Talk:Inland Customs Line

message: A recent edit to this article has changed it from an article about the Great Hedge to an article about a book about the Great Hedge.  This would make sense if there were some dispute about the existence of the hedge, but as far as I know there is none.  It certainly does not appear to be fictional or a hoax, as there are multiple primary sources, even available on the Web, which are independent of Moxham.  See my edits.
On the other hand, the usual contemporary name for this customs barrier was apparently the "Inland Customs Line", not the "Great Hedge of India", a name popularized by Moxham.  But that name appears to have caught on in subsequent references, so it seems OK to use it as the main title (I have also added a redirect from Inland Customs Line).  --Macrakis 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems sensible to me. Good idea about the redirect. Naturenet | Talk 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book or object?

message: In this paragraph from the current version of the article:
:"The Great Hedge was forgotten in India as well as in Britain, without even passing mentions in standard histories, until its existence was unearthed by Roy Moxham, a conservator at the University of London Library. Moxham first came across the Hedge by chance in a passing mention in a footnote of an obscure book about India."
There is zero mention of WHEN the Great Hedge was rediscovered. Seems like this would be a highly relevant detail. Clayhalliwell (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rediscovery? 

message: I have been (slowly!) working on a rewrite of this article at User:Dumelow/Sandbox2 and have just finished (in as much as I feel able to stick it in mainspace).  My work draws a lot from Moxham but I have also brought in as many other sources as I can.  As it stands it is written about the Inland Customs Line with the Great Hedge included.  For this reason I intended to move it to Inland Customs Line and make this page (Great Hedge of India) a redirect.  Are there any objections to this?  Also feel free to improve the version in my userspace if you like (hopefully it will make it to mainspace soon anyway) - Dumelow (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one has objected in a week I am going to go ahead with what I have described above - Dumelow (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so, the main article is now at Inland Customs Line and Great Hedge of India is a redirect.  I transferred this talk page to the new article - Dumelow (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if the tax on a 37-kilo maund of salt was 3.25 rupees, for the salt tax to cost the consumer 2 rupees a year (as stated in the article) would require the consumer to use 22 kilos of salt a year.  Even for a family, that seems high by at least an order of magnitude.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.210.179 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Salt is highly important to Indian cuisine, even moreso in the 19th century where almost all food was prepared from scratch in house (no processed food with added salt was available).  Moxham states that an Indian family of two adults and three children would consume at least half a maund (18.5 kilos) per year.  The East India Company's own figures (which sought to downplay the importance of salt to the Indian family) stated an average consumption of 12 pounds (5.4 kilos) per head, Moxham quotes other sources giving an average figure of 16 pounds (7.3 kilos) per head.  In addition to this there is differing opinion on the amount of salt needed to feed any livestock held by the family.  In light of these figures an average consumption of 22 kilos per family (which could often exceed the five members used above) seems fairly reasonable.  Hope that helps - Dumelow (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost to Consumer 

message: The "Origins" section implies an agricultural labourer earns 1 rupee per month, while "Staff" says 3...? Jpatokal (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly wages 

message: Is there images of the hege? This article sounds so strange, so if there is any, this article needs it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1680:AA03:0:9C0A:6088:7546:7C08 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the Hege? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Inland Customs Line. 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/20110528172137/http://www.rmoxham.freeserve.co.uk/maps.htm to http://www.rmoxham.freeserve.co.uk/maps.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003062936/http://www.rmoxham.freeserve.co.uk/about%20the%20book.htm to http://www.rmoxham.freeserve.co.uk/about%20the%20book.htm
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) 02:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The last words in the section on the book are unclear:  " personally attended by Roy Moxham himself." -- What did he attend -- the publication or the hedge?  Is this significant in either case?  Kdammers (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I got rid of the Moxhm bit which is not required and reworded and sourced the Tamil language translation - Dumelow (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil translation 

message: I added a paragraph about a 2 minute sketch on Horrible Histories from 2015. It might be seen as trivial but I expect more people learned about the hedge there than from any other source, hence my mention of the viewing figures. JohnHarris (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly trivial cultural reference