Talk:India/Archive 14

message: I have tried to edit the history section to say that the political movement started in the last decades of the 19th century, that Congress came to be the strongest one of many pollitical organisations, there was non-violent and violent philosophies with considerable following of both, that Gandhi forefronted the movement from 1920s, and that there were three notable events in the last five years of the movement that are held of quite considerable importance with relation to the movement. I have referenced my edits to respectable sources including the Encyclopaedia Britannica, BBC's history section, and a number of published accounts of the Raj and the independence movement. These edits have been repeatedly reverted by user Fowler&Fowler who insists that the bit on independence movement can not and should not be expanded anymore, as well as that what my edits are trying to cede more than deserved importance to non-notable events. Hie has also insisted that nothing outside the Gandhian movement is notable and insists on a version that says that 
*The movement started in the first decades of the twentieth century (It didn't and is thus factually wrong, only the first non-cooperation movement started around that time). 
*That the Congress started the movement (It did not, the pollitical movement for independence had already started long before the Congress, the party was founded in 1885 and rapidly came to the forefront of the political campaign).
*Millions of people engaged in civil disobedience with a commitment to Gandhi's philosophy of Ahimsa. (This in particular seems to be a PoV statement, since more radical movements with considerable public support already existed before Gandhi arrived in India, Gandhi's philosophy was one of many strong views, as well as that Congress itself became divided in the late 1920s on wether to keep following Gandhi's strategy or to take more radical means. Also Quit India Movement was undertaken with a commitment far from  Ahimsa).
Fowler also insists that no mention at all of the Indian National Army, Red Fort trials and the Bombay mutiny as well as the tense pollitcal and public situation after the war is admissible to the article because
*His sources and other encyclopaedias he quotes (which do mention other movements in a considerably larger section on the Indian independence movement) are said to ascribe these as nonnotable and he insists that in the article the the independence section be compressed, and for the sake of comressing, nothing else is seen as "making the cut". The references I have provided are not given considered at all, which seems to me to pass into more of an article ownership issue.
*Fowler mentioned earlier that the India article is modelled on the Australia artice, which has a considerably detailed history section and includes quite details the History of modern Australia, especially of notable events from early 1900s through to 1950s I can't see why Fowler refuses to accept that this can be done for this article as well. And also, why is Fowler deciding???
*I have a feeling Fowler has a PoV issue with certain very notable Indian nationalists, particularly Subhas Bose, which I say because of the general tone of his comments here.
I have tried to address my concerns to Fowler, but I have not seen any efforts to collaborate, and have had not reasons or seen efforts to believe that a constructive process is possible. Also his comments on unoing my revision was   which seems to me to be an obstruction to constructive editing bourne out of an ownership issue.
At least two other editors have expressed the view that the my edits do hold ground and that the section could be improved and also that the edits should be discussed instead of edit-warring. One other editor has expressed the view that Fowler's views are justified based on entries from other encyclopaedias, which I feel needs to be addressed since other sources which I have referenced hold a different view
I would like these concerns to be addressed since my efforts to make the history section more comprehensive is being frustrated here. I have no intention of edit warring and would like to see a collaboration to improve on the article.Rueben lys 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by {{user|Rueben lys}}:

message: Expand to see reviews of the Books quoted later by Fowler, found in different journals, as specified, obtained from JSTOR.
*Here's the review of Markovits's book in the Journal of Asian Studies which says it focusses heavily on the French role in India, as well as other criticisms of the book which might raise doubts as to how much it is a text book all over the world. Incidentally it also says as a Text Book it does not compare well with more recent and far more historigraphical work like those of Metcalfe and Metcalfe.Rueben lys 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions found in different Journals about Fowler's sources

message: Here is the gist of the problem, as I see it.  The India page (like many country pages) is the  focus of potential edits that are deemed idiosyncratic by a consensus of scholarly opinion.  It is my view that what user:Rueben lys is trying to add to the history section of the article constitutes such an idiosyncratic edit, and, consequently, must not be allowed.  The (India) page's history section is currently highly compressed, with exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian freedom struggle.   
 
User: Rueben lys feels that this is a one-sided description of the Indian Freedom Movement, which apportions all the credit to the Indian National Congress (INC) and Gandhi, and all action to that taking place in the first half of the twentieth century.  He would like the history section to state that the independence struggle began in late 19th century and to include the contributions of other people and movements, in particular that of the Indian National Army (INA), Subhas Chandra Bose, and some revolutionary movements; in addition, he would like some events of 1946 (like the INA trials and the Bombay mutiny) to be mentioned as well.        
(I am of course aware of the irony of crafting thousands of words in the defense of two sentences, but I feel that the principle is important; I also foresee similar disputes arising again if we don't clarify some issues.) I have some sympathy for user:Rueben lys's point of view.  For example, had I written the two sentences quoted above, they would likely have read: 
However, I feel that there is no room in a concise history for the people, organizations, and events that user:Rueben lys wants included.  Moreover, I feel there is  wide consensus among scholars that the two "mainstreams" in the Indian freedom struggle were the Indian National Congress founded in 1885 and the Muslim League founded in 1906, and leading ultimately to the partition of British India and to the independence for both India and Pakistan.  In user:Rueben lys's formulation, however, the mainstreams seem to be "Non-violent" (represented by Gandhi) and "Violent" (represented by assorted revolutionary groups).
====An overview of my sources====
I have limited my secondary sources to books published either by recognized university presses (e.g. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press), or by academic publishing houses like Routledge. (See: What is a reliable source?)  For my tertiary sources, I have described one signed article each from the History sections of the "India" pages of  Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Encarta. (See WP:PSTS.)  These, I believe, are the best tertiary sources one can get: not only are they written by experts, but the context of their articles—the history section in an India page—is exactly the same as ours.  
In contrast, when user:Rueben lys says he cites Britannica, he is really citing from the article, "Indian National Army," (INA) in the Britannica Student Encyclopaedia.  The main EB does not have an article on the INA.  Not only is this Student Encyclopaedia article a short (2 page) one written by the Britannica editorial staff, but it is also a "specialty" article, in which you would expect to find references to the article's subject.  These kinds of citations, however, confer neither the "notability" nor the "absence of undue weight" needed for inclusion in a "general" overview article like India.
====Tertiary Sources: Signed Articles in Britannica and Encarta====
In his signed article on "Modern Indian History" in the 2007 Encyclopaedia Britannica, historian Stanley Wolpert of UCLA devotes 19 long pages to the Indian freedom movement, but has just this to say about Bose:
Expand to see paragraph on Bose by Stanley Wolpert:
In contrast, the INC and the Muslim League are covered in decisively greater detail:
Expand to see outline of the 19 pages on Indian Freedom Struggle in Britannica:
*p1. Rise of Indian nationalism in 1880s. Two turbulent national mainstreams: INC (1885) and Muslim League 1906. Surendranath Bannerjee, Allen Octavian Hume, Annie Besant
*p2. First Congress Meeting 1885, Dadabhai Naoroji.
*p3 Partition of Bengal; Swadeshi movement; Tilak, Gokhale.
*p4. Muslim league, Syed Ahmad Khan, Sayyid Mahdi Ali 1906
*p5. Minto-Morley Reforms, Satyendra P. Sinha, Gokhale and free elementary education.
*p6. 1907 Congress meeting, Moderate (Gokhale) and Militant (Tilak) nationalism, reunification of Bengal.
*p7.WW1 and its aftermath. (short page)
*p8. Indian nationalists and WWI, Indian soldiers in Mesopotamia campaign. Montagu-Chelmsford Report.
*p9. Anti-British activity, Ghadar Party, Khilafat movement, Congress-Muslim League (Lucknow) Pact, Jinnah.
*p10. Post-war years, Rowlatt Act, M. K. Gandhi
*p11. Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre, Gandhi's first Satyagraha.
*p12. Gandhi's strategy, ahimsa, boycott of British goods.
*p13. Prelude to independence. (short page)
*p14. Constitutional reforms, Round Table Conferences
*p15 Congress's ambivalent strategy, Gandhi's noncooperation movement, Motilal Nehru, Swaraj Party (within Congress), Gandhi the social reformer, Dandi March, Subhash Bose (small paragraph), Jawaharlal Nehru (long paragraph).
*p16. Muslim separatism, Muslims in northwestern provinces, Iqbal, Chaudhury Rahmat Ali and idea of Pakistan, Jinnah
*p17 WWII, resignation of Congress ministries, Pakistan resolution, Vinoba Bhave and Gandhi's individual satyagraha, Bose (second and final unflattering paragraph, quoted above).
*p18 Cripps Mission, Quit India Resolution, Gandhi's imprisonment and release, Gandhi-Jinnah meetings, Wavell's Simla conference. 
*p19 Pethick-Lawrence visit, Mountbatten, Transfer of Power, Partition of India, Hindu-Muslim riots, Independence.
 
