Talk:East India Company: Difference between revisions

m
→‎RfC on the recent deletion of material: a few typos; i think i am done now
(→‎RfC on the recent deletion of material: adding wikilinks; sorry if it cause ec's)
m (→‎RfC on the recent deletion of material: a few typos; i think i am done now)
**Jesus... is this what Wikipedia is all about now? I am not a sock, so do you have anything to add about the deletion of several years of work by multiple editors? [[Special:Contributions/2A01:4C8:416:6187:4933:9BCE:4121:FCB1|2A01:4C8:416:6187:4933:9BCE:4121:FCB1]] ([[User talk:2A01:4C8:416:6187:4933:9BCE:4121:FCB1|talk]]) 16:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
***As I said a few times, I support restoring the time-based old division between this and [[Company rule in India]]. The question you should be asking is: How much of the removed material should be added either to [[Company rule in India]], or to other articles in [[:Category:East India Company]]? For example the long section on regulating acts of Parliament mostly covers between 1757 and 1858, the period of [[Company rule in India]], & is much more detailed than what that now has. Also the slavery bits and so on. Some stuff from before 1757 can also be argued for. On a quick look, I didn't find stuff that actually repeated text from other articles, though there may well be some. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
****{{re|Johnbod}}, if you read the respective sections on the regulating acts in the two articles, which have approximately the same word count (give or take a 100), you'll notice that the one I removed (from this article) is mostly a pro forma excerpting/listing of the language of the acts. Many sub-sections are cited to the acts themselves. No background is given, no attendant political storms in the metropolis (London) or the periphery (India) are described. The education act, moreover, is not a Regulationregulating Actact, neither is the 1853 Government of India act. Even so, my main reason for removing it is that it has no DUE secondary sources (textbooks, monographs, or highly cited journal articles). The Company rule in India, [[Company_rule_in_India#Regulation_of_Company_rule|RegulationRegulating acts]], in contrast, is written in prose. When there is no citation, it is the ''Imperial Gazetteer of India'' that is being cited. [https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/pager.html?objectid=DS405.1.I34_V04_043.gif Here are] the IGI pages 14, 15, and 16, describing the regulation acts. (<small> Aside: I wrote that 13 or 14 years ago. The references can easily be updated with the many books published since. The Company rule article does need a rigorous reworking, and in many ways, it is the article I am most interested in (much more so than [[India]] or the [[British Raj]]), but I don't have the time right now, even though most references do sit on my shelves.</small>) Getting back to this article, I'm sure there is plenty in the secondary sources about the regulation of the ''London-based'' activities, businesses, etc. of the Company. The proper province for discussing ''those'' is this article, but it requires careful reading and precis-ing of some of the sources I have listed above. All that has not happened yet. When that is achieved, there would be proper separation of the London-based and the India-based. In its current form, though, it ends up approximating a content fork because it does not disambiguate clearly. The Education act, with Macauly, for example, clearly belongs to the CRinI article and is in fact discussed at great length in its [[Company_rule_in_India#Education|Education section]]. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)