Talk:Political warfare in British colonial India

POV

This is at present a very slanted article, of the type that might be generated by the more extreme Hindutva fraternity. Please, can we try to achieve some balance in the thing. I am unsure right now whether it should even exist, given the numerous other articles that cover the subject of the Indian independence movement, but I am prepared to give it a chance. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, what do you think I can change to make it a better fit? Granted, much of it seems slanted but I think that is because the poltiics of the day were not as politically correct or progressive as they are today. - JohnnyFelix

Please forgive me, but I have merged this separate section that you created for your reply to my initial post - it keeps things tidy, I think, but feel free to change it back to how it was.

Right now, I am not sure what the solution may be or indeed if a solution is necessary: I have a gut feeling that the content will need a lot of work and that even the title may need to be changed in order to present a balanced picture. Although I am familiar with the subject area in general, I am going to have to read around quite a lot to see how this fits in with our more long-standing articles. I am also slightly concerned about one or two of the sources, and Peter Hopkirk in particular. I recall reading rave reviews about some of his books, but also some pretty harsh criticisms. But that is 20 years or more since, and I am at that sort of age where the memory fails me sometimes!

Some of the phrasing definitely will need to be changed: if you excuse the wordplay then, for example. there probably should not be sentences using the phrase "for example" :s - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great! That is sound feedback. I'll be able to change some of the phrasing certainly. You're right on the "example" bit. I encourage you to take a look Hopkirk's Great Game. It's an interesting historical analysis of the contest between Britain and Russia and their respective imperial designs for Persia, the "stan" countries and India. -JohnnyFelix

It is drifting off-topic but "yes" to the -stan stuff. The buffer zone goes back a long way in geopolitics. It is mentioned at James Tod, for example, and was not a new thing then. The key is to keep the focus of an article, which is exactly what I have not done by going off on a tangent here and may also be an issue with some aspects of using Hopkirk ;) The problem with "for example" is that it can take on the appearance of cherry-picking: far better if we can just straight-cite someone who states the bare "fact". Well, that is my view right now, but it is 0230 here & I've been awake for ca 40 hours, so my opinion may change! - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All Change

I have been attempting to improve this article, although I am not convinced that it should exist at all. There are four main issues that need to be addressed. First, the two stages of British rule in India, Company then Raj, are not made clear when dealing with each subset. Second, it is far too reliant on long quotes from secondary sources. Third, the style is inconsistent and reads as if it is a cut and paste job or an essay. Four, the article has too limited a pool of references. The article would also be better informed by reference to works like Gilmour's Ruling Caste, Cannadine's Ornamentalism, and Dalrymple's White Mughals. Rsloch (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have my doubts regarding whether it should exist. As per the thread above, I am hoping to delve a little deeper. Your reading list is appreciated - I was taught by Cannadine ;) - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article has substantive flaws in style and format, but it seems to me that the point of the article is to highlight past techniques of imperial power that would stem from the British intelligence community or the power politics of the Foreign Office. My long winded point: it seems relevant in its content, just not quite in its format. Ender3 —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Wouldn't such material be better included in a 'Governance' section in the Company and Raj articles? Rsloch (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be best, if not here, then under examples on the Political Warfare page. Ender3 —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Hi all, I apologize for not getting to edits faster but have been tied up a bit. In the coming days I plan to thoroughly scrub this article as it is my first entry into the realm of Wikipedia. I want to create a legitimate contribution to the subject knowledge and encourage your format changes and suggestions. Please keep them coming! - JohnnyFelix — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyFelix (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Progress?

Per previous discussions on this talk page, I fear that this article is likely to need either merging or deleting. The POV slant is very evident and even the title does not really make much sense. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)