Similarly, in his signed article, "Movement for Freedom" in Encyclopedia Encarta, historian Philip Oldenburg,  of Columbia University, devotes 16 paragraphs to the Indian freedom struggle:
Expand to topic headings of each paragraph of the Encarta article:
::*Movement for Independence
:**Rise of Indian Nationalism: (paragraphs) 1. Aftermath of 1857, 2. Formation of Indian National Congress, Dadabhai Naoroji, 3. Reformers: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 4. Curzon, partition of Bengal, swadeshi movement, 5. Split in the congress between extremists (Tilak) and moderates (Gokhale), 6. Muslim League, 7. Reunification of Bengal, World War I
:**The World Wars and the Emergence of Gandhi: (paragraphs) 8. Indians in WW I  9.  Return of Gandhi from SA, pact with Jinnah, 10. Montagu-Chemlford Reforms, 11. Resistance to Rowlatt Acts, birth of Satyagraha, Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, 12. Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, Congress's demand for complete independence, 13. Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha, 14. Govt. of India Act, formation of governments in states by Congress in 1937, 15. WWII, Pakistan resolution (1940), Quit India resolution (1942),  Direct action day (1946), formation of interim government by Jawaharlal Nehru, 16. Partition of India, transfer of power, Hindu-Muslim riots, Gandhi as "one man boundary force."
Again, there is no mention of Bose, INA, Bhagat Singh, or any other militant.  The only reference to "extremism" in the modern sense, is indirectly to the Ghadar party (a radical party founded by Sikhs who were denied immigration to Canada), "A small, mostly Sikh revolutionary movement appeared briefly in Punjab."  The overwhelming portion of the text (19 pages in Britannica and 16 paragraphs in Encarta) is devoted primarily to the Indian National Congress and secondarily to the Muslim League. 
====Secondary Sources: Academic Histories and Research Monographs====
This is not just the view of these two historians, it is also the mainstream view.  Here are eight (searchable) standard histories of India that are used in university courses worldwide.  As the search results (in the collapsible box below) indicate, the topics that user:Rueben lys would like included (i.e. "revolutionaries/terrorists/extremists," "Bhagat Singh," "Subhas Bose," "Indian National Army/Azad Hind Fauj," "INA trials," all displayed in boldface) are given little coverage in these books.  In contrast "Gandhi," "Jinnah," "Nehru," "Indian National Congress," "Muslim League," Tilak," "Patel," Satyagraha, Non-violence, "Non-cooperation," "Civil disobedience," ... have many more pages devoted to them:
Expand to view eight academic histories of India used in university courses (undergraduate and graduate) around the world.  The numbers in parentheses immediately after an individual/topic name indicate the total number of pages in the book that refer to that individual/topic:
*Markovits, Claude (ed). (Director of Research, CNRS, Paris)  A History of Modern India 1480-1950 (Anthem South Asian Studies).  Anthem Press.  607 pages.  .
**Search results from book:
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (59 pages, 16.34%), Jinnah (24 pages, 6.65%), Nehru (up to 1947) (28 pages, 7.76%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (9 pages, 2.49%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (83 pages, 22.99%), Satyagraha (8 pages, 2.22%), Non-violence (12 pages, 3.32%), Swadeshi (8 pages, 2.22%), Non-cooperation movement (15 pages, 4.16%), Civil disobedience (17 pages, 4.71%), Muslim League (37 pages, 10.25%), Annie Besant (3 pages, 0.83%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (5 pages, 1.39%), Dadabhai Naoroji (3 pages, 0.83%),  Sardar Patel (11 pages, 3.05%), B. R. Ambedkar (6 pages, 1.66%), Lala Lajpat Rai (5 pages, 1.39%), Abul Kalam Azad (6 pages, 1.66%), C. Rajagopalachari (6 pages, 1.66%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (3 pages, 0.83%), Subhas Bose (3 pages, 0.83%), Terrorists (6 pages, 1.66%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 2 pages, 0.55%), Bhagat Singh (2 pages, 0.55%).
*Metcalf, Barbara D. (Professor of History, UC Davis) and Thomas R. Metcalf (Professor of History and India Studies, UC Berkeley).  2006.  A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories).  Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.  372 pages.  
**Search results from book:
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (86 pages, 25.15%), Jinnah (23 pages, 6.73%), Nehru (up to 1947) (22 pages, 6.43%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (13 pages, 3.80%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (55 pages, 16.08%), Satyagraha (6 pages, 1.75%), Non-violence (12 pages, 3.51%), Swadeshi (16 pages, 4.68%), Non-cooperation movement (22 pages, 6.43%), Civil disobedience (12 pages, 3.51%), Muslim League (26 pages, 7.60%), Annie Besant (2 pages, 0.58%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (12 pages, 3.51%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 2.05%),  Sardar Patel (3 pages, 0.88%), B. R. Ambedkar (6 pages, 1.75%), Lala Lajpat Rai (0 pages, 0%),
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (2 pages, 0.58%), Subhas Bose (5 pages, 1.46%), Terrorists (1890-1947) (6 pages, 1.75%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 3 pages, 0.88%), Bhagat Singh (3 pages, 0.88%).
*Robb, Peter.  (Professor of History of India, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).    2004.  A History of India (Palgrave Essential Histories), Palgrave Macmillan.  368 pages.  .
**Search results from book:                                                           
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (30 pages,  21.8978%), Jinnah (8 pages,  5.8394%), Nehru (up to 1947) (8 pages, 5.8394%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (4 pages, 2.9197%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (16 pages, 11.6788%), Satyagraha (5 pages, 3.6496%), Non-violence (6 pages,  4.3796%), Swadeshi (5 pages, 3.6496%), Non-cooperation movement (6 pages, 4.3796%), Civil disobedience (5 pages, 3.6496%), Muslim League (12 pages, 8.7591%), Annie Besant (2 pages, 1.4599%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (3 pages, 2.1898%), Dadabhai Naoroji (2 pages, 1.4599%),  Sardar Patel (5 pages, 3.6496%), B. R. Ambedkar (5  pages, 3.6496%), Lala Lajpat Rai (3 pages, 2.1898%), Abul Kalam Azad (2 pages, 1.4599%), C. Rajagopalachari (2 pages, 1.4599%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (2 pages, 1.4599%), Subhas Bose (3 pages, 2.1898%), Terrorists (3 pages, 2.1898%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 0 pages, 0%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Bose, Sugata (Professor of History, Harvard University) & Ayesha Jalal (Professor of History, Tufts University).  2003.  Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy Routledge, 2nd edition.  304 pages.   
**Search results from the book: 
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (53 pages, 15.0142%), Jinnah (36 pages, 10.1983%), Nehru (up to 1947) (20 pages, 5.6657%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (17 pages, 4.8159%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (82 pages, 23.2295%), Satyagraha (6 pages, 1.6997%), Non-violence (4 pages, 1.1331), Swadeshi (8 pages, 2.2663%), Non-cooperation movement (5 pages, 1.4164%), Civil disobedience (8 pages, 2.2663%), Muslim League (44 pages, 12.4646%), Annie Besant (2 pages, 0.5666%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (7 pages, 1.9830%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 1.9830%),  Sardar Patel (6 pages, 1.6997%), B. R. Ambedkar (3 pages, 0.8499%), Lala Lajpat Rai (5 pages, 1.4164%), Abul Kalam Azad (6 pages, 1.6997%), C. Rajagopalachari (5 pages, 1.4164%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) 11 pages, 3.1161%), Subhas Bose (12 pages, 3.3994%), Terrorists (0 pages, 0%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 4 pages, 1.331%), Bhagat Singh (2 pages, 0.5666%).
*Kulke, Hermann (Professor of History of India, Kiel University) and Dietmar Rothermund (Professor of History, University of Heidelberg).  2004.  A History of India.  Routledge.  448 pages.  . p 260-266. 
**Search results from book:                                       
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (66 pages, 23.3216%), Jinnah (24 pages, 8.4806%), Nehru (up to 1947) (21 pages, 7.4205%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (12 pages, 4.2403%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (39 pages, 13.7809%), Satyagraha (8 pages, 2.8269%), Non-violence (5 pages, 1.7668%), Swadeshi (3 pages, 1.0601%), Non-cooperation movement (15 pages, 5.3004%), Civil disobedience (9 pages, 3.1802%), Muslim League (19 pages, 6.7138%), Annie Besant (4 pages, 1.4134%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (7 pages, 2.4735%), Dadabhai Naoroji (3 pages, 1.0601%),  Sardar Patel (6 pages, 2.1201%), B. R. Ambedkar (7 pages, 2.4735%), Lala Lajpat Rai (0 pages, 0%), Abul Kalam Azad (5 pages, 1.7668%), C. Rajagopalachari (3 pages, 1.0601%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (4 pages, 1.4134%), Subhas Bose (11 pages, 3.8869%), Terrorists (7 pages, 2.4735%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 5 pages, 1.7668%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Spear, Percival (Reader Emeritus in History, University of Cambridge).  1990.  A History of India, Volume 2  Penguin Books.  298 pages.  
**Search results from book                    
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (58 pages, 20.5674%), Jinnah (15 pages, 5.3191%), Nehru (up to 1947) (23 pages, 8.1560%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (16 pages, 5.6738%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (49 pages, 17.3759%), Satyagraha (1 page, 0.3546%), Non-violence (8 pages, 2.8369%), Swadeshi (11 pages, 3.9007%), Non-cooperation movement (4 pages, 1.4184%), Civil disobedience (11 pages, 3.9007 %), Muslim League (18 pages, 6.3830%), Annie Besant (3 pages, 1.0638%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (13 pages, 4.6099%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 2.4823%),  Sardar Patel (6 pages, 2.1277%), B. R. Ambedkar (14 pages, 4.9645%), Lala Lajpat Rai (6 pages, 2.1277%), Abul Kalam Azad (3 pages, 1.0638%), C. Rajagopalachari (2 pages, 0.7092%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (0 pages, 0%), Subhas Bose (8 pages, 2.8369%), Terrorists (4 pages, 1.4184%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 2 pages, 0.7092%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Stein, Burton (Late of School of Oriental and African Studies, (University of London)  1998.  A History of India.  Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001).  
**Search results from book:                   
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (88 pages, 19.2982%), Jinnah (30 pages, 6.5789%), Nehru (up to 1947) (32 pages, 7.0175%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (14 pages, 3.0702 %), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (79 pages, 17.3246%), Satyagraha (17 pages, 3.7281%), Non-violence (22 pages, 4.8246%), Swadeshi (11 pages, 2.4123%), Non-cooperation movement (18 pages, 3.9474%), Civil disobedience (14 pages, 3.0702%), Muslim League (35 pages, 7.6754%), Annie Besant (6 pages, 1.3158%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (7 pages, 1.5351%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 1.5351%),  Sardar Patel (21 pages, 4.6053%), B. R. Ambedkar (14 pages, 3.0702%), Lala Lajpat Rai (6 pages, 1.3158%), Abul Kalam Azad (3 pages, 0.6579%), C. Rajagopalachari (5 pages, 1.0965%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (4 pages, 0.8772%), Subhas Bose (11 pages, 2.4123%), Terrorists (7 pages, 1.5351%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 5 pages, 1.0965%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Wolpert, Stanley (Emeritus Professor of History, UCLA).  2003.  A New History of India.  Oxford University Press.  544 pages.  . p 265.
**Search results from book:                   
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (148 pages, 22.9814%), Jinnah (47 pages, 7.2981%), Nehru (up to 1947) (35 pages, 5.4348%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (17 pages, 2.6398%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (159 pages, 24.6894%), Satyagraha (21 pages, 3.2609%), Non-violence (22 pages, 3.4161%), Swadeshi (11 pages, 1.7081%), Non-cooperation movement (18 pages, 2.7950%), Civil disobedience (15 pages, 2.3292%), Muslim League (41 pages, 6.3665%), Annie Besant (6 pages, 0.9317%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (18 pages, 2.7950%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 1.0870%),  Sardar Patel (18 pages, 2.7950%), B. R. Ambedkar (7 pages, 1.0870%), Lala Lajpat Rai (7 pages, 1.0870%), Abul Kalam Azad (8 pages, 1.2422%), C. Rajagopalachari (3 pages, 0.4658%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (8 pages, 1.2422%), Subhas Bose (13 pages, 2.0186%), Terrorists (11 pages, 1.7081%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 4 pages, 0.6211%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
Of course, one can find narrow-focus monographs devoted only to Bose or the INA, but producing a citation from such a monograph (as I have already stated above) doesn't make the subject of the monograph notable for a compressed Wikipedia history.  However, and in contrast, if the standard histories bestow only cursory attention to some topics ("revolutionaries," Bose, "terrorists," INA, INA trials, ...) then it does become a sign of their non-notability.  
Research monographs, however, can be useful, if their focus is on other contemporaneous topics (in this case, people or events in India during the first half of the 20th century).  If such a book, for example, spends many pages on Gandhi, even though he is not the principal subject, it does so because Gandhi, as a notable contemporaneous figure, infiltrates the circumscribed lives or events of the book's focus.  Compressed in the box below, is a list of some recent monographs, which are all searchable on amazon.com.  I have added the search results; the number in the parentheses (as before) indicates the number of pages in which that person or topic appears.
Expand to view  six research monographs with focus on pre-1947 India.  List includes titles, searchable links, and search results:
* Copland, Ian.  2002.  The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  316 pages. .
**Search Results: Gandhi (20 pages), Jinnah (15 pages), Nehru (48 pages), Mountbatten (44 pages), Indian National Congress (90 pages), Muslim League (21 pages), Maulana Azad (2 pages), Patel (21 page), Subhas Bose (2 pages), INA (including INA trials, 2 pages). 
*Gould, William.  2004.  Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  320 pages.  .
**Search Results: Gandhi (104 pages), Jinnah (19 pages), Nehru (68 pages), Mountbatten (8 pages), Indian National Congress (301 pages), Muslim League (90 pages), Hindu Mahasabha (68 pages), V. D. Savarkar (13 pages), Maulana Azad (10 pages), Liaqat Ali Khan (3 pages), Patel (1 page), Subhas Bose (0 pages), INA (including INA trials, 0 pages). 
*Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan.  1998. Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850-1950 (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  400 pages. .
**Search Results: Gandhi (43 pages), Jinnah (3 pages), Nehru (15 pages), "Quit India Movement" (16 pages), , Subhas Bose (3 pages), Indian National Congress (40 pages),  INA (including INA trials, 0 pages)
*Gooptu, Nandini.  2001. The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. 490 pages.  
**Search Results: Gandhi (35 pages),  Nehru (13 pages),  Bhagat Singh (3 pages), Indian National Congress (136 pages), Subhas Bose (0 pages), INA (including INA trials, 0 pages). 
*Ramusack, Barbara N. The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  324 pages.  
**Search Results: Gandhi (29 pages), Jinnah (3 pages), Nehru (18 pages), Wavell (2 pages), Mountbatten (8 pages), "Quit India Movement" (6 pages), Maulana Azad (0 pages), Liaqat Ali Khan (4 pages), Patel (14 pages), Suhrawardy (0 pages), Subhas Bose (5 pages), INA (including INA trials, 0 pages). 
* Page, David, Anita Inder Singh, Penderel Moon, G. D. Khosla, and Mushirul Hasan. 2001. The Partition Omnibus: Prelude to Partition/the Origins of the Partition of India 1936-1947/Divide and Quit/Stern Reckoning. Oxford University Press. 
**Search Results: Gandhi (214 pages), Jinnah (423 pages), Nehru (249 pages), Wavell (131 pages), Mountbatten (71 pages), "Quit India Movement" (35 pages), Maulana Azad (64 pages), Liaqat Ali Khan (29 pages), Patel (47 pages), Suhrawardy (48 pages), Subhas Bose (9 pages), INA (including INA trials, 7 pages).
I feel that the sources—both secondary and tertiary that I have listed—make a strong case that the topics of user:Rueben lys's interest are not notable enough for inclusion in any compressed (Wikipedia-like) history of India.  Even if we had a few more sentences (say, four or six, instead of the current two), I don't see how his topics would merit inclusion over the others that are deemed more notable.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by {{user|Fowler&fowler}}

