User talk:Sunray/Archive13

Stephen Hendry

Hey, I've posted a new suggestion as a quote on the discussion page. I hope this could settle things? The point I've been consistently trying to demonstrate is that far from me trying to bias the article towards my opinion, it is WalterMitty who is trying to use the fact that he clearly disagrees with Hendry have this status to falsely give the impression that this is something of fundamental disagreement within the snooker world. As the BBC and this new WorldSnooker quote illustrate, this is innacurate, and its innacurate for wikipedia to present his perspective as the state of things. As the official quote says, within snooker Hendry is generally held to be the greatest player ever. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perspective held, and is a valuable perspective of Hendry's status within the game that I think should be presented in the lead. Making it a quote is a good idea. Jleadermaynard (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland article

Hello there, was it me you were referring to as calling myself a seasoned editor(with only 3 months experience)? I can assure you, I never made any claim to being a seasoned editor, all I was saying was that while the same arguments are being repeated over and over again editors who have been doing a good job improving the bulk of the article seem to be avoiding it like the plague while this is going on! I don't include myself in this category(I hope to one day!) I have a hard enough time finding the right keys to press on the keyboard! I came to computers late in life.:-) Jack forbes (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this. I am somewhat frustrated with some of the arguments that I am reading on that talk page. I agree that the whole article needs work, but people are being driven off by the attitude of a minority, IMO. I raised a simple concern and got an amazing variety of replies that seemed to miss the point. Hopefully it can be sorted out. But I'm not yet sure I want to be involved. Sunray (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Medcom

Hey. For a trial case, should medcom approve, would you be interested in taking the case Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit? Although I called it, I actually haven't started anything at all (and will probably withdraw anyway due to a lack of time on my end), so if you would like to have it you're more than welcome to. Let me/medcom know if you're interested. Wizardman 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure I would be willing to take it on. I had looked it over the other day and saw that you had picked it up. What's the process? Sunray (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, answering my own next question, I note that you had not contacted them, so I will proceed. Sunray (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[Moved from AGK's talk page for ease of reference] Sunray, I have followed the standard Committee procedure regarding offers from non-MedCom mediators to take a case, and thrown a proposal out to parties on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit, for you to mediate; specifically, see this section.

With regards to "resources for mediators", my best advice would be the mediation policy (which I presume you will already be familiar with, as a candidate to join the Committee). The sections regarding approaches to mediation, the structure of soliciting party input (including the available systems: spokespersons, et cetera), are especially important. Additionally, Wikipedia:Catalyst and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators may also be helpful, although the last link is obviously from the MedCab, Wikipedia's informal group of mediators, and may not be entirely suited for formal mediation.

Anthøny 20:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Collective Nouns

Hi Sunray,

Rather than undo your recent edit on the Jethro Tull page, can I ask you too look at this ? Singular and plural for nouns

There's obviously a difference between American English and British English as to how this should be written. How does one decide which is the correct form? David T Tokyo (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We Canadians are often stuck in the middle between BrE and AmE. But on this one, I don't see a problem. The rule in the link you specified is:

"In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members..."

Unless I am missing something, since there is emphasis on the "British rock group" in this sentence, I surmise that the singular should be used, whether going by BrE or AmE. Sunray (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the example at the bottom which drew my attention. BrE: The Clash are a well-known band. AmE: The Clash is a well-known band.

Surely this is the broadly the same as BrE: Jethro Tull are a [Grammy Award–winning British] rock group. AmE: Jethro Tull is a [Grammy Award–winning British] rock group.

It seems to me that the example isn't consistent with the preceding text. That said, the example does sound spot-on to these gramatically incorrect but undeniably English ears.

David T Tokyo (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you in a hurry?

I just read the statement. And I appreciate the work put in by F&f, but I do not understand why you would have left that message on my talk page. Are you assuming that I am not going to see this through? I am a graduate student and while wikipedia has a right on my time, so do quiet a few other things. The case opened a day back, isn't it? Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll enter my statement soon

Sunray thanks for the message you left on my page and checking in with me. I was busy over the week, but I will update the med page with my statement over the weekend. MintCond (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit

As I said I don't really want to do much more with the mediation, as I said it was simply a case of clarifying what I'd already said in my initial statement, since Jaakobou appeared to have misunderstood it. And please note that he did not simply move my comment at first (which I'm not really bothered about, even if it seems a bit pointless), he removed it altogether. --Nickhh (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, noted. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Done with statement

Hi there, I am done with my statement for now. In a few days, I will drastically reduce its length (by moving all the "evidence" to sub-page links). If you would like me to do that right away (i.e. tomorrow), please let me know. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement. I'm fine with waiting a few days before revising it. I've left notes for the others to join you in making a statement, so perhaps we will hear from them in the meantime. Sunray (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Community GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Community and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I hadn't looked at that article for sometime and see the wisdom of a GA review. I've started to work on it. Hopefully one week will be enough time to fix some of the weaknesses you have identified. Sunray (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have addressed some of the issues listed on the talk pages. Let me know if you are going to continue fixing the rest of the issues. If so, I have no problem extending the deadline. Let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, please let me know when you are done and I'll re-review the article. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to spring this on you, but I have also placed Culture on hold as well. Feel free to finish Community first, and I can extend the deadline for Culture if necessary. Let me know if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I wondered about that. This one is more complicated. However, I have looked in on it within the last few months and will be happy to see what I can do to prepare it for the follow-up review. Sunray (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My interlocutors?

Hi Sunray,

I'm guessing that there is no news from my interlocutors in the "Indian democracy" mediation. I'm a little perplexed. They both appeared out of the blue (more or less) and made a flurry of statements here. One of them then requested mediation without discussing it with me, and certainly gave me the impression that he was in a hurry to resolve the issue. I took time out from my travels to finish my statement, but now find both Supreme Unmanifest (talk · contribs) and MintCond (talk · contribs) nowhere to be seen on Wikipedia. It has been more than two weeks since they sought mediation and more than a week after I completed my statement. Earlier today some editors made new posts to Talk:India page discussion. Since I didn't want the dispute to drag on forever, I closed and archived that discussion soon afterwards and referred them to you and to the mediation. See bottom of the archived discussion.

I know that you have left a number of posts on SU's and MC's pages. What do you suggest we do? Since I enjoyed writing my statement (and learnt a few things about democracy in India in the process) I certainly don't have any regrets, but would still like some feedback. In the absence of any other statements, would you still like to critique my statement and give me suggestions for how to proceed here on out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal that I comment on what you have contributed to the mediation page makes sense to me under the circumstances. I also think that we might then close the mediation if there is nothing further from the others. Sunray (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, just wanted to let you know that I mostly support F&F stand on the intro paragraph for India. From a technical standpoint, form of government is an administrative detail , mentioned in the infobox and described in subsequent paragraphs. Also, in my own personal opinion although my country is more democratic than many others at the same income level, (See [1]), it is not a democracy at the same level as say Germany or Australia. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed the link on governance indicators. 02:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

reply

I replied to you on my page.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Commitee

It is my pleasure to inform you that your request to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. Please sign up to the Committee's internal mailing list and email me directly so I can approve you. If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Sunray. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Sunray! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Belated congratulations, Sunray: apologies I didn't offer them earlier (I've been out of the country), but well done. If you have an email address and haven't already done so, please do sign up to the mailing list, to get involved in Committee discussions. Once again, well done, and welcome aboard. ;) Regards, Anthøny 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I have now added the summary! Sorry for the delay. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing

excuse me, but i did use reliable sources, the two books from wich i took the information are very important books wich are used in all Latin America. And I am in a current discussion in the discussion page, I really still can't see the reason why you keep erasing my editing, when the information is as good as the previous one. (Wich I didn't erase, i just put on another historiographic theory to complement it, I think it's pretty clear that i'm just comparing two points of view, not discarting one and puting anotherone). Besides that, thanks for the advise, the wikipedia people has been nothing but polite and i'm very gratefull, i just don't see why my addings to the page are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied here suggesting that you make the changes on the talk page before reinserting them into the article. There are grammatical issues as well as problems with verifyability. Sunray (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the mediation

Thanks for your patient and fair mediation. I will add the words "... most populous liberal democracy in the world" in the sentence and I hope the issue has been resolved. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The pleasure was mine! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accept F&f's arguments and his lucid presentation. However, "most populous democracy" with democracy linked to liberal democracy was what was decided upon at the Further Discussion... section. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Case

Hello,

I would like to comment on this mediation case. The conduct of several users in this case is unsatisfactory. I was asked my opinion on the matter by Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a user who quered me in #wikimedia-stewards that I have had no prior contact. I wish to have your permission to comment on the matter as a third opinion could really benefit this case.

