Talk:William Wilson Hunter

message: You have this as being published by 'Smith, Elder & Co. 1870'. It may have been, and it needs verification, but I understand that it was first published by Broomhill House in 1868, and later reprinted in `Landmarks of Indian Anthropology', vol.7, Cosmo Publications, N.Delhi 1987.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. A second edition certainly dates from 1868. I'll do some more digging. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annals of Rural Bengal 

message: I have tagged this article for POV. It would perhaps be more appropriate to tag for peacock but it is a fine line. Which ever interpretation you choose to adopt, it needs some work. I'll try to get round to it myself but, as always, feel free to do the necessary. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The biography of Hunter published in the Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement cites the biography written by F. H. B. Skrine as the only source. Except the ODNB the 1996 work by Satish Chandra Mittal has got 189–210 pages devoted to Hunter.
Hunter was a regular contributor to The Times (according to the DNB), so perhaps someone with access to their archives can sort a list of his columns. He was also responsible for the publication of the 'Rulers of India' series, this can probably be sourced to an Oxford University Press catalog. Solomon7968 16:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got access to The Times but it will be a horrendous job to search for that lot there. Most of the articles will probably be trivial stuff anyway & I'm not convinced that we need to add everything ever written by him to our article. I suppose a separate WWH bibliography article could be created, if needs be - there is one for William Crooke. I've also got access to the updated ODNB, by the way: we really should not be using the 1901 version. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe since the Skrine biography is the only source for the 1901 DNB version it is also the primary/only source for the updated ODNB. Instead we can add value to the article by tracing the primary sources for the Skrine biography. Like the DNB claims that Hunter was conferred honorary LL.D. degree in 1869 and in 1887 by University of Glasgow and Cambridge respectively. If there was some commemoration volume published about the Convocation ceremony and if it is available in the Internet Archive then it can be cited here. Solomon7968 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: updated ODNB uses F. H. Skrine, Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter (1901) · S. Gopal, The viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, 1880–1884 (1953) · S. Gopal, British policy in India, 1858–1905 (1965) . In any event, we don't use the old DNB when a newer version of the article exists: the DNB --> ODNB revisions were made for a reason & it is almost always that of accuracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Regarding a bibliography of Hunter's works see Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies/Recognized content (bot generated) for bibliographies which are featured lists. Solomon7968 10:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: There is inconsistency among authors about the date of publication and the name of the principal character of this work. 
* John F. Riddick [in ] uses The Old Missionary (1890) while all other authors and The Spectator reference in the article uses  The Old Missionary (1895).
* John Sutherland [in ] states that the name of the principal character of the work is "Trafalgar Dawson" while Taneja, Sena et al. [in ] states the name as "Trafalgar Douglas" and S. P. Sinha [in ] states the name as "Traffalgar Douglas". Solomon7968 12:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Trafalgar Douglas in the 1895 and 1897 editions. Douglas and Hunter were speaking with each other in 1890. I cannot find a UK edition earlier than 1895 (& the UK reviews of the period support that) but there was apparently a New York edition in 1890. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the chronology now makes sense. It is not always the case that an academic source is wrong and given that it can't possibly be plagiarised from Wiki itself (being published in 1990) but still... Solomon7968 21:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be wrong. It could be that US editions used a different character name. Nowadays, they even use different titles sometimes, just as they do for movies. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise that the Concept Pub version spells things wrong - I've often wondered how that outfit gets away with so many misprints. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Old Missionary 

message: May be nemesis will do something about this deliberate misinformation. One has to wait and see.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.96.213 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish rule in South Asia?