message: This is not just the view of these two historians, it is also the mainstream view.  Here are eight (searchable) standard histories of India that are used in university courses worldwide.  As the search results (in the collapsible box below) indicate, the topics that user:Rueben lys would like included (i.e. "revolutionaries/terrorists/extremists," "Bhagat Singh," "Subhas Bose," "Indian National Army/Azad Hind Fauj," "INA trials," all displayed in boldface) are given little coverage in these books.  In contrast "Gandhi," "Jinnah," "Nehru," "Indian National Congress," "Muslim League," Tilak," "Patel," Satyagraha, Non-violence, "Non-cooperation," "Civil disobedience," ... have many more pages devoted to them:
Expand to view eight academic histories of India used in university courses (undergraduate and graduate) around the world.  The numbers in parentheses immediately after an individual/topic name indicate the total number of pages in the book that refer to that individual/topic:
*Markovits, Claude (ed). (Director of Research, CNRS, Paris)  A History of Modern India 1480-1950 (Anthem South Asian Studies).  Anthem Press.  607 pages.  .
**Search results from book:
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (59 pages, 16.34%), Jinnah (24 pages, 6.65%), Nehru (up to 1947) (28 pages, 7.76%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (9 pages, 2.49%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (83 pages, 22.99%), Satyagraha (8 pages, 2.22%), Non-violence (12 pages, 3.32%), Swadeshi (8 pages, 2.22%), Non-cooperation movement (15 pages, 4.16%), Civil disobedience (17 pages, 4.71%), Muslim League (37 pages, 10.25%), Annie Besant (3 pages, 0.83%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (5 pages, 1.39%), Dadabhai Naoroji (3 pages, 0.83%),  Sardar Patel (11 pages, 3.05%), B. R. Ambedkar (6 pages, 1.66%), Lala Lajpat Rai (5 pages, 1.39%), Abul Kalam Azad (6 pages, 1.66%), C. Rajagopalachari (6 pages, 1.66%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (3 pages, 0.83%), Subhas Bose (3 pages, 0.83%), Terrorists (6 pages, 1.66%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 2 pages, 0.55%), Bhagat Singh (2 pages, 0.55%).
*Metcalf, Barbara D. (Professor of History, UC Davis) and Thomas R. Metcalf (Professor of History and India Studies, UC Berkeley).  2006.  A Concise History of Modern India (Cambridge Concise Histories).  Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.  372 pages.  
**Search results from book:
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (86 pages, 25.15%), Jinnah (23 pages, 6.73%), Nehru (up to 1947) (22 pages, 6.43%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (13 pages, 3.80%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (55 pages, 16.08%), Satyagraha (6 pages, 1.75%), Non-violence (12 pages, 3.51%), Swadeshi (16 pages, 4.68%), Non-cooperation movement (22 pages, 6.43%), Civil disobedience (12 pages, 3.51%), Muslim League (26 pages, 7.60%), Annie Besant (2 pages, 0.58%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (12 pages, 3.51%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 2.05%),  Sardar Patel (3 pages, 0.88%), B. R. Ambedkar (6 pages, 1.75%), Lala Lajpat Rai (0 pages, 0%),
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (2 pages, 0.58%), Subhas Bose (5 pages, 1.46%), Terrorists (1890-1947) (6 pages, 1.75%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 3 pages, 0.88%), Bhagat Singh (3 pages, 0.88%).
*Robb, Peter.  (Professor of History of India, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).    2004.  A History of India (Palgrave Essential Histories), Palgrave Macmillan.  368 pages.  .
**Search results from book:                                                           
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (30 pages,  21.8978%), Jinnah (8 pages,  5.8394%), Nehru (up to 1947) (8 pages, 5.8394%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (4 pages, 2.9197%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (16 pages, 11.6788%), Satyagraha (5 pages, 3.6496%), Non-violence (6 pages,  4.3796%), Swadeshi (5 pages, 3.6496%), Non-cooperation movement (6 pages, 4.3796%), Civil disobedience (5 pages, 3.6496%), Muslim League (12 pages, 8.7591%), Annie Besant (2 pages, 1.4599%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (3 pages, 2.1898%), Dadabhai Naoroji (2 pages, 1.4599%),  Sardar Patel (5 pages, 3.6496%), B. R. Ambedkar (5  pages, 3.6496%), Lala Lajpat Rai (3 pages, 2.1898%), Abul Kalam Azad (2 pages, 1.4599%), C. Rajagopalachari (2 pages, 1.4599%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (2 pages, 1.4599%), Subhas Bose (3 pages, 2.1898%), Terrorists (3 pages, 2.1898%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 0 pages, 0%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Bose, Sugata (Professor of History, Harvard University) & Ayesha Jalal (Professor of History, Tufts University).  2003.  Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy Routledge, 2nd edition.  304 pages.   
**Search results from the book: 
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (53 pages, 15.0142%), Jinnah (36 pages, 10.1983%), Nehru (up to 1947) (20 pages, 5.6657%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (17 pages, 4.8159%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (82 pages, 23.2295%), Satyagraha (6 pages, 1.6997%), Non-violence (4 pages, 1.1331), Swadeshi (8 pages, 2.2663%), Non-cooperation movement (5 pages, 1.4164%), Civil disobedience (8 pages, 2.2663%), Muslim League (44 pages, 12.4646%), Annie Besant (2 pages, 0.5666%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (7 pages, 1.9830%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 1.9830%),  Sardar Patel (6 pages, 1.6997%), B. R. Ambedkar (3 pages, 0.8499%), Lala Lajpat Rai (5 pages, 1.4164%), Abul Kalam Azad (6 pages, 1.6997%), C. Rajagopalachari (5 pages, 1.4164%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) 11 pages, 3.1161%), Subhas Bose (12 pages, 3.3994%), Terrorists (0 pages, 0%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 4 pages, 1.331%), Bhagat Singh (2 pages, 0.5666%).
*Kulke, Hermann (Professor of History of India, Kiel University) and Dietmar Rothermund (Professor of History, University of Heidelberg).  2004.  A History of India.  Routledge.  448 pages.  . p 260-266. 
**Search results from book:                                       
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (66 pages, 23.3216%), Jinnah (24 pages, 8.4806%), Nehru (up to 1947) (21 pages, 7.4205%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (12 pages, 4.2403%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (39 pages, 13.7809%), Satyagraha (8 pages, 2.8269%), Non-violence (5 pages, 1.7668%), Swadeshi (3 pages, 1.0601%), Non-cooperation movement (15 pages, 5.3004%), Civil disobedience (9 pages, 3.1802%), Muslim League (19 pages, 6.7138%), Annie Besant (4 pages, 1.4134%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (7 pages, 2.4735%), Dadabhai Naoroji (3 pages, 1.0601%),  Sardar Patel (6 pages, 2.1201%), B. R. Ambedkar (7 pages, 2.4735%), Lala Lajpat Rai (0 pages, 0%), Abul Kalam Azad (5 pages, 1.7668%), C. Rajagopalachari (3 pages, 1.0601%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (4 pages, 1.4134%), Subhas Bose (11 pages, 3.8869%), Terrorists (7 pages, 2.4735%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 5 pages, 1.7668%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Spear, Percival (Reader Emeritus in History, University of Cambridge).  1990.  A History of India, Volume 2  Penguin Books.  298 pages.  
**Search results from book                    
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (58 pages, 20.5674%), Jinnah (15 pages, 5.3191%), Nehru (up to 1947) (23 pages, 8.1560%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (16 pages, 5.6738%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (49 pages, 17.3759%), Satyagraha (1 page, 0.3546%), Non-violence (8 pages, 2.8369%), Swadeshi (11 pages, 3.9007%), Non-cooperation movement (4 pages, 1.4184%), Civil disobedience (11 pages, 3.9007 %), Muslim League (18 pages, 6.3830%), Annie Besant (3 pages, 1.0638%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (13 pages, 4.6099%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 2.4823%),  Sardar Patel (6 pages, 2.1277%), B. R. Ambedkar (14 pages, 4.9645%), Lala Lajpat Rai (6 pages, 2.1277%), Abul Kalam Azad (3 pages, 1.0638%), C. Rajagopalachari (2 pages, 0.7092%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (0 pages, 0%), Subhas Bose (8 pages, 2.8369%), Terrorists (4 pages, 1.4184%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 2 pages, 0.7092%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Stein, Burton (Late of School of Oriental and African Studies, (University of London)  1998.  A History of India.  Basil Blackwell Oxford (Reprinted by Oxford University Press India 2001).  
**Search results from book:                   
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (88 pages, 19.2982%), Jinnah (30 pages, 6.5789%), Nehru (up to 1947) (32 pages, 7.0175%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (14 pages, 3.0702 %), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (79 pages, 17.3246%), Satyagraha (17 pages, 3.7281%), Non-violence (22 pages, 4.8246%), Swadeshi (11 pages, 2.4123%), Non-cooperation movement (18 pages, 3.9474%), Civil disobedience (14 pages, 3.0702%), Muslim League (35 pages, 7.6754%), Annie Besant (6 pages, 1.3158%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (7 pages, 1.5351%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 1.5351%),  Sardar Patel (21 pages, 4.6053%), B. R. Ambedkar (14 pages, 3.0702%), Lala Lajpat Rai (6 pages, 1.3158%), Abul Kalam Azad (3 pages, 0.6579%), C. Rajagopalachari (5 pages, 1.0965%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (4 pages, 0.8772%), Subhas Bose (11 pages, 2.4123%), Terrorists (7 pages, 1.5351%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 5 pages, 1.0965%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
*Wolpert, Stanley (Emeritus Professor of History, UCLA).  2003.  A New History of India.  Oxford University Press.  544 pages.  . p 265.
**Search results from book:                   
*** (Mainstream topics): Gandhi (148 pages, 22.9814%), Jinnah (47 pages, 7.2981%), Nehru (up to 1947) (35 pages, 5.4348%), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (17 pages, 2.6398%), Indian National Congress (up to 1947) (159 pages, 24.6894%), Satyagraha (21 pages, 3.2609%), Non-violence (22 pages, 3.4161%), Swadeshi (11 pages, 1.7081%), Non-cooperation movement (18 pages, 2.7950%), Civil disobedience (15 pages, 2.3292%), Muslim League (41 pages, 6.3665%), Annie Besant (6 pages, 0.9317%), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (18 pages, 2.7950%), Dadabhai Naoroji (7 pages, 1.0870%),  Sardar Patel (18 pages, 2.7950%), B. R. Ambedkar (7 pages, 1.0870%), Lala Lajpat Rai (7 pages, 1.0870%), Abul Kalam Azad (8 pages, 1.2422%), C. Rajagopalachari (3 pages, 0.4658%).
***(Rueben lys's topics): Revolutionaries (i.e. from the period 1890 to 1947) (8 pages, 1.2422%), Subhas Bose (13 pages, 2.0186%), Terrorists (11 pages, 1.7081%), INA/Azad Hind Fauj (including INA trials, 4 pages, 0.6211%), Bhagat Singh (0 pages, 0%).
Of course, one can find narrow-focus monographs devoted only to Bose or the INA, but producing a citation from such a monograph (as I have already stated above) doesn't make the subject of the monograph notable for a compressed Wikipedia history.  However, and in contrast, if the standard histories bestow only cursory attention to some topics ("revolutionaries," Bose, "terrorists," INA, INA trials, ...) then it does become a sign of their non-notability.  
Research monographs, however, can be useful, if their focus is on other contemporaneous topics (in this case, people or events in India during the first half of the 20th century).  If such a book, for example, spends many pages on Gandhi, even though he is not the principal subject, it does so because Gandhi, as a notable contemporaneous figure, infiltrates the circumscribed lives or events of the book's focus.  Compressed in the box below, is a list of some recent monographs, which are all searchable on amazon.com.  I have added the search results; the number in the parentheses (as before) indicates the number of pages in which that person or topic appears.
Expand to view  six research monographs with focus on pre-1947 India.  List includes titles, searchable links, and search results:
* Copland, Ian.  2002.  The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  316 pages. .
**Search Results: Gandhi (20 pages), Jinnah (15 pages), Nehru (48 pages), Mountbatten (44 pages), Indian National Congress (90 pages), Muslim League (21 pages), Maulana Azad (2 pages), Patel (21 page), Subhas Bose (2 pages), INA (including INA trials, 2 pages). 
*Gould, William.  2004.  Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  320 pages.  .
**Search Results: Gandhi (104 pages), Jinnah (19 pages), Nehru (68 pages), Mountbatten (8 pages), Indian National Congress (301 pages), Muslim League (90 pages), Hindu Mahasabha (68 pages), V. D. Savarkar (13 pages), Maulana Azad (10 pages), Liaqat Ali Khan (3 pages), Patel (1 page), Subhas Bose (0 pages), INA (including INA trials, 0 pages). 
*Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan.  1998. Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850-1950 (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  400 pages. .
**Search Results: Gandhi (43 pages), Jinnah (3 pages), Nehru (15 pages), "Quit India Movement" (16 pages), , Subhas Bose (3 pages), Indian National Congress (40 pages),  INA (including INA trials, 0 pages)
*Gooptu, Nandini.  2001. The Politics of the Urban Poor in Early Twentieth-Century India (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. 490 pages.  
**Search Results: Gandhi (35 pages),  Nehru (13 pages),  Bhagat Singh (3 pages), Indian National Congress (136 pages), Subhas Bose (0 pages), INA (including INA trials, 0 pages). 
*Ramusack, Barbara N. The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.  324 pages.  
**Search Results: Gandhi (29 pages), Jinnah (3 pages), Nehru (18 pages), Wavell (2 pages), Mountbatten (8 pages), "Quit India Movement" (6 pages), Maulana Azad (0 pages), Liaqat Ali Khan (4 pages), Patel (14 pages), Suhrawardy (0 pages), Subhas Bose (5 pages), INA (including INA trials, 0 pages). 
* Page, David, Anita Inder Singh, Penderel Moon, G. D. Khosla, and Mushirul Hasan. 2001. The Partition Omnibus: Prelude to Partition/the Origins of the Partition of India 1936-1947/Divide and Quit/Stern Reckoning. Oxford University Press. 
**Search Results: Gandhi (214 pages), Jinnah (423 pages), Nehru (249 pages), Wavell (131 pages), Mountbatten (71 pages), "Quit India Movement" (35 pages), Maulana Azad (64 pages), Liaqat Ali Khan (29 pages), Patel (47 pages), Suhrawardy (48 pages), Subhas Bose (9 pages), INA (including INA trials, 7 pages).
I feel that the sources—both secondary and tertiary that I have listed—make a strong case that the topics of user:Rueben lys's interest are not notable enough for inclusion in any compressed (Wikipedia-like) history of India.  Even if we had a few more sentences (say, four or six, instead of the current two), I don't see how his topics would merit inclusion over the others that are deemed more notable.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Sources: Academic Histories and Research Monographs

