Talk:East India Company/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Scope of this Article

Please note that in matters related to India, this article covers a time span of some 150 years, from 1612 to 1757.

For the period 1757 to 1857, the Company's activities in India, its increasing control of territory, trade (within India), the various regulating acts of the British government, etc. belong to the page Company rule in India. They can be summarized in this page, but not discussed at length. The Colonial India sidebar stating this has been present in the lead from 2008. Also, we had decided against toploading the article (i.e. its lead sentence) with the many other names of the Company, but instead, to move them to later in the lead paragraph. See half a dozen threads beginning with this discussion in 2008 (at the time of the page name change from "Honourable East India Company" to "East India Company.)

Trade with China, the Court of Directors in London, the Haileybury College (now East India Company College), East India House, etc. do belong to this page in summary form. I have removed the portion of the text that was infringing on the scope of Company rule in India. I realize that this was not a WP:POV fork, only a WP:Redundant fork resulting from people not being aware of the existence of the Company rule article. I have now added a hatnote up top advertising that article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - sensible. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not revert again without discussion. You cannot delete a large swathe of the article and edit war to retain it if someone disagrees. The talk page is the place to discuss the proposed changes. 109.249.185.105 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

F&F started a discussion; this it it. You have not yet responded to the points he makes above. You need to get consensus here before re-adding this material which, as explained above, drastically changes the scope of the article. I have reverted you. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You asked where all the text had come from: All the text came from numerous editors adding it over time. It was deleted in a one-hour swathe of deletions by Fowler&Fowler. One editor cannot unilaterally remove such a weight of material, some of which has been there for a considerable time, added by so many editors. The consensus that is needed is to justify Fowler&Fowler’s removal from the long-standing version. You should not just delete it after two comments three minutes apart: it needs to be a proper discussion involving several people over the course of at least a few days. To quote you: “I have reverted you”, at least until a proper discussion is held. 109.249.185.105 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

And I have reverted you again. Time to address the points raised above. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag teaming edit warring. The information has been present for several years, written by multiple editors. It needs a proper discussion around the situation, not a two-person tag team ganging up on an IP. According to Wikipedia’s own rules, the WP:STATUSQUO remains while a discussion takes place. Please respect that, even if you cannot respect me, my motives or the work of the multiple editors whose work was culled in a deletion blitz. 109.249.185.105 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You are now in breach of WP:3RR & liable to be blocked by any admin who spots this. If you have any actual comments about the scope of this article, as opposed to Company rule in India, which was established long ago, now would be the time to make them. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are some book chapters relevant to the scope of this article:

• The first chapter of Douglas Peers's book: Peers, Douglas M. (2013), India under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-88286-2, "Empires and Entrepreneurs 1700-1765," page 9 to 29.
• A larger part of Stern, Philip J. (2012), The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-993036-4.
• Part 1 of Hunt, Margaret R.; Stern, Philip J. (2015), The English East India Company at the Height of Mughal Expansion: A Soldier's Diary of the 1689 Siege of Bombay, with Related Documents, Bedford/St. Martin's, ISBN 978-1-319-04948-5.
• The first four chapters of Lawson, Philip (2014), The East India Company: A History, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-89765-1.
• Also a good part of the book: Chaudhuri, K. N. (2006), The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company: 1660-1760, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-03159-2 All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

PS Here are some more:

• Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (24 September 2012), A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 44–50, ISBN 978-1-107-02649-0 Starting with "Rise of the English East India Company" to just before "Conquest of Bengal" (a few pages from Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's classic.)
• Erikson, Emily (2014), Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600–1757, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-1-4008-5033-4 The scope is pretty much laid out in the title.
• Mishra, Rupali Mishra (2018), A Business of State: Commerce, Politics, and the Birth of the East India Company, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-98471-4
• Veevers, David (2020), The Origins of the British Empire in Asia, 1600–1750, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-108-48395-7 Hot off the press, with self-evident scope.
• Bryant, G. J. (2013), The Emergence of British Power in India, 1600-1784: A Grand Strategic Interpretation, Boydell & Brewer Ltd, ISBN 978-1-84383-854-8 Introduction and Chapter 1.
• These are probably enough to point to the scope to this article. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the recent deletion of material

In a one-hour period a large amount of material was removed from this article by one editor in several edits (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_India_Company&type=revision&diff=991053405&oldid=990396576). The information has been added over several years by multiple editors. I have challenged that deletion and been reverted when asking for the WP:STATUSQUO to remain while a discussion takes place.

