather than implied.
 * On the two separate events of 30 October, as I say above, "... this is surely not a case for an "and" conjunction - the statements are too disparate."
 * My query about Ponsomby was not about the sourcing, or what he wrote, but whether this was a letter, journal, report, memoirs etc?


 * Re the gonorrhea, it remains perplexing that we are told in a casual aside that the subject of the article had this infection. If there is only Reid's account to go on, the statement definitely needs qualifying. Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment by Ponsonby was a letter to Babbington-Smith, written at Cimiez. I'm uncertain what I may have omitted in setting it forth just above.
 * OK, it's in the ref - I was looking for it in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have called Karim a Muslim and reffed it appropriately.
 * As Dr Kiernan alluded to, I am troubled as well about the single reference to Karim's clap. We discussed this before FAC and looked for additional info, which was not forthcoming.  We have Reid's word for it.  Even though VIctoria was not quite as straight-laced as people seem to think, on one of these vacations, she refused to receive the woman who was lending her the house where she was staying, because that woman had divorced and remarried.  I know she was loyal to Karim, but there are limits.  I suggest we either inline cite to Reid or else relegate it to a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added "Letter from" to the footnote. DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: I am happy with these responses. Thanks for your patience. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.