body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Former good article nomineeBritish Raj was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2012Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 6, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
November 2, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efrain805, AustinJAragon (article contribs).



Ensigns

@Fowler&fowler: So you keep stating that the Princely States have their own ensigns which that is true but the ensigns in the previous version of the page represents the entire subcontinent. Also the article you have linked gave no information on the flags. See the Star of India (flag) for more information on the civil and state ensigns of the Raj. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2021 (GMT-4)

Those are silly pages based on bogus sources. How could they have represented the entire subcontinent when the British administered only three-fifths of it. I never heard of the ensigns or the Union Jack hoisted in the Native States. Please read the talk page archives. There are months and months of discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Can you please clarify by what you mean by "bogus sources" as the ensigns are well documented and there are several sources that I can present if you'd like. Also you said that you have "never heard of the ensigns or the Union Jack hoisted in the Native States"...despite photographic evidence proving that it is presented across the states, please verify your claims as otherwise, this conflicts with WP:OR. I have reviewed the archives prior to making my first revert today and most of the "arguments" are usually non-arguments or usually just repeats of weak arguments. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2021 (GMT-4)
Well present your sources here, and when I have time, I'll examine them. Scholarly sources are best. No websites, please. Pictures of flags flying on buildings don't count either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We all know what an ensign is, I hope? Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Best not to set great store by Wikipedia. Ensign: "a flag that has been established by a national authority for display as the symbol of nationality by ships or airplanes and that also may be flown sometimes with a distinctive badge added to its design by a military installation, by an organization (as the customs service, a harbor board, or a marine insurance company) having nautical associations, or by an overseas colony or dominion." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: The WP:RS requirement applies to everything in an article. You need to find definitive sources that state that a flag was the official flag of an entity. Photographs of flags flying are not reliable by any stretch of imagination. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: [1], [2] and [3] are what I could find. Also if this applies to the British Raj, why cant this apply to the other ensigns too and don't see you complaining about the ensigns. Even then, in the previous revision had the Union Jack which was used in the Raj. Why remove it again? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2021 (GMT-4)
@SuperSkaterDude45: I don't see any of these as being reliable sources. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Please define what your definition of "reliable sources" are as they seem to be different from consensus standards. I don't see how WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here as this isn't about a deletion of an article. Regardless, you haven't addressed my other arguments and just throwing around irrelevant or misused MOS's around. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2021 (GMT-4)
@SuperSkaterDude45:: In the case of historical content, scholarly sources are reliable sources (see WP:HISTRS) and none of your sources are remotely satisfactory. Please also note that I haven't thrown anything from the MOS around in my recent responses. WP:RS is a policy while MOS is a guideline. The OTHERSTUFF was in response to your comment about "complaining about" other ensigns and what I mean is that the expectation that one editor will fix every unsourced flags is unrealistic. More realistically, I don't have a flag fetish and have no interest in digging out unsourced ones but I will continue to point them out if I see them on pages on my watch list. If you want your choice of flags included in this or other articles, please look for reliable scholarly sources. In this case, the source must explicitly confirm that these flags were used as offical representative flags for the British Raj. In other words, the source must show that your chosen flag was the representative flag for British India, for the princely state of Jodhpur, for Hyderabad State, and for all the states that constituted the British raj. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Ok so first of all, WP:HISTRS is relatively unreliable due to WP:ESSAY and even if I were to apply it into this convo then [4] should suffice unless there's another essay you want to pull for your outrageously high stanards. Second of all, you directly admit that you aren't necessarily an expert on this but since its on your watch list, you revert several edits by several users which conflicts with WP:BRD as this isn't the first time you have done this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2021 (GMT-4)
You're getting BRD wrong. You need to show that your sources are reliable and get consensus for adding your flags. Pulling out random pages from tripod is such a low bar that I figure you haven't even bothered to read our reliable sources policy page. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what gives you the idea that I'm not an expert on historical flags (I'm not saying I am either. This is a website and neither you nor I have any idea what we do in RL). All I said is I don't have a fetish for flags. I just don't believe in thrusting flags into every infobox regardless of their authenticity.