Talk:India House

message: Copyedited as far as end of section 2.2, "The Indian Sociologist". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now to end of section 2.5, "Transformation". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Complete to end of 3.1, "Scotland Yard" --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyediting now complete. I have no knowledge of the subject other than that which I've gained from reading this article, so it probably ought to be rechecked in case I've inadvertently changed any meanings. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for this massive help, Cant explain how much I appreciate this. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit

message: I've had a breif flutter through and noted a few problems which could be adressed; there are very few sources cited in the introduction to the article, I've selected some of the most prominent; the article needs some more images, in order to break up the voume of text and provide some information; the sources you cite do not provide specific evidence, which they should, especially considering they are web links. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the citation issue, I have put down vonPochammer as a reference, but what he actually says is that the house became a "point of support" The problem is I synthesised that from both what is widely known, as well as some of the other info (see eg, indoctrination of previously non-activist Indian students in the Impact section) through the article. I dont know if this is acceptable. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the referencing issue, I have to point out most (except one if I am correct) of the references I have given are books, not websites as you say. However, if you see or feel that the evidence does not support what has been written, I will reword or find a better reference. Please let me know. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem I have with the references is that they are not specific; a person looking to further their knowledge in this subject, and seeking out the books you mention, would have to search through the entire book to find the cited bits of information. Put the comment from which you have based the information in ' marks after the reference. If you unsure what I mean look at the references of my own article Prehistoric medicine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I can see what you are saying. But I think the references from Popplewell, Hopkirk and Owen (but mainly Popplewell) do talk about in some detail about the organisation, but most writers focus on the impact and the future impact. I wished to avoid any traces of original research, but I am sure most of the references I have given will satisfy a brief over view, what I have done is piece together the scattered facts. I dont know if this helps. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Another comment on references - is it really necessary to have in the list of literature books which are also referred to in the references section? Would it not be better to use the  template in the body of the article for the literature/refs duplicates (naming the ref as has already been done). That way the cited book details will appear in the list of refs, the literature list can be pared down to list only those books etc that are not used in the body of the article as refs, and it can be renamed "Additional reading" or something similar. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment UKexpat. The literature section actually only includes the literature used as reference. ie, none of that is "additional reading". The problem with using the cite book template is that where using the same book for a number of different references, I myself find it confusing and moreover does not indicate (or rather gets lost in the medley) which aspect of the article the focus of book maybe. Moreover, I am not very familiar with using the cite book template, which I am with the harvnb template. Also, I thought it allowes a better template for quoting journals. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it
*The lead says Scotland Yard began investigating India House aftert the assasination, but the Indian Home Rule Society section says detectives investigated it then (much earlier). The Culmination section also says investigations began in 1909 before the assasination. Which is it?
*In the Savarkar section, it says in the second sentence of the section An admirer of the Italian nationalist philosopher Giuseppe Mazzini and a protégé of the radical Indian leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak,[4][34][35] Savarkar was associated ... then the last sentence of the same paragraph says He kept in touch with the movement in India through his brother Babarao Ganesh Savarkar; through him, Savarkar's work was discovered by the extremist Indian Congress leaders of the time, including B.G. Tilak. Tilak is linked both times (overlinked - delink the second one). More importantly, these sentences seem to contradict each other - did Savarkar show up in London as a protege of Tilak, OR did Tilak discover Savarkar through his work there? I think maybe Tilak knew him before, then learned of his work at India House, but if this could be made clearer, that would be helpful
*Is it "Abhinav Bharat Society" or is it "Abhinav Bharat Society"? Both are used
*In American English, outhouse can mean "latrine" - is this what is meant in The outhouse of India House was converted to a "war workshop" where chemistry students ...?
*Is overtaken meant or taken over in By 1908, the India House group had overtaken the London Indian Society, the largest association of Indians in London ...? They do not mean the same thing.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruhrfisch comments 

message: I think this looks much better - good work all around. Here are a few things I noticed rereading it
*The lead says Scotland Yard began investigating India House aftert the assasination, but the Indian Home Rule Society section says detectives investigated it then (much earlier). The Culmination section also says investigations began in 1909 before the assasination. Which is it?
**I am not sure how to clarify this. The 1909 investigation was one in particular, and a very thorough one, which ultimately led to unravelling of the organisation. The ones before that were more surveillance. I cant find the best words to describe this, but India house was definitely noticed by Scotland Yard as early as 1907 (per text) 
***I reread the lead and it seems clearer now, thanks Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Ruhrfisch

message: Hello,
this one just failed due to some copyediting issues. I was sad as it was a fascinating read and so close. I will ask a person or two to see if they can help, and hopefully it can be renominated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful comments and contributions. The article may have to be edited a bit per the comments especially in the last FAC. Nonetheless, cheers guys rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: An image used in this article, File:India House collage2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:India House collage2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 23) In the middle of the second paragraph in India House#Indian nationalism in Britain are the following sentences:
*The IHRS was available "to Indians only", and it garnered significant support from Indians – especially students – living in Britain. Funds received by Indian students as scholarships and bursaries from universities helped the organisation.
(a) Regarding the first sentence, it is not clear in what sense "the IHRS was available 'to Indians only'". Perhaps this should say, "Membership in the IHRS was open to Indians only." Corinne (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Corinne. Allow me to start by saying thanks for the massive work you just undertook (and completed in such a short space of time). Your help is much appreciated. On the issues you raise.
23) How did the funds available to students help the organisation? This is not clarified, but I imagine student's donated a part of their funds to IHRS. I'm afraid this is not spelt out in as many words in any of the literature, but this is the general indication from the literature that is available.
24 a)You are correct, and this is now linked.
24 b) I see your point, and the paragraph has been reworded. Let me know if the structure is good.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section break - Additional comments following GOCE copy-edit 

message: This is a request for comment more than anything else. There are low resolution annotated images of the drawings and constructions of the much talked about Picric acid bomb that Safranski taught Kanungo, chiefly from website linked to Aurobindo. These are annotated images with Bengali markings. Given the current world situation and thoughts, would such an image added to this article be deemed inappropriate or in poor taste? My oersinal thoughts were low resolution truncated images should be acceptable for encyclopaedic value. Comments please.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential image of Safranski's bomb