Should the deletion of this material, which was core or pertinent to the subject, be deleted, or have the cuts been too drastic and thereby removed too much material of use? 109.249.185.105 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse returning the article to the scope decided long ago (see section above). I note this ip editor started these massive reverts with his second edit on this ip number. Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To add to your reading list, please see WP:AGF. I am on a dynamic IP address which changes when I log in, so my previous edits are on similar IP addresses. Sorry if you don’t like that, but not every IP editor is up to no good. 109.249.185.105 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • No, but lots are, & people who are evidently experienced editors (if with a tendency to think they are the only one) who insist on using dynamic ip addresses must expect the question to come up. Still no actual arguments here or above I see. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Dear IP, why don't you log in like the rest of us? I am generally mystified by people posting as IPs but displaying a knowledge of WP that IPs don't have. The same with editors who have redlinked user pages of recent vintage who then never post a word either on their user page or user talk page, for months. A disproportionate number end up being penalized, even banned. What is that deal about? Maybe you can enlighten me. A long time ago I think it was an admin who told me that IP votes don't count in RFCs, RMs, and other discussions. In any case, I don't see any arguments relevant to the EIC above. Nothing but vacuous Wikilawyering. Do you know anything about the East India Company? If so tell me what. Wikipedia is not a commonwealth of know-nothings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
        • • I don't think it is the case that ip votes aren't counted, though I expect they are often given less weight. Actually, perhaps the ip is not as experienced as his spray-gunning of policy shortcuts suggests, or he would know it is ludicrously early to launch a Rfc when he hasn't produced any reasoning or arguments (except the suddenness of the changes) in the discussion section above. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
            • OK, thanks, Johnbod, for the clarification. Also, apologies to the IP for some comments that I have scratched. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
              • Please see WP:AGF and WP:IP users. I do not have an account and I do not need an account. I have edited on-and-off for several years as an IP, most of which are greeted with politeness, but all too often I am met with aggression and incivility, as is the case here, unfortunately. 109.249.185.105 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
                • Don't think that's just because you are editing as an ip! Of course, there's nothing to stop you maintaining a rolling user page with old ip numbers, so people can see your record. But you don't want to do that. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
                  • No, I don’t do that because I don’t have to. The idea is something of a straw man: My record on previous pages has nothing to do with this page here. 109.249.185.105 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
                    • Dear IP, "You don't have to?" But you didn't have to start this vacuous RFC either—given that you have given no indication thus far that you know anything about the topic. How long do you plan to be a dog in the manger? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
                      • I have now undone your disruptive edit. You cannot engage in WP:Content forking by reverting to a so-called "status quo." The injunction to avoid content forks is a Wikipedia content guideline. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
                        • I have undone you again. Please see WP:STATUSQUO and the rules of RFCs. Please also stop insulting me and questioning my motives. There is an RFC in progress, so please let it run its course. 2A01:4C8:416:6187:4933:9BCE:4121:FCB1 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

*Too drastic per reasoning by Fowler&fowler in the sectionabove. GMPX1234 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

• • You’ll have to clarify GMPX1234: Fowler&Fowler was removing material that has been added over the course of several years by multiple editors. Were they all being “too drastic”, or was Fowler&Fowler being “too drastic”? Thanks 109.249.185.105 (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Close Rfc - It appears as though a socking situation is occurring. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 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? 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. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @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 regulating act, 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, Regulating acts, in contrast, is written in prose. When there is no citation, it is the Imperial Gazetteer of India that is being cited. Here are the IGI pages 14, 15, and 16, describing the regulation acts. ( 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.) 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 Education section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

EIC Revival

Some information should be included on the EIC's revival, which occurred around 2010. They are still operating as a high end foodstuffs retailer. Site: https://www.theeastindiacompany.com/ Article from FT: https://archive.is/cNbzu Biglulu (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The new EIC is unrelated to the original. It is simply using the name. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also mentioned on the East India Company (disambiguation) page, with a link to the article on its founder, Sanjiv Mehta (British businessman). Nothing more is necessary. GrindtXX (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ganj-i-Sawai

The Ganj-i-Sawai did carry enormous wealth. It may, as the East India Company believed, have carried a relative of the Grand Mughal. But if there is "no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue", why even suggest that possibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ambiguity

I cannot reliably determine the meaning of the following sentence. After some consideration, I suspect that it means that the land ownership system was very selective, and that previous occupants of common land found themselves tenants of the favoured Indians. But it is certainly open to interpretation. Can it be made clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.199.235 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

He introduced a system of personal land ownership for Indians. This change caused much conflict since most illiterate people had no idea why they suddenly became land renters from land owners.[85]

Sources of spices

I corrected an obviously incorrect sentence that claimed that, in the 16th century, pepper, ginger and cinnamon only were grown in the Spice Islands (Maluku). Also, the sentence claims profits of 400-fold, and it is not clear whether this is supposed to hold for cloves and nutmeg only, or also for pepper, ginger and cinnamon. This paragraph should be checked and given proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.238.230 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

HCS prefix

I have added a link from the HCS DAB page to the Ships section, after adding two interpretations found online. For anyone interested, there is a brief discussion on Talk:HCS Intrepid (1780). (Perhaps comment here, if anyone else has anything to add? Acad Ronin, FYI.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't it East India Co. tea that ended up being dumped in Boston Harbor during the famous tea party?

I think that much of the protest was over East India Co. monopoly on tea that was a big part of what the protest was about. 67.183.57.14 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

‘Drug trafficking’

Unfortunately, this entry suffers from a touch of presentism as opium wasn’t outlawed until 1910 by the British who then pushed for a global ban which was achieved in 1912. Subsequently, I removed “drug trafficking“ from the template, best regards. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

To traffick means to trade; it doesn't necessarily have the connotation of illegality. Besides, the opium trade was prohibited variously in China since 1729, and opium consumption to a degree in India in the 1870s. I think there's been an edit war over this in the past, so maybe you should have discussed it first. Shtove (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Tell

When did rule of East India company ended in India 2405:201:5802:1A10:7DE0:6661:A7ED:9FC4 (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eshepherd2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)