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regret to say, I am seeing this page for months, @RegentsPark: and @Fowler&fowler: says that the ensign and emblem are invalid. May I know if other British colonies had their own civil ensign, then for our country it is only British flag. Or that's also doesn't there. Very strange I see. First we need to contact the person who had uploaded these images and ask where he/she has got this picture on what information or source. Then we can finally stop this dispute. This is my opinion. Continuously defending it won't help in these in settling the disputes. Jyoti Roy (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTP1233: If as you state you have been viewing the page for several months, then you must know that the British Raj comprised regions directly administered by the British and called British India, and regions – the princely states, administered by Indian rulers but overseen by the British in a system of paramountcy. The Indian rulers were responsible for internal affairs and flew their own flags, and the British managed foreign affairs, defense, and communication. As a result, there were many flags, some 562 to be sure (see Hyderabad State and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) for two examples). At the outset of the Raj, Queen Victoria had signed treaties with the Indian rulers guarantying their rights and privileges in perpetuity. These were rewards, some say, for the Indian princes' shunning the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (serving as "breakwaters in the storm," in the Viceroy, Lord Canning's words) or insurance, say others, against future rebellions in India. Please read the talk page archives for past discussions. Thus far, I have not seen a serious objection (supported by scholarly sources) to keeping flags out of the infobox. The Raj, or Indian Empire, was an outlier, the only one of its kind, and the sine qua non for the British Empire. Without it, very likely, there would have been no British Empire. And once it went, the British Empire gradually went away or found egalitarian ways of redefining its ambit. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have got my answer, @Fowler&fowler: thank you for giving explanation. Jyoti Roy (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: As a reassessment of my previous statements, please provide with your own sources that the ensigns which are already widely documented to be in use, are suddenly "invalid" because of your own opinion. Also cool it down with the pompous talk as talk pages are meant to be good-faith per guidelines.
@Fowler&fowler: First, some princely states actually used their own flags but not all of them did as some were broken up into provinces after the Sepoy Mutiny and used the civil ensign (Examples being Bihar Province and Punjab Province (British India)) Second, the princely states technically didn't count as part of "British India" as they were just heavily influenced by the British as others were broken up into provinces. Third, the civil ensign was used to represent the entire Raj with events like the Olympics, being used official government establishments and also being used in the military. I can understand where you are trying to aim for but all I will say is that there is a good reason why there are many editors inserting either the Union Jack or the Civil Ensign as both are again, widely documented in being officially used. If its truly not meant to be a "valid" flag, shouldn't you purge the ensign from the other articles I've linked as well as propose to delete it from Wikimedia Commons? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: Hey bud, what's a rollin! (trying to fit your definition of non-pompous). Unfortunately, sources generally do not exist for negatives. You need to show that your sources are reliable and get consensus for adding your flags (wait, I used exactly those words above!).--RegentsPark (comment) 16:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those were given long time ago before ensign was removed. That doesn't proves that the civil ensign are...you know. Also you have nominated for deletion. This issue has solved and again raised. Let see what will happen then!. Jyoti Roy (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: So if there aren't any actual claims on your statements, then that is blatant Original Research. I did provide several sources already but apparently it's considered "random pages from tripod" or whatever that means. If you want more sources then here: [1][2][3] SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45: With due respects, um, bud, this is like shouting into a well. Anyway, I'll try again. Tripod, mapsofindia, ozoutback.com, what are you thinking? The india today article you link to, doesn't even have the flags you're edit warring on. The colors are different, and all it says is "the first Indian flag" leaving open the definite possibility that there were other flags and that we have no idea if this flag was ever actually used or, if it was, for how long. All this assuming that the source is reliable for historical facts. Apologies, but you're just wasting everyones time and given the sort of sources you bring up, you should probably look for a different hobby rather than editing wikipedia. Write your own blog, perhaps, where you can add any flag that takes your fancy. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RP. The India Today article is entirely unreliable. Even a cub reporter trying to meet a deadline on the generally unreliable National Enquirer or Daily Mirror would not be copying the WP article on the Indian flag with such alacrity. Unfortunately, many POV-ridden Indian magazines show a lack of the most basic writing ethics, not to mention editorial oversight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: @Fowler&fowler: At the end of all of this, none of this matters at the end of the day as the fact that neither of you have shown any basic evidence or proof that the Raj didn't use any ensigns just proves that your arguments are opinionated and invalidated. By the way, when you mention unreliable sources, I've checked WP:RSP and the worse I could find was the National Enquirer being unreliable as the Daily Mirror has no consensus. Also RegentsPark, I like how you claim I'm edit warring yet go on to gatekeep the article because of blatant original research. Please, the least either of you two can do is to give several reliable sources that clearly state that the Raj did not use neither the civil or naval ensigns and I'll change my mind. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Independence Day Special: Evolution of the Indian flag - FYI News
  2. ^ British Raj, 1858 | Flag | Pakistan | OzOutback
  3. ^ National Flag of India Images, History of Indian Flag

The lead is abominable

As you may remember, the purpose of the introduction of a Wikipedia article is to summarize the key points of the article. The short introduction of this very long article ignores that rule.

