 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A good idea for merger, but which way? If time based, we start with the classical, Angaria, it's derivation and history, and move to the "modern" contraction/transliteration, with it's implications. Cambridge Paul (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposed merger. Angaria is the seizure of services, Angary of property. These are two different things. Macduff (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that this proposed merger has been in place for almost a year, with very little discussion. If there are no additional comments, I will remove the proposal in short order. Macduff (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
From the Article, with suspect line italicized:
"...though belonging to companies or private persons, may be used for military operations, but 'must be restored at the conclusion of peace and indemnities paid for them.'"
Should this not read "at the conclusion of war"? Can someone verify the wording from the document? It would seem to a casual observer that this says they have to give back the siezed property when peace ends, that is when the war starts, which seems counterintuitive. 71.201.126.157 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Plain English edit
This article was written with a lot of technical terms that make it difficult for laymen to understand. It should be edited at least to reflect that most people looking at it may not understand it’s meaning. (I did, but even I had to look one up.) A way of doing so might be to use examples, rather than verbatim translation (that might even make less sense).174.25.142.178 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON