Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/India House/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:33, 27 August 2008.

India House

 * ''Nominator(s): User:Rueben_lys
 * previous FAC (19:19, 25 July 2008)

This is the second nomination, after a failed nom last month when it failed due to prose, spelling etc issues. The article has since under gone a major copyedit, and some additional image etc have been added. I feel this is ready for a renomination. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Interesting. I reviewed the article. In fairness, I agree, the article's not too long over all. However, I had to wade through all of this (below) which includes just one tangential mention of India House, before the article turns its attention to the actual topic: "Background Nationalism in India The growth of the Indian middle class during the 18th century, amidst competition among regional powers and the ascendancy of the British East India Company, led to a growing sense of 'Indian' identity.[10] The refinement of this perspective fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s.[11] Its speed was abetted by the creation of the Indian National Congress in India in 1885 by A.O. Hume. The Congress developed into a major platform for the demands of political liberalisation, increased autonomy and social reform.[12] The nationalist movement became particularly strong, radical and violent in Bengal and Punjab, though notable, if smaller, movements also appeared in Maharashtra, Madras and other areas in the South.[12] Within this growing unrest, the controversial 1905 partition of Bengal had a widespread political impact: it stimulated radical nationalist sentiments and became a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[13] Indian nationalism in Britain From its earliest days, the Congress sought to inform public opinion in Britain, seeking its support for Indian political autonomy.[12][14] The British Committee of Congress published a periodical titled India, which provided a platform for moderate (or loyalist) opinion and demands, while informing the British public about the Indian situation.[15] The British arm of the Congress also established an Indian parliamentary committee in the British Parliament with a view to influencing policy directly.[16][17] However, the British organisation was largely unsuccessful, prompting socialists including Henry Hyndman to advocate more radical approaches.[16] The committee also drew criticisms for its cautious approach, most prominently from Indian students in Britain.[14] After the decline of the Congress and during the political upheaval caused by the partition of Bengal, a nationalist Indian lawyer named Shyamji Krishna Varma founded India House in London.[18] Krishna Varma was an admirer of Dayanand Saraswati's approach of Cultural nationalism and held respect for Herbert Spencer, believing in the latter's dictum that 'Resistance to aggression is not simply justified, but imperative'.[19] A graduate of Balliol College, Krishna Varma returned to India in the 1880s and served as administrator (Divan) of a number of Princely states, including Ratlam and Junagadh. He preferred this position to working under what he considered service to the alien rule of Britain.[19] However, a supposed conspiracy of local British officials at Junagadh, compounded by differences between Crown authority and British Political Residents regarding the states, led to Krishna Varma's dismissal.[20] He returned to England, where he found freedom of expression more favourable. His views were staunchly anti-colonial, even supporting the Boers during the Second Boer War in 1899.[19]" That's excessive, and not a good use of summary style. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Article strikes me as very long... This isn't necessarily a dreadful problem, except it expends an awful lot of words lingering over the background. Get to the point - this is not an article about the wider Indian nationalist story. Cut away a good chunk of this material. --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is 36 kb (readable prose size), which I cant at all see as being long. It's in fact on the lower end of the recommended size. The background section has undergone significant changes and reassessment through the previous FAC to include the important historical context, especially where new readers are concerned. The version now on gives adequate background without overindulging in detailed history. Some editors have in the past commented that it provides the right balance, and I myself will be very loath to alter it as it stands now. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, it only raises the three points of a. the congress being founded, b. the movement extended to britain, and c. Shyamji Krishna Varma (the founder of the organisation) had an outlook on which his activities were built. I dont think it dwells at any length on Indian nationalist story at all, and in fact provides very neccessary background to the article. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See the three points mentioned above. What you have is three paras that puts the rest of the article in context rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC).
 * We don't need the History of the rise of nationalism and the birth Congress in this article; the article merely needs to note its existence and make sure a reader knows what it is. A lot of this information should not be in a FA, but signposted from it. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is three lines a history? You have to remember that what it says is not an outside bit, but a whole part of the story, ie, that the rising middle class nationalism (these are still the young days) provided India House it recruits; Congress's foundation allowed the loyalist factions a voice, but the Congress Committee's lack of success added to the 1905 partition of Bengal fed discontent among a large part of the population; Shyamji Krishna Varma had an idea in his head, and he founded IHRS in response to the congress. Without mentioning where the congress was seen inadequate, what the problems in India were when the organisation IHRS was founded, and what the ideas of the founder was, it is not just inadequate, it is pointless. You also have to remember that most people have a extremely simple and wrong idea that there was only the Congress and nothing else, and that too was not there 1920s or something when Gandhi arrived. Of note, the background is similar to the opening sections in other FAs like Conatus, Oxidative phosphorylation, Macintosh Classic, and especially history FAs like 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt, Puerto Ricans in World War II,Political integration of India etc. The section itself is 2.7kb, which in 36 kb article seems appropriate. Besides, as I have pointed out, the background section was constructed through consensus through and after the previous FAC, to provide the right info and balanace without making ruckus of unneccessary info. The consensus so far upto the last edit before this nomination has been that the background section is just right. I am sorry but this is getting drawn out. I think reducing the background section will make the article not only context-less, but below par, alter meanings, and give out wrong factually incorrect ideas and possibly facts. You may request for comments in the article's discussion if you wish. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, this isn't drawn out... check out Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman and click all five "show" buttons, if you want to see drawn out!!! :-)


 * Let's take this slowly... FAC has exacting standards and often demands of the article writers that they make changes they disagree with. I'm happy to wait and see if other FAC reviewers disagree with me - I've been wrong before.


 * If you find a few voices telling you to change it, you'll struggle to pass FAC without doing so. So let me know at my talk page if there's a consensus either way and I'll come back and finish reviewing the article, because for me this is a real barrier to supporting, but I'm happy not to oppose while it might just be me arguing on my own for something everyone else disagrees over. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the background as it stands—one short paragraph on nationalism in India, and another on Indian nationalism in Britain—is ideal. However, you may want to make the summary of background on Shyamji Krishna Varma (i.e. the third Background paragraph) its own section. This will further make clear that the article is heading in a very definite direction, I think. You might even consider moving this newly-made section to the start of the India House section, cutting the stubby Congress stuff that is now there (that belongs in the second paragraph of Background if anywhere, perhaps merge by mentioning chandra pal along with hyndman and the students?). Though it is background, the Varma stuff is also part of the start of the India Story proper, so this move would have its own logic, and might improve pacing. Have a look at both these options in preview and see what you think. 86.44.17.5 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, image attribution in article space is strongly discouraged. The feeling is that attribution on the image page suffices. 86.44.17.5 (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with bith the above editors. Specifically to Dewellers, I agree with your point of other editors asking for a change, which is why I am saying ask for an RfC if you feel it is particularly unsuitable, no offence ment here, and I welcome the feedback. With regards to 86.44.17.5's comments, I'll try the changes you mentioned. In the meantime, I am slightly confused about the image attributions point you raised. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Background section and the intro India House section has now been modified. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On the image point, I'm referring to putting "courtesty of" in the captions, which is discouraged in our manual of style, specifically Caption. Separate query: would the Dispatch publication mentioned in the article be the Sunday Dispatch? 86.44.17.5 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, yes, this has now been put to dab. Also, images sorted. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the Background section, I'm going to work on this in a sandbox, here. Take a peek if you like. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, without even trying (and deleting almost nothing from the second half of it) I've reduced the Background section by about a third. Please review my sandbox effort. I'm sure that something similar can be done to this article that would make it more properly focused on the subject matter, as fitting an FA. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the Background section, I'm going to work on this in a sandbox, here. Take a peek if you like. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, without even trying (and deleting almost nothing from the second half of it) I've reduced the Background section by about a third. Please review my sandbox effort. I'm sure that something similar can be done to this article that would make it more properly focused on the subject matter, as fitting an FA. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but the problems are
 * it does not make the distinction that Congress was moderate, and that revolutionary movement was seprate, and especially, not moderate like the congress.
 * Secondly, it doesn't say much (if anything) about the Indian identitiy issue, which was very very influential (you will see that Savarkar later used "Indian" appeal, as opposed to SKV's European philosophies).
