Talk:Early Nationalists

Sourcing

I am very concerned about the reliance on books such as History and Civics. I've not yet tracked them down (no ISBNs provided) but they look suspiciously like schoolbooks, perhaps from the NCERT series that has been widely criticised in India for its inaccurate portrayal of history. Accusations of manipulation, whitewashing etc abound, mostly based on allegations that the INC government has had too much editorial control. We really need proper academic sources, not schoolbooks. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: History and Civics is indeed a school text book - it is book 9 in the Longman Marticulation Series. Google books has a preview version here although I don't know if you can access it. FYI the isbn is 978-8131-7033-11. I agree that proper academic sources would be preferable.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed everything. @Sitush: & @Philg88: I have added another academic source to support the statement. But Sitush I must say that although both the books are school based but they are accurate since both of them has been registered and verified by Indian Government educational department. And author D. N. Kundra has received Distinguished Author's Award conferred by the Federation of Educational Publishers in India. And hence both can be trusted. But for your concern I have always added an extra source to verify the statements. Thanks. Jim Carter ^(talk) 07:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, school textbooks are not up to the mark. Furthermore, as my opening comment implied, government awards to authors of school textbooks are meaningless. I'll try to find you a news story or two about this. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I may not have to - we even have NCERT controversy, which will contain some such stories. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: So? What next? Should I delete both of them?

I would, and replace with {{cn}} for now if you can find no alternate. I did express concerns about whether this article would ever see the light of day when it was at AfC. Alas, I think large chunks of it are poorly sourced and I am also concerned about the number of sources that I cannot see using GBooks, a proxy into the US and Indian GBooks and indeed my own quite extensive library of books on Indian history etc. I have to assume that you've read the things but, for example, there is often a world of difference between a source referring to "early nationalists" and "Early Nationalists". Short of asking you to provide extensive quotes, I'm not sure how to proceed here. It is unusual for me to have such a high miss rate but I'll see what turns up at JSTOR. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is totally different that you can't find anything and I can find everything. It is not poorly sourced since most of the article has been covered by sources I have found at British Council Library New Delhi. Now if you can't find anything then you have to come here in Delhi from Manchester. As I told earlier that Indian authors have used Early Nationalists and British authors have used early nationalists I have also provided quote. Then also if the problem is not solved, I can't do anything. Jim Carter ^(talk) 09:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to be so defensive because I'm not disputing that you have seen the stuff. I am querying the sources and numerous other issues: most of them will be capable of resolution, a few may not be.

I was hoping to avoid saying this but you've put me in an awkward spot now, sorry. It is apparent that your English language skills, while 100 per cent better than my abilities in any of the Indian languages, are a little lacking. This comes across in the now-fixed "known in English as ..." statement that was in the lead section and in numerous other statements. In contrast, you've managed to write extremely good, complex prose for entire paragraphs (or maybe Philg did that?) The fact that there are some issues with understanding the subtleties of the language gives concern about interpretation of the sources. It is not your fault but when we have a new article of potentially very significant importance to the subject area, it is good to ensure that the basics are right. It is for this additional reason that I am keen to see the sources or to find alternates. Think of it as a collaboration rather than an attack: we will all gain from the process. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Philg did that. I know that it is not an attack since this is not my first article. But....I'm trying my best to improve this article. It is not my fault that we have a low coverage of the subject on World wide web. Do you have a email? So that I can send you a digital copy (Created by a scanner) of that pages. Jim Carter ^(talk) 09:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Quotation fixed. Jim Carter ^(talk) 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

We'll get on just fine. You certainly could email me stuff but that is a lot of work for you and may not be necessary. For example, I've found the Ranbir Vohra source and it looks like more use could be made of it. I need to do some reading because I know more about the independence movement etc of the 1910s-1920s than I do of the 1880s-1900s. I tend not to do anything other than tweaks to articles until I've read a few sources about their subject. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: I have an idea. Since this article has been nominated for DYK, why don't you review it. When featured on main page it will automatically attract the attention of more editors and hence this article can also be improved by them. Actually this article needs more traffic, more traffic means more expansion and hence more improvement. This article can easily pass DYK per WP:AGF. So what do you think? Jim Carter ^(talk) 11:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am too involved. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this GBook. added by Philg. Jim Carter ^(talk) 11:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Already looked at it. The problem with it is that Atlantic publish a lot of pseudo-history crap using a stable of authors. We'd need to know more about the author, who seems to have written on a wide range of topics. I'll see if I can locate the academic credentials. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling someone to review this DYK. I'm sure featuring this article to mainspace will help improve. Jim Carter ^(talk) 12:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have nominated it then it will get reviewed. There is no rush and, despite what you might think, DYK appearances on the main page rarely cause much useful improvement to articles. You might get a bit of wikignoming but it is unusual for anything more than that to occur. The INC has been around since 1885 - another day or two (or even week or two) will not make much odds. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Do we have any article about the growth of nationalism in India or rise of nationalism in India or similar?? Jim Carter ^(talk) 13:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian independence movement, umpteen biographies etc. I think there is also one specifically for nationalism in Bengal but I'm not going hunting for it. It is a big subject and not one to be approached at half-cock. There is more than enough to be done on this one at the moment because it really doesn't do the subject justice. Indian nationalism long pre-dates the British. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early Nationalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020115121118/http://www.congresssandesh.com/AICC/pastpresidents.htm to http://www.congresssandesh.com/AICC/pastpresidents.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early Nationalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906202647/http://www.congress.org.in/new/past-president-detail.php?id=11 to http://www.congress.org.in/new/past-president-detail.php?id=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)