message: This issue is increasingly seeming like a storm in a tea cup to me.  I took  a close look at it and let me try to put it in perspective.  Below are results of the exercise I carried out in my sandbox. 
# The disputed portion as it was earlier -  1325 bytes
# After Reuben added his bit - 2799 bytes
# After I tried my hand at 'normalizing' the above versions - 1742 bytes
# After my attempts to improve/build upon the 'normalised' version.. hopefully towards a 'consensus' version - 1924 bytes
# [] This is a version that Fowler found, which I am sure with (quite) a bit of editing can be turned into an acceptable version. If you give a couple of days, I will try to edit this into an acceptable, readable and NPOV version that can at least try to reach a consensus and not make PoV statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 August 2007 No, Rueben, those examples, the work of two banned sockpuppeteers, were meant to illustrate what not to write on Wikipedia.  Please read the section  again.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got to be joking.  Direct Action day was called by Jinnah who seems conspicuous by his absence in both Reuben lys's version and yours.  As for the sentence, "Parallel movements led by radicals such as Subhash Chandra Bose and other revolutionaries also gathered steam," why don't you write to Britannica get them to accept that one sentence in their 19 pages on the Indian freedom struggle.  This is not a copy-editing problem.  It is a problem of content, being pushed by someone (Rueben lys) who can't even write a coherent RfC.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of "add your versions here" (in red) do you have trouble understanding?  I never in the least meant my 'first cut' to be the end of it.  Want to add Jinnah?  add Jinnah.  want to add Pervez Musharaff? add Musharaff.  Just stop filling pages with your useless rants. Sarvagnya 06:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by {{user|Sarvagnya}}:

