Talk:Lawrence James

message: I've removed the reference to Andrew Murray - comments by one newspaper columnist in one article do not deserve to be given such undue preference, especially since the comments do not specifically apply to James. The edit I've removed smells of an attempt to enforce a POV to the article - a political hack-job, if you will.
If Murray or others have problems with James, then a new section should be created detailing such relevant criticism, complete with URLs to the specific criticisms.
Lemorgoth
Why remove criticism?  There is a genuine concern here that the article is not balanced.  I've read 'Raj' and, though he is indeed a good writer, the last chapter has been widely criticised for being pro-Brit.  Just look at the Amazon reviews if you want some easily accessed debate on this.  Andrew Murray's article is but one of many which pick up the other end of this.  I agree that Murray's article is not entirely about James, but Murray picks up on a point that others have certainly made about the writer.
If you read the last chapter of 'Raj' it essentially says that, despite the famines, the documented asset stripping nature of the British Empire, the corruption (e.g. Warren Hastings), the Machiavellian politics (partition of Bengal in the early 20th Century) etc. etc., the Raj was essentially a "good thing".  Trouble is, it reads a bit like, "Mussolini was a bad man, but at least he got the trains to run on time".  It just won't wash.
The first two lines, especially "widely praised for his narrative skill, scholarship and readability" is just not balanced, and is therefore POV.  It is entirely correct to include criticism of James as well as noting his easy prose (which I agree is the case).  There's no right answer here - he's both a good writer and also a purveyor of controversial views.  There's no inconsistency.  The article is fine, but too hagiographic.  Sad to report, but I think that the political hack-job is all yours, my friend.
What do others think?  --Baggie 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article lacks citations. Also the whole bit about the ephebiphobia seams rather fishy (that fact in particular I think needs a citation). Because of this, I'm placing a tag for citations on the article. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think only the paragraph you mention lacks verifiability.  I have deleted it, ready for someone to revert if they can back up the statement.Baggie 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I have removed the sentence relating to attacks by eggs and cucumbers. It was completely unsourced and probably fictitious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.26.86 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed a sentence

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lawrence James. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416093654/http://andrewlownie.co.uk/books/james.lawrence/index.shtml to http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/books/james.lawrence/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified