Talk:British Raj/Archive 1

message: "it was the largest all-volunteer army in the history of the world."
Any references for the above claim?
Why does this article begin with "Cheese" !
The word MUTINY should be changes with War of Independence ... OR ... Both the names should be listed. The current version is not at all neutral.
No. But isn't it nice that we get to rewrite history.
: I agree, current version POV is questionable. --Kvasir 02:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Can we avoid the usage of the term "Myanmar" in the article. Burma was the name of the area under British Control, and the name Myanmar is not recognised by the United Kingdom, the United States or many other countries in the world. I think it should be changed to burma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segafreak2 (talk • contribs) 
--221.134.229.138 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Myanmar" 

message: There is a huge problem in the way this article talks of history. The Indian Independence Movement and the Indian rebellion of 1857 are treated with an attitude of disregard for the key events and major leaders. The tone and lack of details about Indians, albeit as subjects of the Empire are problematic.
Point of view is definitely a major problem.  For example...  it is said that the Muslim minority wanted a Muslim state...  Muslim minority was very much divided over what Pakistan would be as a state but they wanted a Muslim Majority state...  whether that state separated church and state or not was a separate issue and we know that early on there were many secular voices who called separation of church and state including that of the founder of Pakistan. 202.163.67.241 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: From what I see, this entire entry is about the war of Indian independence.  There is hardly any mention of the creation of the Raj, governance, or duties.  When were they created?  By whom?  Where there main areas that had a Raj or did each village?  Were any famous/infamous?
The only information relevant to the Raj is contained in the summary.
Just my thoughts.
--Backward 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this entry in Wiki? 

message: Since "British Raj" is "an informal term" for British rule in India, is it the most appropriate title for an encyclopedia entry? In addition, the term Raj is not well known outside the former British Empire even among English speakers (e.g, USA, South America, East Asia). What about "British India" or "British South Asia"?  Certainly either of these would need to be qualified (e.g., in regards to Ceylon/Burma) but this is already a part of the introductory definition.  
If the British Raj is the Informal term, what the Hell is the Formal terms for British rule in South East Asia. Your recommendation of British India or British South Asia certainly isnt the "FORMAL" term. If people dont know British Raj or Hindustan they better learn. After all wikipedia is about learning. If British India or British South Asia can be "qualified" why cant Hindustan or British Raj be explained??  
LuiKhuntek 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came to this article wondering, "What on earth is a Raj, exactly?" And the article as it now stands does not answer that question at all.~Sylvain 11/14/05
Why dont u pick up a dictionary, any English Dictionary for that matter. Even though Raj wasnt originally an "English" word it surely was after the British rule in Asia. There are many English words that were not originally part of the english but have become so. Wikipedias aim should be to be accuracte and precise. it shouldnt uneccessarily be dumbed down. Sorry guys i feel strongly about this.      
Raja = King,   Raj = verb= the act of ruling. When the British used the word Raj they meant the British Kindom (coz Kindom is a place where one engages in the act of ruling). Since Raj is a hindustani word, the Kingdom referred to this particular region and not any part of the empire. If you guys are so hung up on "Raj" even though it is the authentic manner to refer to that part of the empire than you could use British Hindustan. This term was common at the time. 
It appears the article used to be called british india and was changes for some reason.~pure inuyasha
British India is a more appropriate title for this page, however a redirect should definately be kept for British Raj. That term is still used quite frequently, but not as much as British India. DaGizza Chat (c) 10:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this entry 

message: :Add any additional comments
:* The term British Raj may have been informal, but it has wide acceptance. Also, considering that there is a separate article on Company rule in India, moving this article to British India will be a little confusing. Kunal (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps its use is similar to that of "The Throne" or "The Crown" (one of those so-called Synecdoches). //Big Adamsky 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *"It's called the British Raj. "British India" is merely descriptive." - RussNelson  =  =  But what is it ?  British Raj is an informal or colloquial term for British authority in British India.  But the article is an overview of many elements (of the history) of British India.  While British Raj can sometimes be applied to mean British India in general, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia and not a list of ambiguous colloquialisms or synecdoches.  (And, yes "British India" is a "mere" descriptive -- it describes British India.) LuiKhuntek 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *"British India could refer to the pre-Mutiny EIC administration, while the Raj refers more specifically to the system of direct and indirect rule tied to the Crown." ??? What's wrong with talking about the pre-Mutiny administration? John Smith's 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ** The problem is, that there is already a Company rule in India page - the Raj page is supposed to deal with Indian history between the Mutiny and Independence. Vneiomazza 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would it be wrong to merge the two articles? That happens all the time on wiki. John Smith's 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that merging this article and Company rule in India makes good sense. There is a great deal of continuity between the period of company rule and the period of crown rule. The British Parliament was making laws governing India as far back as 1773, and the administrative setup (presidencies, provinces, and districts) hardly changed when company rule ended. Tom Radulovich 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *That would solve the title "controversy" in a convenient manner, but might the resulting article be too long? If not, I must add, it would certainly merit looking into. The two periods do overlap: with regard to the Mutiny, which does not quite fit on either page, and since the subsequent changeover was largely nominal in any case. Vneiomazza 19:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: the sepoys didn't so much offer their services to the Mughal emperor as they appointed him the somewhat reluctant figurehead of their uprising. 
also, in the material I've read (Bose and Jalal, "Modern South Asia") the cartriges for the Lee-Enfields *were* greased with animal fat, both pig and cow, which is offensive to Muslims and Hindus, respectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.16.226 (talk • contribs) . (Comment moved from Talk:British India as part of history merge, undoing a month-old cut and paste move.  See  and  for more details than you probably want -GTBacchus(talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sepoy Rebellion

message: Why is it shown as part of British India on the map? Pure inuyasha 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South yemen. 

message: "At the same time, the British abolished the British East India Company and replaced it with direct rule under the British Crown, and so began the greatest exploitation of the greatest number of people, and what prior to the colonial era, was the largest internal economy, reducing the share of India's GDP output by the end of this 90 year old oppression, a share reduced from 30% in the 1700s, to 3% in 1947."
This sounds as if the informatin it is trying to convey is probably interesting and important, but as it stands the last 3/4 of the sentence (from "and so began") is totally confusing to me, and i suspect others as well. Could the author or someone else clarify or expand it for those with less knowledge of economics or British colonial economic policies?
--82.20.244.207 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: very unclear sentence on economics of British rule

message: great bravery?  the rebels outnumbered their enemy 60 to 1 in some cases and 20 to one in others and still lost.  This could not have happened if a majority of the rebel force fought with great bravery.  Naerhu 09:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias deleted 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nominator. —  AjaxSmack   06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper (and increasingly archaic) sense of British India vis-à-vis Princely States already has an article under Provinces of India.  If a raj is India (which I'm not sure it is), why not use India for the main article?  As you noted above, "both names share the common weakness that this article does not begin with the Mutiny" so a first paragraph explanation is in order either way. —  AjaxSmack   18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It lacks the important aspects of the British rule of India, such as the economics, political, and social aspects.  Half the article appears to be about the Indian independence from British rule.  Issues like opium farming in India aren't even mentioned at all.  This article is very present-day India-centric and POV.  It needs to be vastly expanded and restructured. 
Needed sections:
*Administrative
*Demographics
*Economics
*Foreign affairs
*Culture
*Evaluation of British rule
--128.135.36.148 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very incomplete. 

message: There seems to me to be too much on Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA in this article versus the rest of the freedom movement. The current version makes it look rather as if Bose defeated the Raj. I've tried to introduce a bit of NPOV (debolding his name, for a start), but the whole thing seems pretty unbalanced. -- TinaSparkle 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subhas Chandra Bose

message: *Firstly, how about a template on the lines of Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, et al.
*Secondly, what is the difference between this article and Colonial India? Shouldn't the two articles be merged??
Some thoughts by --WoodElf 08:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template/Merge 

message: Stating that Queen Victoria declared herself Empress would appear to give too much agency to her. It was Benjamin Disraeli who, in an attempt to flatter her, raised the possibility of her becoming an Empress. Just a thought.129.11.77.197 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empress of India 

message: There is no mention of the impact on Inda. The starvations that killed tens of millions, the deindustrialization of India... The article contains the following; "Economic historians estimate that India commanded roughly 25% of world GDP by 1800, but perhaps a tenth of that by the 20th century, due in large part to the severe and rapid decline in the Subcontinent's native industries.", but no explanation to why. Someone with deeper knowledge of the subject might want to share.
I think that line is extremely vague and misleading. During the 19th and 20th century, the European economies had grown very rapidly owing to the Industrial revolution and the world GDP had increased exponentially, thus dwindling India's GDP significantly (even if it had maintained the same growth rate as before 1800s). Granted that the British rule implemented very bad economic policies but to  blame it solely seems almost laughable to an economist.  Byuiyer 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on India 

message: I see this section has been renamed "First War of Independence". This sounds very PC but most history books still refer to the Indian Mutiny. This could cause confusion. May we change it back or at least have a dual designation? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Mutiny

message: In this edit, User:Razzsic moved this article from "British Raj" to "British India", even though there seemed to be no consensus on this matter on the talk page.  Unfortunately, this move created a whole bunch of double redirects (broken links from other pages) that I have had to fix.  I wish to ask him (and any future movers) to be more considerate of other editors in the future. Esn 08:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The page move

message: If anybody has a source of figures, it would be nice to see some demographic information about the Raj. For example, it would be good to have at least a rough idea of the actual number of British people in India at each phase, perhaps subdivided by role (eg. ICS, military, missions, private business) and how this compared to the size of the native population at the time. Best wishes, Cambyses 10:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics of the Raj 

message: Previously, the predecessors of British India were given as including the Sikh Confederacy and the Maratha Confederacy.  However, since they ended in 1799 and 1818 respectively, so clearly were not direct predecessors of British India.  Even the Sikh Empire was brought to an end in 1849, so (again) was not the direct predecessor of the Raj.  Only the British East India Company and the Mughal Empire were direct predecessors, as now reflected.
Similarly, the somewhat inaccurate descriptions of the Republic of India and the Republic of Pakistan were given as the successors.  That, though, skips over the 3 years of the Dominion of India and the 9 years of the Dominion of Pakistan, which were the two true successor states. Bastin 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! What about the Maratha kingdoms of Indore, Gwalior, Nagpur, and Jhansi? Look at Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi for example which took part in the 1857 rebellion. Also, Mughal Empire didn't technically exist. It was Oudh. So, saying Mughal Empire was precedessor to the British Empire is incorrect. The Mughal Empire came to an end during the expansion of the Marathas! And that Burmese empire didn't take part in the rebellion!! Then how is that a precedessor? --Grubb 12:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indore, Gwalior, and Nagpur continued to exist as independent states after the Mutiny, and Jhansi was absorbed by Gwalior, not by the Raj.  None can be considered as predecessors to the Raj, I don't  think.  Oudh and the Mughal Empire were not the same.  Oudh had  been annexed to the British East India Company during Lord Dalhousie's governor-generalship.  The Mughal Empire remained a dependent state centered on Delhi until after the Mutiny, when Bahadur Shah II was deposed and its lands annexed.  So I'm not sure what you mean by either of your points. john k 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mughal Empire barely existed beyond the boundaries of present-day Delhi; so to say that the Mughal Empire (which practically came to an end long before thanks to Marathas, Sikhs and Afghans) is a predecessor to the Raj and at the same time ignore other important kingdoms like Awadh, Jhansi, Kanpur and Jhelum which took part in 1857 rebellion seems a bit wrong. Also, even though Jhansi was absorbed into Gwalior, it still came indirectly under British rule. So you mean to say, Gwalior was not a part of the British Indian Empire? Also, what do you mean by Indore, Gwalior, and Nagpur continued to exist as independent states?? Independent states? Yeah, and Greenland is an independent nation and not a federacy. --122.163.115.155 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successors and precedessors

message: Raj is a local term. It's use is mainly in India itself and in British English. Most of the world knows this as British India. Google returns 360,000 for the Raj title and 942,000 for the India version . -MichiganCharms 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Again  

message: Talk:Emperor_of_India#Emperor_of_the_all_the_Indies.3F
Since there is the article French colonial empires that treats two separate colonial periods, would it not make sense to have a map, or consider this one (British Raj) to be the second British effort, the first being the American colonies?  68.110.8.21 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One or two Empires of the Indies? 

message: Maps such as this suggest that Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim were princely states with pretty much the same status as Hyderabad State or Kingdom of Mysore, all of which managed to retain their formal independence by supporting the British (e.g., pro-British stance in Indian Rebellion of 1857). It would be good to have more references on the claim that Nepal and Bhutan were not considered a part of the British Raj, while other princely states were (they too had 'treaties' with the British). Some details on these treaties, and the origin of the special status (if any) of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim would be useful. I'm pretty sure they did have some special status, since they were never, in my knowledge, proposed to be merged with the Republic of India (except Sikkim). deeptrivia (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Though I'm sure to be pummelled for doing this again, there have been several attempts/requests for this:
*:British Raj → British India
Arguments against Raj:
#Raj is incorrect for the scope of this article; Raj is 1858-1947 but 1/3 of the article deals with pre-Raj British India
#Raj is incorrect for the subject of this article; raj means rule, not realm
#Raj is a colloquialism; Other rajs redirect to less colloquial forms (e.g., Mughal Raj redirects to Mughal Empire).
#Raj is a regionalism not widely used by the more than half of English speakers who learn froms of American English
#Raj is vague  (cf. "Scottish Raj" where raj is used to mean a clique or faction.)
Arguments for British India:
#British India is more encyclopedic
#XX India is used for other colonial enterprises (e.g. French India, Portuguese India, Danish India)
#British India is most common form in other secondary source material (like encyclopedias such as Britannica)
—  AjaxSmack  07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in the appropriate section with #Support or #Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
====Support====
#Support as nominator. —  AjaxSmack  07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm confused by AjaxSmack's comment.  Since August 24, 2003, this article has been about the period 1858 to 1947 and the title has remained "British Raj."  It's one thing to ask for a change of name; it's entirely another to say that the purpose (and content) of the article should now be about the entire period of British involvement in India.  That doesn't make sense to me.  One can create a separate article, titled "British India," which could be about the period 1618 to 1947 etc.  But this article is not about that period.  The period 1858 to 1947 has been mentioned and stabilized in the lead for four years now.  We can't summarily change that.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are correct that the article has nominally been about 1858-1947 since the cited date (although it was originally written as an overview of all British involvement).  However, despite the title, introduction and infobox , the article's "purpose" has been and continues to be de facto about the history of the entire period of British involvement in South Asia with 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text devoted to pre-1858 events.  Therefore it makes sense that the edit history remain with this article, even if another article dealing only with the 1858-1947 Empire is created (as suggested by User:Bastin8 below. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Additional comments:
Well, after mulling it over, I think the name of this page should be British Empire in India.  This name, I believe, would provide maximum information.  The "Indian Empire," which was the official name of the entity, would create confusion with other meanings of "Indian" and "British Indian".  As for "British India," it is true that the term is increasingly being used to mean the "Indian Empire," but that usage has not stabilized yet.  (See my remarks above.).  How about the following lead sentence? "The British Empire in India, officially, the Indian empire, informally, the British raj ('rāj', lit. 'rule' in Hindi), internationally and contemporaneously, India, and now increasingly, British India, are the terms used variously for the region, the rule, and the period, from 1858 to 1947, of the British empire on the Indian subcontinent."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your proposal for three articles (or 2+1) deserves to be acted on and I will per WP:BOLD.  I agree that the article has always included a "bias in favour of irrelevant content and that is the fault of the content, and not an inherent flaw with this article."  However, since the edit history of the article deals with the 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text that is "irrelevant," the edit history should remain with this overview/history  article rather than an article specifically on 1858-1947.  (As I noted above, the article was created as an overview of all British involvement in India and has continued to have significant pre-1858 content).  The current article is very thin on the Empire with the exception of the narrative history (e.g., few admin details) and frankly the Empire deserves better treatment.  The intro text specific to 1858-1947, the infobox, the provinces section could be moved to a new location leaving the present article largely intact and true to your proposal for an article "titled 'British India' (per 'French India', etc) dedicated to" an overview/history of both the British East India Company and the British Indian Empire. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in the appropriate section with #Support or #Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
====Support====
#Support as nominator. —  AjaxSmack  07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm confused by AjaxSmack's comment.  Since August 24, 2003, this article has been about the period 1858 to 1947 and the title has remained "British Raj."  It's one thing to ask for a change of name; it's entirely another to say that the purpose (and content) of the article should now be about the entire period of British involvement in India.  That doesn't make sense to me.  One can create a separate article, titled "British India," which could be about the period 1618 to 1947 etc.  But this article is not about that period.  The period 1858 to 1947 has been mentioned and stabilized in the lead for four years now.  We can't summarily change that.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are correct that the article has nominally been about 1858-1947 since the cited date (although it was originally written as an overview of all British involvement).  However, despite the title, introduction and infobox , the article's "purpose" has been and continues to be de facto about the history of the entire period of British involvement in South Asia with 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text devoted to pre-1858 events.  Therefore it makes sense that the edit history remain with this article, even if another article dealing only with the 1858-1947 Empire is created (as suggested by User:Bastin8 below. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nominator. —  AjaxSmack  07:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Strongly Oppose MichiganCharms demonstrates that this is another Anglo-American dispute; which it is policy to leave alone. There is also the question of precision: This article indicates its scope as 1858-1947. British India began, at the latest, in 1683, with the acquisition of Bombay; the British Empire in India would begin in 1877. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm confused by AjaxSmack's comment.  Since August 24, 2003, this article has been about the period 1858 to 1947 and the title has remained "British Raj."  It's one thing to ask for a change of name; it's entirely another to say that the purpose (and content) of the article should now be about the entire period of British involvement in India.  That doesn't make sense to me.  One can create a separate article, titled "British India," which could be about the period 1618 to 1947 etc.  But this article is not about that period.  The period 1858 to 1947 has been mentioned and stabilized in the lead for four years now.  We can't summarily change that.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are correct that the article has nominally been about 1858-1947 since the cited date (although it was originally written as an overview of all British involvement).  However, despite the title, introduction and infobox , the article's "purpose" has been and continues to be de facto about the history of the entire period of British involvement in South Asia with 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text devoted to pre-1858 events.  Therefore it makes sense that the edit history remain with this article, even if another article dealing only with the 1858-1947 Empire is created (as suggested by User:Bastin8 below. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: :Additional comments:
Well, after mulling it over, I think the name of this page should be British Empire in India.  This name, I believe, would provide maximum information.  The "Indian Empire," which was the official name of the entity, would create confusion with other meanings of "Indian" and "British Indian".  As for "British India," it is true that the term is increasingly being used to mean the "Indian Empire," but that usage has not stabilized yet.  (See my remarks above.).  How about the following lead sentence? "The British Empire in India, officially, the Indian empire, informally, the British raj ('rāj', lit. 'rule' in Hindi), internationally and contemporaneously, India, and now increasingly, British India, are the terms used variously for the region, the rule, and the period, from 1858 to 1947, of the British empire on the Indian subcontinent."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal for three articles (or 2+1) deserves to be acted on and I will per WP:BOLD.  I agree that the article has always included a "bias in favour of irrelevant content and that is the fault of the content, and not an inherent flaw with this article."  However, since the edit history of the article deals with the 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text that is "irrelevant," the edit history should remain with this overview/history  article rather than an article specifically on 1858-1947.  (As I noted above, the article was created as an overview of all British involvement in India and has continued to have significant pre-1858 content).  The current article is very thin on the Empire with the exception of the narrative history (e.g., few admin details) and frankly the Empire deserves better treatment.  The intro text specific to 1858-1947, the infobox, the provinces section could be moved to a new location leaving the present article largely intact and true to your proposal for an article "titled 'British India' (per 'French India', etc) dedicated to" an overview/history of both the British East India Company and the British Indian Empire. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is the intention of this 'move' to also redefine what the purpose of this article is?  As it quite clear from the introduction and infobox, this article is about the part of India's history during which it was ruled by the British government (1858 until 1947).  Whilst it includes a bias in favour of irrelevant content (i.e. that related to the activities of the HEIC), that is the fault of the content, and not an inherent flaw with this article.  As a result, there is no reason that this article shouldn't be about the period 1858 - 1947 specifically (and thus be called 'British Raj').  I am in favour of three separate articles:
* One titled 'British East India Company' (per 'Dutch East India Company', etc) dedicated to India as governed by the HEIC.
* One titled 'British Raj' (i.e. this one) dedicated to India as governed by the British government.
* One titled 'British India' (per 'French India', etc) dedicated to the two together.
Bastin 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal for three articles (or 2+1) deserves to be acted on and I will per WP:BOLD.  I agree that the article has always included a "bias in favour of irrelevant content and that is the fault of the content, and not an inherent flaw with this article."  However, since the edit history of the article deals with the 1/3 to 1/2 of the body text that is "irrelevant," the edit history should remain with this overview/history  article rather than an article specifically on 1858-1947.  (As I noted above, the article was created as an overview of all British involvement in India and has continued to have significant pre-1858 content).  The current article is very thin on the Empire with the exception of the narrative history (e.g., few admin details) and frankly the Empire deserves better treatment.  The intro text specific to 1858-1947, the infobox, the provinces section could be moved to a new location leaving the present article largely intact and true to your proposal for an article "titled 'British India' (per 'French India', etc) dedicated to" an overview/history of both the British East India Company and the British Indian Empire. —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose

message: *The name "British Raj" is or was used very often in Britain, officially, not only colloquially. Anthony Appleyard 05:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other disucussion copied from [[WP:RM]]

message: What about this then?:
* One article titled 'Company rule in India' (per 'Dutch East India Company', etc) dedicated to India as governed by the HEIC.
* One titled 'British Indian Empire' dedicated to India as governed by the British government.
* One titled 'British rule in India' (i.e. this one) dedicated to the two together; an overview page with a narrative history of all British involvement in India including pre-1757.
* A disambiguation page titled British India (the one you created).
This would entail a lot of work sorting out all of the incoming British India (and many British Raj) links but it would mean more accurate linking. 
— —  AjaxSmack  06:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you mind waiting another day?  I'd like to go through some references and make sure that the terminology we choose is not problematic or controversial in any way.  Will post a reply tomorrow.  Thanks.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all except the "British Indian Empire," which I think should be called "Crown rule in India."  I guess the only thing, that needs to be mulled over are the titles: should they be "Company rule in India," or "India during Company rule;"  similarly, "Crown rule in India" or "India under Crown rule,"  etc.  I personally would prefer the latter formulations, because the emphasis is on the region.  Wonder what others think?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I should have explained that my problem with British Indian Empire is not only that it began only in 1876, but also, that the region was simply called "India." (The empire idea was suggested by Disraeli to Victoria and invited derisive comments from more liberal British politicians like Gladstone).  One has to be careful about using appellations that were never widely used, as primary names of articles.  It may sound like I am contradicting what I said earlier (above), but I'm just trying to be careful, so that we don't get in more trouble later.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: What of Diego Garcia and the Chagos archipelago (which are now the British Indian Ocean Territory)? They were ceded by France to the United Kingdom, I'm guessing the islands were administered by the UK from Mauritius? Or were they were administered from India? --Taktser 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chagos archipelago]] 

message: "were allowed a degree of local autonomy in exchange for protection and representation in international affairs by Great Britain."
That sentence doesn't make sense. I'm not a specialist in this subject but I think what the author meant is something like "...had to give up most of their autonomy in exchange for protection and representation...". Repetition 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it makes sense; although we could make it "accepting protection...". The alternative to the autonomy received by Hyderabad was not independence, but conquest, like Oudh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  were allowed a degree of local autonomy in exchange for... 

message: India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...' -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian's report