message: agree that this version lends undue weight to the naval mutiny, INA trials and Bose. if the freedom movement has another sentence or two to play around with, we have lots of options to weigh and then pick from (mention legal and political reforms prior to indep., social reforms preceding and accompanying the independence movement, more leaders, notable incidents that fuelled popular opposition, the economic and demographic changes of the 20th century. see the lead in Indian independence movement) and summary style offers a good way to do that. 
Spear's (1978) largely political history (not particularly sympathetic of Bose - for eg., "authoritarian leanings") has this to say on the INA and the mutinies in its ~90 pages, 7 chapters on the independence movement - 
(pp. 215)
(pp. 231)
doesn't look to be enough to trump all other candidates for inclusion and  carry the weight it does in this revision. Doldrums 08:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: similarly, Metcalf & Metcalf's Concise History of Modern India(page 210), V. P. Menon's Transfer of Power in India(pages 223,225), D N Panigrahi's India's Partition the Story of Imperialism in Retreat(pages 269-270), Śekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa's From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India (pages 426-431) [previews available at Google Books] give brief accounts of the INA, nothing to indicate that it particularly merits a mention in a 2 (or 4) sentence summary - Bose and the INA would have to jostle for space with many other significant events of the ~100 years. Doldrums 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by {{user|Doldrums}}:

message: Fowler earlier mentioned that most academics considers the INA insignificant (or doesn't consider it at all). 
*This is an article I found by Jon Latimer reviewing Bayly and Harper's FORGOTTEN ARMIES: The Fall of British Asia 1941-1945 in timesonline.co.uk which says 
The book itself is an account of the War in south-east asia, from Malaya through Singapore and Burma to Imphal and back to Singapore, and considers Burmese,Malayasian as well as Indian nationalism. But I will draw attention to the fact that the author categorically states that there is a substantially held view among scholars that the INA, especially its trials, played a vital role in the Indian independence. which I believe disagrees with Fowler's earlier assertion. Rueben lys 00:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus among historians

message: Here's another article sourced from The Guardian's book reviews. This is a review by Ian Pindar Mark of Kurlansky's Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea  which says 
Rueben lys 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another

message: ::To Fowler, First of all, I am starting to doubt how "scholarly" your Stanley Wolpert is seeing as he has halved the troops strength of the INA and only found British Indian Soldiers in it (see Indian National Army) Also, the offensive was not stopped by the RAF, but by the IAF (and that's what it was and called, see Indian Air Force), and the 14th Army. Besides, the INA did enter Bengal, reaching Mowdok near Chittagong, it couldn't enter Imphal. Besides, the British did consider the INA to be a very bad influence compared to the Japanese, and had to start "Josh" groups to stop the Indian soldiers from defecting, start circulating propaganda among troops about the INA that said they were Barbaric people who ate their PoWs livers, and in general put a newsban on even mentioning the INA in the media etc...which doesn't really show Wolpert did his homework before publishing. I am not sure anymore that he's a very good historian at all if he cant even count, let alone that he has half digested half vomitted his facts Fowler. Also, Fowler, what does he say about the period between October 1945 and July 1946???
But aside from this please note the original posting I made before intentionally making PoV remarks like "resuscitating Bose" 
Also,  is again open for PoV debate, while I have provided notable historians on India (Fay, Lebra, Majumder, Cohen, Edwards... ) whose Published work (secondary source, in this context) is disagreeing with most of what your scholars have so far said in the encyclopaedias (teriary source in this context).
In the general context of this RfC now. With regards to the weight issue, I am reading up on the wikipedia policy, and this is what I read:
I have so far (as I have said above) used [[Secondary sources (of notable historians) which are concluding that the INA played a vital role in the independence movement, and is held prominently within India. Fowler has so far provided either provided tertiary sources that do not evaluate or inlcude the INA, or have provided a One secondary source and umpteenth tertiary sources that argue that Bose was Fascist or a dictator etc etc (which is not the issue under consideration here) and that His army was a failed military enterprise. (which is not the issue under consideration here either). I like the way the original point has now been twisted to try and have me defend wether "Bose should be included" instead of wether there are other view points that deserve inclusion in addition to the view that Congress was the soul driving force. 
Reiterating what the RfC was about. Fowler's repeatedly reverted versions say 
**The movement started in the first decades of the twentieth century (Dates wrong by about 50 years, only includes the Congress inspired movement). 
**That the Congress started the movement (It did not, political movement started long before the congress even existed. It only became a strong force after Gandhi arrived after the WW I).
**Millions of people engaged in civil disobedience with a commitment to Gandhi's philosophy of Ahimsa. (Only  one movement and Point of View presented, opposed to the contention there were other notable movements and philosophies).
**My edits, including, explaining, and summarising the notable events which secondary sources from reputable authors agree were key points in the movement have been reverted after repeatedly accusing me of bing a PoV pusher, Saffronist, right wing, and one occasion, of not being able to write a coherent RfC.
I have given the sources I used to come to the conclusion that other movements deserve to be mentioned, most notabillity, but not only nationalist sentiments and the political fallouts of the Quit India, INA trials, and (in my opinion, agreed to by Lawrence James' account of the rise and fall of British Raj- which the idnependence movement is all about anyway) the Bombay Mutiny. 
Now first of all, the independence movement section does not mention anything but Gandhi and Congress the reason being cited is that it is 
*a. An FA,
*b. Other encyclopaedias do not mention anything in detail but Gandhi and Congress. First of all, the wikipedia policy on sources say that encyclopaedias are tertiary sources and synthesise materials and opinions, and a Historians interpretation of an event or movement is more acceptable. On the latter, the statement has been made that "most historians" agree that the movements I mentioned in my edits, in fact nothing but the Gandhian movement, was important at all. This statement is being supported by a encyclopaedias and books on India, and not on the independence movement (on which the paragraph is based), and then the argument is being put forward that "we don't have space" so we can only include this view". The references I have given, ie, books on the movement and on parts of the movement do actually calculate the weight and notabillity and categorically makes statements that disagree with the implied meaning of not including the other aspects. 
I have also provided opinions of other notable authors that says something totally opposite about the consensus that Fowler mentions among "academics and Scholars". Rueben lys 11:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the weight issue and point of this RfC and not wether Bose was a Nazi

message: Here's another article from Britannica which I believe makes Indian independence movement concise as well as puts due weight to everything. 
With regards to Fowler's above comment of 
*a. You're not the topic of the dispute, the content of the article's paragraph is. But yes, you're attitude towards ownership of the article and general incivillity, lack of Etiquette, citiing spurious concerns and general threatening words and tone is irritating and a general hindrance towards a collaboration. I am giving you evidence here, and miraculously your arguments have changed from your so called scholar (who can't count and half vomits history) to pretending that my arguments are not worth addressing with facts and arguments based on facts.Rueben lys 12:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another from Britannica on Indian independence movement, about weight

message: I am a bit surprised on a few things:
*a. The number of pages on wierdly allied topics has yielded research monographs on the topic of the Indian independence movement and notabillity.
*b.That highly specialised and economico-historical topics  like "Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India", "Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850-1950", "The Indian Princes and their States" etc have all of a sudden become "focussed" articles on India and the Indian independence movement and,
*c. I am being repeatedly told that "the consensus among the scholars is that these were not at all notable stuff and did not have any bearing whatsoever on relinquishing the Raj" without having provided a single reference that such a consensus has been reached. I have, on the other hand, provided two referenced comments by the those among the very scholars that the consensus says exactly opposite. I have mentioned these here and here, published in well known publications. As for secondary sources on the topic, this what Sumit Sarkar's Modern India, 1885-1947 has to say on the question of what were notable (verbatim):
 (Sarkar, pp 411)
and 
 (Sarkar, pp-419)
and  (Sarkar pp420)
and 
 (Sarkar, pp420)
and 
and 
On the some mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy that you say you cant find (a bit surprised I am, because you seem quite well read and with access to info if you cared to look up), Sarkar says
I believe you would find similar arguments in
Pyarelal's  Maharma Gandhi: The Last Phase, (Vol. IX).
These sit in addition to the preceding secondary sources by notable historians I have provided earlier, who have written on the topic.
Now tell me Fowler, in the pages that you say you find mention of Bose(on the relevant topic and not the books on wether Gungadin was Behari or Gujerati), what does it say. Show me what the factual  (cited, not assumed as you would like us to have by quoting the number of pages) arguments are and who it is made by.
Incidentally, you still haven't told me what Stan Wolpert says about the period between September 1945 and November 1946.Rueben lys 20:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More ''secondary'' sources relevant to the topic