 * It doesn't note the particular prominence of Bengal, Punjab and Maharshtra. This is important since the revolutionary movement at this time was more or less confined to these places, and most recruits at any time were from these provinces. This background influenced the later activities in the movement, and essentially provided many of the philosophies that shaped it.(Savarkar was Maharshtrian, Chattopadhyaya Bengalee, Har Dayal Punjabi). There is a note later in the article which emphasises further that most recruits to India House were also from these provinces. This is important since the revolutionary movement at this time was more or less confined to these places, and most recruits at any time were from these provinces. This background influenced the later activities in the movement, and essentially provided many of the philosophies that shaped it. Take them away, and there's not really anything till 1920s when Gandhi appears to the scene. Very importantly, the Sedition Committee report i 1919 on the Revolutionary movement in India notes these when reporting on India House (in a three page section devoted to India House)
 * Also, the 1905 parition of Bengal's impact appears a bit muted, it needs to be emphasised a bit more. Otherwise I think it looks great. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I know nothing at all about this topic, so I'm bound to have screwed it up. I was just giving a for-instance. Feel free to use or reject any of my suggestions, but I hope you can now agree that the Background section can be much reduced, enabling the reader to get to the point faster, with no disastrous loss of knowledge. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is exactly what I am trying to explain, the reduction you showed has taken away very important bits to the background of how, why and what philosophies guided India house, and also gives a wrong impression of the Indian movement. It does nothing to suggest to the reader that there were very strong "other" forces and influences in addition to the Congress, which ultimately will leave the uninformed with rather skewed picture. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, fix it as you wish. Just beware that your concern is that the reader will not understand India House, the topic of the article, rather than Indian Nationalism, which is not the topic of the article. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if it might be more appropriate to take off this nomination and call for an RfC for this section. If you, in the reader's shoes (and not an editor's shoes), feel that it is drawn out, surely other readers may see it drawn out as well. What do you think? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Others may disagree with me, but this is a good place for it. If the article wasn't up for FA, I wouldn't care a jot about the Background section. The discussion only makes sense here, in the context of an FAC. This FA is still very very new - if you resolutely disagree with me, give it some time and wait to see if other reviewers come in and have an opinion. I'll drop a line to one or two battle-hardened FA copy experts and ask their opinions. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont "resolutely disagree" to altering the background (haha) as long as it preserves the essential points. What I did think was that the background, after having gone through an FAC and two langlit and prose c/e, was appropriate. But I dont think I am right always, so as I said, other voices welcome. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Leave it here and wait for other views. I've dropped a line to two regulars. If they disagree with me, I'll hide this section and we'll move on. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look tomorrow (lame edit to serve as a watch post, could have just ticked the 'watch' tab above I guess..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I stumbled into this, but fools rush in... I read the background section carefully, and to me, the first part of the "Nationalism in India" and the whole of the "Indian nationalism in Britain" subsections are essential background for a non-specialist. However, I'd be inclined to lose the last two sentences of the "Nationalism in India" section, since what's happening elsewhere in India seems less relevant. If these sentences went, I'd also lose the two subheadings, and maybe split the long second paragraph into two. Hope this helps,ignore if nonsense jimfbleak (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very helpful from my perspective, thanks. An opinion that agrees and disagrees all in one could not possibly be 100% wrong, lol. Could be you're 100% right. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. A very important thing to note, the parition of Bengal was a watershed in the nationalist movement both within India and abroad, and Congress was seen incapable of resisting, hence Krishna Varma ultimately took he plunge. In my opinion, if anything, the last two lines needs to be made stronger, since (it appears the sentence does not emphasise) that event was one of the key events. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments I'll wade in and pop up notes here plus do straightforward/noncontroversial copyedits . I have little knowledge of the area but this may be a good thing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Founded under the patronage of Shyamji Krishna Varma as a student residence... - 'as' --> 'at'?
 * No, its as, ie, he founded a student residence and called it India house. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Images Six images claim fair use in this article (five in the intro collage). Though it would be lovely to have them—they give a feel for period, personalities, ethnicities—personally none of them significantly aid my understanding of India House. Claims that they may be covered by have varying degrees of likelihood of being true; all dates of publication are unconfirmed. This is a bit disappointing given that the question of images was raised in the previous FAC. If none of the copious amount of reference works cited have info on these images, then they didn't need them and nor do we. I would oppose on this basis.

A further image is used under. I'm no expert on thse matters, but I thought images needed to be PD both in the US and in their country of origin to be free here, though the very existence of the template seems to indicate I'm wrong.

Can the nom confirm for our peace of mind that the other images here were in effect made free by their authors, rather than simply allowed for use on Wikipedia without understanding of what that entailed? Some of the image page language about "permission" makes me a little uneasy. 86.44.27.232 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The image that are claimed free (Image:India House today.jpg and Image:Champakaraman Pillai.jpg I definitely have permission, from Londonremembers.com and Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan). Sorry, just relaised the template on C.R. Pillai claims expired copyright, I will change this in the next four hours. I've gotta rush. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On further thought, given the borderline fair use status, in combo with the "'feel for period, personalities, ethnicities'", and AGFing on the other images, i withdraw objections and support.
 * One query you might be able to help me with: why is our article on Shyamji Krishnavarma so titled, when both that article and this refer to him as Krishna Varma throughout? 86.44.27.122 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the supports. On 86.44.27.122's query, his full name's actually Shyamji Krishnavarma Bhansali as far as I can gather, but all the reliable sources I can gather refers to him either both as Shyamji Krishna Varma or Shyamji Krishnavarma. I guess it is because of the way Indian names can be written, ie, Krishnavarma is conjoined word of two seperate names, so my guess is that either is correct. The article itself uses Krishna Varma throughout (I believe). Additionally on the issue of images, I have tracked down the first publication year of Cama's photo with the flag, and this is 1907. Hence, this is copyright expired. On the fairuse images in the collage, this is what I have to say. The images of Iyer, Acharya, Savarkar, Bapat along with Dhingra (the latter in public domain) are of very prominent figures of the organisation who are famous for their revolutionary activities. Anant Kanhere's image in the collage signifies the links to the Indian revolutionary movement, C.R. Pillai's image indicates the links to Indian movement in continental Europe as well as the links to the later WWI conspiracy. Maud Gon signifies the links to Irish nationalist/republican movement(among the Irish, Egyptian and Turkish nationalism mentioned), more importantly because she coordinated the attempt to storm Savarkar's van, it showing how deeprooted the collaboration was. Lastly, the TIS image is in public domain but further signifies the message, aims, and activities of India House, its headlines are self-explanatory. Placing this in the middle of the images (low resolution, mind you) of the India House members, I thought, incorporates and indicates the scope and works of India House, and aids understanding the article.I hope the much abused Fairuse rationale template is justified here :) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I massaged he prose a little, and it could probably be massaged a little more, but it has a nice flow (better in the lower half of the article than the beginningm which is unusual). For me who knows nothing about the circumstances of the politics etc of the time, the background as is is good. Whether it is slightly more or less is not a deal-breaker for me but what is there is good. A fascinating red, comprehensive and great tale. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Much improved. As Casliber said; "A fascinating re(a)d, comprehensive and great tale." --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Definite oppose. Now this is an engaging, exciting read, and frankly a matter of great importance in understanding the political undercurrents leading to the modern Indian state. But after the first few sentences, the prose needs major surgery at every turn. Here are my comments on reading the first few paragraphs of the article. As well, if there were calls for the background to be trimmed, I'm afraid to say that I find the opposite, that it needs a little fleshing out so that non-experts can see the big picture properly. Not much more—perhaps five or six lines to forestall the need to ask basic, dumb questions about the whole thing. Assume ignorance like mine on the larger context.
 * "noted" twice in two sentences in the lead. What does it add? Is it verifiable? Who's noting what? "Prominent" might be OK.
 * This sentence is a bombsite: "The organization was subsequently investigated by Scotland Yard and became the target of the Indian Political Intelligence Office's work against Indian revolutionaries; the Metropolitan Police's crackdown on India House's activities caused in a number of its supporters, including Shyamji Krishna Varma and Bhikaji Cama, to leave for Continental Europe where they continued their activities." "the Indian Political Intelligence Office's work against"—The apostrophe is impossibly clunky, as is "Police's". "India House's activities" could be better as just "India House". "Work" is vague; was it a campaign? If so, "the campaign by the Indian Political Intelligence Office". And was it the only target? If not, make it "a" target, or "a key" target. Remove "in", ouch. Comma after "Europe".
 * "competition among regional powers"—"between" is better.
 * Your average reader might be forgiven for wondering why "the growth of the Indian middle class during the 18th century" should logically have led to "a growing sense of Indian identity". The sole reference, to [10] (Mitra, Subrata K (2006), The Puzzle of India's Governance: Culture, Context and Comparative Theory", suggests that it's part of a puzzle that you can't just put to the reader without a little explanation. And what has "competition among regional powers and the ascendancy of the British East India Company" got to do with this? I'm lost. Then, I suppose it's the "growing sense of Indian identity" that is the referent for "this perspective, here: "The refinement of this perspective fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s.[11]" Is "refinement" the best word? Refinement is what we do to prose that's a good deal better than this already. Perhaps "evolution", but it's still a bit vague.
 * "Its speed was abetted by the creation of the Indian National Congress in India in 1885 by political reformer A.O. Hume." "Abetted" is an unusual, even outmoded word. "Reinforced"? " fed a rising tide of nationalism in India in the last decades of the 1800s,[11] which was reinforced by the ..." or ", which accelerated after the creation of". Can we have all name initials unspaced, please? It's inconsistent, so you'll need to pipe some links.
 * "Notable"—there's that word again. Who's doing the noting? Remove "particularly"—it's unnecessary given the strength of the surrounding epithets. Remove "also"
 * "Within this growing unrest, the controversial 1905 partition of Bengal had a widespread political impact as it stimulated radical nationalist sentiments and became a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[13]" Try this: "the controversial 1905 partition of Bengal had widespread political impact on this growing unrest, stimulating radical nationalist sentiments and becoming a driving force for Indian revolutionaries.[13]"

There's evidence of dangerous reliance on the dictionary and the thesaurus. And perhaps there's been a tendency to draw on small packages of summary information from the sources in ways that haven't led to its smooth integration into the narrative—at least in the lead and the Background. Someone needs to go through it very carefully to identify the many phrases and clauses that are vague and/or ambiguous. On one level, it's well-written, and this is a good foundation for making this a simply superb FA and a valuable contribution to the world's understanding of an important part of 20th-century history. Please buzz me when considerable progress has been made. Do you know where to find the right people to copy-edit it? Tony  (talk)  12:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Till somebody decides how much background satisfies their apetite, I am not going to incorporate any more changes. As for the prose and other concerns you raise, I am afraid I am not even going to try and placade you because in the last FAC you raised the issue of too many references, too much info, etc, etc, and now its going the opposite direction. And pardon me but some of your concerns appear to me to be more self-explanatory. Eg, your last but one point- "notable-there's that word again. Who's doing the noting? Remove "particularly"—it's unnecessary given the strength of the surrounding epithets. Remove "also"." Noted by the people of the time, and noted as noted by the people of the time by the historians and authors who write on the movement who I have provided as references. And, really, "also" is a real word in English which deserves and/or requires use sometimes. The article has undergone four major langlit and prose c/e now by different editors, and I myself am not going to nominate it for anymore to anybody else. There are two or three minor prose problems that I intend to sort out. But otherwise, Tony, I am afraid I dont see any issues that you have raised that were really as drastic as you suggest, neither were these noted by other editors, nor do I think it would help if I even tried to address your concerns. I will however, give you massive thanks for the sentence on the Bengal partition, which I will add now to the article. No hard feelings. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I made all name initials unspaced. 'Twas only a few early names that were not already so. 86.44.28.251 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." Tony  (talk)  08:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we can sit around and do nothing, staring each other down, or you can take steps to improve the article. I'm not copy-editing it myself—it's your article. It can't possibly be promoted in its current state. Please read the instructions carefully, particularly this statement:

First of all, its not "my" article, its a wikipedia article where I've been a significant contributor. I have pointed out with some examples why I thought I didn't find anything to construct with the criticisms you provided. I didnt mean to be rude, if that's what you thought. As for taking steps to improve it, Tony, the article has seen four major c/es, two with help from the LOCE. I would have thought that after such extensive surgery, prose and c/e stuff should be ironed out. If there's anything you find unsatisfactory at a critical scale that you outline, I am afraid, I will have to disagree with you. Ofcourse, you could take the wiki spirit further and edit yourself since, I have noticed your contributions to some of the article, and in fact I do thin k very highly of them. But I think you're searching for a particular "perfect prose", and I think that needs to come from yourself. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As one of the copyeditors on this article, I agree with Tony that the prose still has problems – some of them are things I just didn't catch, some are things I don't look closely for when doing a copyedit, some are things that were apparently changed after my CE. I'm willing to give the article another pass, but I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. In the meantime, I'll see if I can recruit anyone to have a look. Scartol •  Tok  23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments by Moni3
 * I read the article twice, just to make sure I understood what was going on. It took me the second time to understand everything, I think. For me, that means the writing can be made clearer a bit.
 * Just in case the proverbial 12-year-old doing a report on Indian nationalism needs a reference, can you state for how many years India had been occupied by Britain at the beginning of the background? And what it was about British colonialism that so upset Indian nationalists? On the face, it would seem occupation alone would do it, but what were their major objections at the time?
 * I have to be honest and say that the large number of Indian names lost me a few times. There were some without blue links. Are they quite necessary for the article? Those with blue links, I feel, are written as if the reader knows who these folks are.
 * The definition of "sedition" varies from one country to the next, and differs in times of conflict. Seditious literature seems to be a theme of the article. Can you provide examples of what was considered seditious to British authorities at the time?