The first paragraph of this short introduction to this very long article is an awkward digression dedicated to the various names and the merits of this and that name under which the British Raj was known. That's a legitimate discussion, but it should be located inside the article under a heading such as 'Name'....and not in the introduction!

The second paragraph of this short introduction to this very long article also deals with one of the names ("India") and its use on the occasion of India's participation to the various Olympic Games. With a link to each and every one of these Olympics, if you please! I don't think it's necessary to point out why that paragraph does not belong to the lead.

The third and last paragraph of this short introduction to this very long article also mostly focuses on names : the name of the successor states of the British Raj. Someone enamored with the word "Dominion" obviously took part.

Someone who will only read the short introduction to this very long article will learn about the various names of the Raj, India's participation to the various Olympic Games, and the official names of the successor states, but little else.--Lubiesque (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the various names need to be covered because of redirects to this article. very true with the Olympics mentions. The successor states could possibly be trimmed with piping. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that there seem to be a large number of citations in the lede. The lede, as a summary, should not need cites - these should all be facts covered in the body of the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Lubiesque: There is a lot to what you say. But then there are the obstacles.... :
  • >>>the purpose of the introduction of a Wikipedia article is to summarize the key points of the article. The short introduction of this very long article ignores that rule.
  • That is true if the content of the main body is a reliable summary of the Raj. But the main body keeps changing. What is there at any given time is not reliably sourced.
  • >>> The first paragraph of this short introduction to this very long article is an awkward digression dedicated to the various names and the merits of this and that name under which the British Raj was known. That's a legitimate discussion, but it should be located inside the article under a heading such as 'Name'....and not in the introduction!
  • That too would be true if the "British Raj" were a commonly accepted term. It is not. A large number of history books on India use the term only in certain contexts, sometimes only satirically, for the hoity-toity set in the never-never-land of gin and tonic. They very commonly also use "Crown rule in India," or "Direct rule in India." There is also the problem of "British India" which in the parlance of many is conflated with British Raj. The reason that those need to be mentioned is that the Raj was an "empire" of direct (British India)_ and indirect rule (Princely States.
  • >>>The second paragraph of this short introduction to this very long article also deals with one of the names ("India") and its use on the occasion of India's participation to the various Olympic Games. With a link to each and every one of these Olympics, if you please! I don't think it's necessary to point out why that paragraph does not belong to the lead.
  • Pretty much all history books on India during the period of British rule call it "India." Nothing else. They use "British India" occasionally when they are discussing the administration or less occasionally for the British in India, its secondary meaning (see recent book Poetry of British India with latter meaning) As a consequence of the WP page "British Raj" taking off, i.e. its name becoming stable and its page views increasing, the term "British Raj" has come to be used more frequently by the scholarly sources especially in chapter or book titles (I know this phenomenon has a name but I'm blanking this minutes ...) The late Stanley Wolpert, for example, spun off an independent article "British Raj" from his modern history section of the Britannica India page.
  • >>> The third and last paragraph of this short introduction to this very long article also mostly focuses on names : the name of the successor states of the British Raj. Someone enamored with the word "Dominion" obviously took part.
  • You'll be pleased to know that in June 2007, the OED (the ultimate record of the language) began to carry the WP words more or less verbatim: "The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh)" You might want to view my post in the archives congratulating the various editors on making our words such objects of flattery. As the OED is revised every 100 years, they might be around longer yet. Why someone has changed "Union of India," the official name, in the aid of which many Indian nationalists spent much effort in the waning years of the Raj, to "Dominion" is not surprising. The British royalist-POV is alive and well. See Dominion of India before I made me recent edits there.
  • >>>Someone who will only read the short introduction to this very long article will learn about the various names of the Raj, India's participation to the various Olympic Games, and the official names of the successor states, but little else.
  • You are correct that in some sense the lead is a giant dab page. But it is that way because pretty much nothing else about the Raj has reached the desired homeostasis on this page. The page is a favorite of the POV-warriors of every denomination. It is not that we can't summarize. See the modern India section of the FA India (and also the last paragraph of the early-modern section).
  • But perhaps this is a good time to painstakingly work through the main body ... ( I say as my voice falters. ) Even one section of the main body, such as "Economy of the British Raj," or "Famines, Epidemics, and Public Health in the British Raj." (if it is still a section) would be an achievement. Thanks for your post! Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GraemeLeggett: I haven't checked the citations lately. I'll take a look at them soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories