Wikipedia:Peer review/Bengal famine of 1943/archive1

Bengal famine of 1943
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is a subject of tremendous historical importance. The goal is to go to FAC, tentatively in the second week of December or so.

Thanks,  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I did try and start a PR for this article, but it is huge! Impressive piece of work, but still huge. Instead, I'll ask this question: does this article really need to go into such lengthy detail on what might be considered peripheral subjects? To give some specific examples: do we really need to know in such detail how many refugees arrived by which route or how badly they were treated, or that so many warships were lost in the Easter Sunday Raid? Or, what value does the considerable amount of detail in the long "August 1942: Civil unrest" section bring to an understanding of the famine, its causes and its consequences?

One more thing. I came to this article expecting to read about the horrors of the Bengal famine, but I had to read through two great long sections on its background and causes before I actually got to it. Would it not be better to start the article with details of the famine itself, and then go on to explain its causes and consequences? FactotEm (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and questions!
 * I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that "this article really [goes] into... lengthy detail on what might be considered peripheral subjects". That arose in a later stage of its development and probably needs to be curtailed a bit. I'm proceeding cautiously on that score (or more accurately, not proceeding at all at the moment) to wait for consensus to build around the idea... As for moving the grim realities to the front, however, I disagree for several reasons. First, the article is in (very rough and overlapping) chronological order. Second, the origins of the famine are its most significant point of contention, not only among scholars but also between factions with pro- and anti-British political sentiments. Third, for those who wanna skip the origins, there are plenty of ways to do so (with clicking links in the the table of contents as the easiest).
 * Please do continue if you have further questions or observations. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I will just point out that the title of the article created for me a certain expectation of what was to come, and as I read through the first sections I kept finding myself wondering why I was reading all this.


 * Another point. I suspect there might be some POV problems. In the "August 1942: Civil unrest" section, the 2nd para ends with the statement that Churchill "...believed that Indians were the next worst people in the world after the Germans. Their treachery had been plain in the Quit India movement. The Germans he was prepared to bomb into the ground. The Indians he would starve to death as a result of their own folly and viciousness." This is allowed to stand unchallenged, even though I believe pro-Churchill sources refute this. Then further down there is the section "1942–44: Refusal of imports" which mostly portrays the absence of imports in terms of refusal/rejection, and appears to be somewhat dismissive when it finally concedes an alternative POV relating to insufficient shipping ("...but this rationale has been debated"). I do see that in the "Debate over primary cause(s)" there is an attempt to present both sides when discussing British government culpability, but even here a note (BQ) points us to "a discussion of sources that either blame Churchill and the Raj or elide Churchill's role entirely". Any mention of sources that present a positive picture of Churchill's role is conspicuous by its absence from that note. FactotEm (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've again hit on the largest problem, not with this article in isolation, but with the topic itself: it is very nearly impossible to write this article in a way that one side or the other (pro- or anti-British/Churchill) will not scream POV.
 * Hmmm, I'll try to spare you the long history of my writing efforts. I didn't put the Churchill quote in there; I studiously avoided it (and others far more vociferous). Having said that, sources by and large indicate that Churchill almost certainly was racist. You could perhaps cut him a little slack in that he was the PM of a country that was in existential peril, and so he was under truly great stress. Similarly, you could also cut him a little slack in that it would be quite human under those circumstances to put your own country's needs head and shoulders above those of any other. But even those two explanations together don't seem to cover the full measure of his ire toward the Indian people. In short, AFAIK there aren't any really credible sources that put a positive spin on Churchill's role in India. The most positive accounts either elide it almost entirely (focusing on Churchill's more palatable/laudable  actions in other areas), or else spend time explaining and implicitly apologizing for it.
 * Having said all that, I agree with more than one of the major points you have raised. I am grateful that you have mentioned these, because this builds support for making the relevant changes as time goes on. It is not impossible that I/we/some editors could begin making changes now, but I am eager to be cautious (that's an odd way to say it, I know)... Further thoughts/comments/questions? Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)