 * How did British and Indian popular opinion (beyond the authorities) view the activities of India House before and after the assassination? This might be my populist-leaning American approach, but if popular opinion was sympathetic or angry at the organization, that would lead to how difficult their road would be to survival.
 * An interesting article that will be quite comprehensive with just a few changes. --Moni3 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks Moni3. Could you grant me say a coupla days, I'll have to go back to the sources (returned them to the library). Thanks though. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: the points I can address right now. There's two Indian names in the article Hem Chandra Das and S.L. Joshi, which are red links. Hem Chandra Das I intend to create an article very soon, Joshi I dont know anything about so cant do anything. The other name that is a red link is Nicholas Safranski, that's a Russian name, and a person I know very little about. The other names, I will provide some contexts to in the next 48 hours. "Seditious literature", frustratingly for myself, is a term that Valentine Chirol threw around in abundance in his book the "Indian unrest". Later authors simply use his version, mostly for literature even remotely nationalist, without going into details of contents. I will try to dig this up, but a forewarning that this might not yield very fruitful results.

There is a bit in the section "Indian nationalism" which talks about the opinions of Indians and British ordinary people, do you want more (happy to give more)? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful to start the Background section with two sentences or so that explain how long India had been occupied, and what economic role Britain played in the occupation. Some of the most basic American history lessons on American Independence start with British taxation and censorship.
 * On seditious literature: you don't happen to have access to any of the India House newspapers, do you? If so, are you able to say India House Resident A wrote an article that promoted Violent Act X (and perhaps a couple other examples)? Was it simply the topic of Indian nationalism that was seditious? Or were these what we would consider hard core equivalents to contemporary militia writings on how to overthrow the government? Oklahoma City bombing and all? Chirol is quoted, and that's good - what are his background and political leanings? Could you say "Journalist Valentine Chirol, a staunch defender of the British Empire, wrote in year 19xx ..." This goes back to the names - don't assume anyone reading this knows who any of these people are. Unfortunately for the anglo-centric, you might have to work extra hard on differentiating Indian names by using a descriptor in front of each one. I think one of the major criticisms of common readers to War and Peace is that they can't keep all the characters with their Russian names straight. So you and Tolstoy are in good company. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Background section'e been expanded a bit, tell me if this is satisfactory, or more would be appropriate. As for the newspaper, there's a section on TIS, which describes in brief what the message was. There's also an image in the introduction collage (Philosophy of Dynamite) which would give an idea what the message. Are you suggesting that this be incorporated into the text? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I read through it again a couple times. I was hoping for something even a bit more basic. How long had the British East India Company been operating? What were their practices? You state rather generally that there's a rise of the middle class, and "steady erosion of pre-colonial socio-religious institutions and barriers", and "emerging financial interests" - what does that mean literally? Why would this group of people want to plan assassinations and write about overthrowing the British government? Why did they feel they were being treated so unjustly? If you can't relay their frustration to the reader, the reader's not going to believe India House had any just cause. It is my understanding that tea, cotton, and salt were some of the major crops controlled by Britain; plantations owned by Britons used very cheap Indian labors (bordering on slavery?), shipped Indian goods to Britain where they were manufactured into product, and resold to Indians at inflated prices, ensuring that Indians did not benefit from their own labor or land. That's a cause for getting angry. What were the other complaints of Indians upset with British colonialism?
 * On images of the newspaper: images should complement the text, not replace it. If an image says something that text should cover without the image, it should be in the text. What I understand from TIS is that Krishna Varma was able to write critical opinions of the British colonial government and its policies in Britain because writing the same in India would cause severe repercussions, is that correct? I'm not seeing where that's seditious. Were there articles that asked Indian students to put their feelings of injustice into practice by making bombs, targeting government officials or buildings, or organizing to ensure massive unrest? If so, examples of these should be included in the text. If not, make it really crystal clear that even writings expressing the Indian desire for self-rule were considered (by who?) to be seditious. One scoffing columnist may have had some influence, but Scotland Yard got involved - someone high up took notice.
 * The writing is clearly at a high level for this article, and the research well done. I'm concerned that it's also really detached. I think that you're giving your readers perhaps too much credit to understand the Indian point of view. It's the difference between explaining it well, and grabbing the reader by the hand and forcing him in the shoes of those who were there. I rather like to be taken on a bit of a wild ride, so I would like to be placed inside the minds of really pissed off Indian students meeting in India House talking about how much the British government really, really sucks. Then I'd like to be put in the mind of British government officials or industrialists who equate their involvement in India to the core of their very British sense of self, who would defend holding on to India against all odds. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.