message: I can see that the issue of notabillity has become an issue of coverage. My point was notabillity on the basis of what is said (ie, what's the argument), ie does it find mention to be significant . I have quoted what my sources say, Fowler so far hasn't. That has rapidly been converted into how many pages is devoted to the issues. The issue that the "non-violent" philosophy and movement was a major movement is not the debate. The debate was, are is or was there anything else notable? Did there happen anything outside the Non-violent movement (Quit India being a major point, INA trials being another) that profoundly had an effect on the Independence movement and the Raj? and if they are, are they notable enough to be mentioned in this. I can see  Fowler has a point with regards to coverage, I cant make Fowler see that I have a point on the basis of argument. What have the author said??? I have said what my references say, which allows the judgement of wether it satisfies notabillity or not. I dont see any of Fowler's sources saying anything. Of course, for the major part the stuff that find mention in the books that Fowler quotes . Nothing has been said on what the books say and because Fowler has convinced (impressively, I will say in appreciation) that others dont get coverage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs) 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On sources

message: Here are ten more sources where the authors express the opinion (without counting pages or number of lines or sitting down with a calculator) that the allied movements had considerable impacts, as well as that the INA trials are considerable importance if not expressing the opinion that it was one of the decisive events in shift of British policy.
*Encyclopaedia of India's Struggle for Freedom
by Jagdish Saran Sharma - 1971]
*Forgotten Heroes of India's Freedom Struggle: A Who's Who, British Secret Documents.Pran Nath Chopra - 1992 
*Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan.2003 Uk Heo, Shale Asher Horowitz.
*India. by Stanley A. Wolpert.2005.
*Indian Summer.Wilfrid W. Russell.1951.
*The End of the War in Asia.by Louis Allen.1979.
*India's Struggle for Freedom: Role of Associated Movements. Pran Nath Chopra.
*Dominion India in World Perspectives, Economic and Political. by Benoy Kumar Sarkar.1949.
*Changing India: Bourgeois Revolution on the Subcontinent.Robert W. Stern. History. 2003.
*Tradition Never Dies: The Genesis and Growth of the Indian Army..by Sundar Singh Bawa.1972. 
I think I can show that the historians hold these of considerable importance, inclusing Stan Wolpert (the question that Fowler wouldn't answer). So far opposing we have been given the text of a few encyclopaedia articles which leads to the "assumption" that there's nothing else that's anymore important, or been given a list of books and the calculation of how many times the names are mentioned, "without being told what the authors views or arguments are".No reference has been given that says only the Congress and Gandhi movement was notable and had an impact. I have said what and where these arguments have been made. I have shown that there's consensus that there's more that just the non-violence and congress to the movement that had a significant impact. In addition, that the attempt at statistization has misrepresented the views of the author I have shown above with regards to Kurke and Dortmunds book as well as another which I did not list the content but have menioned by name. The argument being put forward is that it can be assumed from the stats, but I have shown that the stats are hiding the authors actual views and arguments.Rueben lys 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are welcome to rely on evaluations rather than coverage, but then you have to compare these evaluations with those of all the other notable people/events of the time (for eg. Nehru, Muslim league & Jinnah, the social reform movement, Lal-Bal-Pal, Ambedkar, the famines, the partition of Bengal) to decide what to include, not decide on the basis of evaluations of people/events you've already chosen. Doldrums 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: I don't know that I have much expertise on this, but it seems to me that in such a short history section as we have, the version previously existing is more or less appropriate.  If the discussion of the independence movement is to be expanded, it seems to me that we should use the extra space to talk about Jinnah and the Muslim League, and to better explain the background of partition, rather than to talk about Bose, et al.  john k 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by: {{user|John Kenney}}

message: Following are my comments.
# The article as it stands needs more breadth than depth--so few "dimensions" covered. So, a significant part of any increase in prose should go to things that are already wanting to be covered than one of the sections here. That said, I'm not averse to adding a little more prose to the history section and copyediting it.
# Proportion of coverage on Bose is a complex issue. He is, as it is, under covered outside of Wikipedia. That either could be reflecting his actual relative notability or could be due to some systemic bias. If it's the latter case, we're not a primary source tasked to correct that anomaly. That would border on OR. So, IMO, he, along with others not excluding Jinnah merit a mention, but not on par with Gandhi's movement. More detailed coverage belongs in Indian independence movement, not here.
# I don't subscribe to the view that it should be defeatured to allow a liberal editing or that it should be allowed to be messed up before copyediting.  It's not just because it's an FA, but also because it is one of the most widely read articles (I had seen some data a few months back.).
# For the same reason as above, the  tag is an eyesore and must be quickly removed after taking appropriate remedial measures.
I'd request all interested parties to let go of personal differences and arrive at a consensus towards improving this important article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|Sundar}}

message: Fowler's extracts are indicative that mention of Bose has no place in a few paragraphs on the independence movement. If the section is expanded, it should expand to cover moves towards self-government, 1935 Act, the Quit India Movement and the pressures leading to partition. Wikipedia is not where we right great wrongs.Hornplease 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really am not sure what the user directly below me is trying to say. Hornplease 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, Fowler. I don't think I have ever seen a case made as thoroughly as yours. I think we can declare this closed, surely? Reuben, it appears the weight of (page) numbers is against you this time. Hornplease 06:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reuben, the stats are not hiding the actual views in this case. The stats are too overwhelming. You are yet to demonstrate that one of the authors has indicated that "this was equivalent in impact to the Muslim League", or "greater in impact than the Congress ministries following the GOI act of 1935" etc. Obviously, you won't. Because it wasn't. Hornplease 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|Hornplease}}

message: Bose and Bhagat Singh deserve mention, as non-non-violation movement. Some people call them terrorists, but they dint kill not a single innocent people like current terrorists. They certainly deserve mention alongside non-violence movements. Current history section states only one type of independence movement was present i.e. non-violence. All quit india etc were non-violence. Both these leaders can be mentioned in single sentence. Lara_bran 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current version gives false impression that only non-violence movement was there in freedom struggle, which is not true. What type had major effect is secondary, but non-non-violent protest certainly deserves mention, at least as second sentence. Thanks. Lara_bran 07:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|Lara bran}}

message: When I had not read the discussion on this page my opinion was confined to removing the "Contoversial Tag" from this article. Now, after reading the discussion (most of it ;), I am of the opinion that the current description is just fine and should stay as it is. Bose does not deserve mention any more than many other leaders and events, and it would not be possible to mention all of them here as the importance of keeping things concise is, well, important. Rueben lys please relent. --Keynes.john.maynard 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keyenes are you saying you dont find the current summary of the Movement factually incorrect and onesided, even after reading the citations from Ian Copland's work, and Kulke Dortmund's work I have given above. If you wish to have more information as to why it's factually wrong, pls see Metcalfe reference in Fowler's RfC record page and see how they describe the movement. Next read Dwaipayan's compromise version, and see which prose is more appropriate for the summary of the movement.Rueben lys 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not wish to accuse anyone, but there does seem to be a number of editors here expressing support for Fowler who seem have been notified of the RfC by Fowler and invited to make commentsRueben lys 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, apologies for getting your name wrong (this one was first). Secondly, I was not accusing you or anyone else for that matter of expressing support for Fowler. I was expressing my disappointment that the WP:CANVASS guideline had been given a short shrift, but in light of Fowler's current efforts, I too will assume good faith was operating for the purpose of inviting comments here. Lastly, regarding your comments on the content, fair enough, if that's your opinion, then that's your opinion.Rueben lys 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|Keynes.john.maynard}}