Cheers, Mww113 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that you didn't make comments on the mediation page. Adding additional parties or independent opinions right now doesn't seem to me that it would be helpful. But perhaps I've overlooked something. By all means e-mail me about this if you wish. Sunray (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

However, on second thought, since others have commented, please feel free to do so as well. Sunray (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore quote

Hi Sunray, Thanks for your help with the Al Gore article. Your instinct is correct that the phrase under the photo looks like a quote - the problem is that it is a paraphrase according to the official page. Here is the exact statement: "Al Gore reacts to Chris Anderson's question, "Will you run again?" Gore responded something like (I can't remember exactly) "Ohhh, you aren't going to get me on this one."

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Al_Gore_-_Ohhh%2C_you_aren%27t_going_to_get_me_on_this_one.jpg

Since the author of the photo is uncertain of the exact nature of what Gore said, I wasn't certain how to condense his statement. Perhaps if you take a look, you can think of a better way to summarize this description? My only concern is that whatever the summary says, it is accurate. How that happens is open to interpretation. Thanks again. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't use an unsourced quote, nor can we paraphrase and use quotation marks. So I've taken out the quotation marks. Someone may object that it is unsourced, but meanwhile... unless we can find the quote, I think that this is the best we can do. I really like the picture. Sunray (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! Any other feedback or tweaks to the page would be appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

coloradoblogging.com -> external link on colorado page

hello,

i thought this link wuld be a good addition to the colorado page - since the content of the site is good and is 100% related to the page. So why was it not included?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit147 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is very attractive. However, it is a blog. As such, the facts and opinions given are not verifiable. For the specific policy statement about this, please refer to Links normally to be avoided #11. Sunray (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apple Inc

Hi, could you please xplain on the talk pages why you reverted my edits.

I believe my edits have cut down on needless information while retaining all the necessary information. The previous edits have been huge, rambling paragraphs that do not relate the Apple Inc as a whole but individual products that should remain on their respective wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adderz91 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what do you mean by "blanking"?

Im not 100% up to date on how to use Wiki just yet, and am slowing adding previous citations, if im not adding them correctly, please help, but i believe my edits are VERY important to producing a good Apple Inc article.

Some citations are either not neutral or not needed.

If YOU could discuss it in the TALK sections i have given that would be excellent. thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adderz91 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is when you delete large sections of text in an article. Usually such extensive edits are discussed and agreed to before they are made. You also deleted several citations. Again, that is usually not done. I will comment further on the Apple talk page. Sunray (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

Hi, Sunray. Have reverted you excision of Nobel Peace Prize from lede of the Dalai Lama article. Haven't looked for the repetition to which you refer in the edit summary - which, I assume, is what you meant to delete. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The mention of the Nobel Prize is in the last paragraph of the lead. It has been there for many moons. Sunray (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That I was able to miss it, among mention of Canadian citizenship & the Congress Medal, has caused me to re-word the final paragraph (see my note on the article discussion page). Wingspeed (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee mailing list

Hiya Sunray, Are you subscribed to the MedCom mailing list yet?

Anthøny 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is. He sent an email two days ago. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I sort of neglected to respond for some unknown reason. Thanks for being my mouthpiece, Daniel. Sunray (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead of bio articles

Hi Sunray – Please reconsider adding ethnicity in the lead paragraph for Einstein and Freud. Both of them were forced out of their native countries due to their ethnicity. To be more blunt, they would both have died in the gas chambers had they not fled (Actually, Freud died in 1939, but the principle remains). To describe either of them in solely national terms is to misrepresent the historical truth. Rather like calling Josephus "a Roman historian" because he wrote in Rome. In addition, Germany and Austria get the exclusive credit for their achievements - which is hardly fair in the circumstances. The WP:MOSBIO describes itself as including "recommended" guidelines. I suggest the foregoing constitutes grounds to deviate from them. Note: I posted a similar message for Ward3001. Yabti (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, it is not practice to include ethnicity or religion in the lead of a biography in WP. We don't say that George W. Bush is a Christian or a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Nor do we say that Khaled Mashal is an Arab or a Muslim. This despite the fact that ethnicity and religion are important factors in the politics of each of these men. Sunray (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the definitive comment on this was made by Ward3001 on Yabti's talk page (copied here):

Generally the ethnicity should not be placed in the lead, unless the subject is especially noted because of his/her ethnicity. Details about ethnicity should go in the Biography section of the article. See WP:MOSBIO for details. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Shad Valley

I appreciate your opinion on navbox placing in articles, but I have a question: how is this different from the navbox of G13 universities or the navbox of AAU universities? These navboxes are all lists of universities related to each other through a certain organization and I don't understand how Shad would be any different. --Yvesnimmo (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The designation G-13 is "a group of leading research-intensive universities in Canada." It is a grouping that recognizes the top universities in Canada. The designation says a great deal about these universities. The AAU designation is similar. The Shad Valley program is merely hosted at certain universities. The connection with that program neither tells us anything about, nor confers any status on, the host universities. Is that clear? Sunray (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME

PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH MY TALK PAGE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK TO ME ABOUT

I AM BLANKING IT SO I CCAN START FRESH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonccccccc (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to Jasonccccccc here Sunray (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Sunray, Do you remember me? (From the mediation on the India page?) Well, I seem to be in another conflict on a new British India page. I don't know if you are still in MedCab, and, if so, whether you have the time, (and my interlocutors have not agreed to a mediation yet in any case), but I thought I'd sound you out ... and see whether you might be available. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure I remember. I would be willing to take a look at it. Sunray (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sunray, I have completed my statement and added some background, however, I still have to copy and paste the references from another page. Does the background clarify the issues for you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Would you be able to tell me which of the two options you favour, and why?
2. Xn4's perspective doesn't seem to be contained within either of those options. Am I mistaken about this? How so?
3. What is your understanding of Xn4's position?

Obviously I am not clear as to exactly what is in contention. Any assistance you could give me would be appreciated. Sunray (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I forgot to mention some basic things! Please read the sections "My position" and "Conclusion" and also "Background." Please let me know if they clarify the issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I missed that. There is a great deal to sift through. It may put people off that there isn't a simple statement of the issue at the top of the RfC. Right now, it just says that there are two options, scant explanation as to why. One trudges on for several paragraphs and then (if they are still awake) gets your position. I still have no idea what the contrary position is. Can you venture a comment on my points #2 & 3, above? Sunray (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, so let me answer #2 and #3 here. user:Xn4 wants to pursue option1; in other words, he wants to develop the British India page as a standalone page. His position (in my understanding) is somewhat vague. He has consistently refused to answer questions about what exactly he envisages the content of "British India" to be and how he sees it to be different from "British Raj." He says differences will develop as he works on them. He says that such a large topic like "British India" can't possibly be covered in the British Raj page, so why not create a separate page for British India, which is a subset of the British Raj. My answer to that is that those separate pages already exist; in other words, British Raj has already been modularized into daughter pages (or rather parent pages of British Raj's sections) and that British India will just be duplication. Does that help? (I have to go pick up my better half at her mom's, but will check in about an hour.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does help. It wasn't clear whether both British India and British Raj pages were to be maintained in his schema. Should not there be a third option: maintain the British India page (as it is the broadest), address the meaning of British Raj in that article (and restore the redirect from British Raj to British India); then disambiguate the other terms? Sunray (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In user:Xn4's schema both pages are to be maintained, but he is interested in only working on British India. By the way, British Raj has the broader meaning (not British India). So, the third option would be: maintain the British Raj page, the meaning of "British India" is already addressed in that page. (See here) and restore the redirect. In fact, a number of people, including me, were initially supporting that third option. But in my view now it is not the best option for the following reasons: British India = British India (1765-1858) + British India (1858-1947). British India (1858-1947) is a subset of British Raj, but British India (1765-1858) is not, it is a subset of Company rule in India, so redirecting it to British Raj wouldn't be correct. However, a dab page, which is a sort of a user-mediated redirect, would work. I will try to remove some more fluff from my statement and include some of this stuff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

British India (1765-1858) = Company rule in India

British India (1858-1947) = British Raj

But that cannot be right. You said "subset." What is the full set in each case? Sunray (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Company rule in India = British India (1765-1858) + Subsidiary alliance.

British Raj = British India (1858-1947) + Princely States. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple formulation like the one you have just given, above, will be important to help outsiders to the debate get up to speed quickly. However, even with this formulation, the matter is still unclear to me (and by extension, likely to others who would try to comment on the RfC).

Subsidiary alliance is described in the following way:

"Under this doctrine, Indian rulers under British protection suspended their native armies, instead maintaining British troops within their states. They surrendered control of their foreign affairs to the British. In return, the East India Company would protect them from the attacks of their rivals."

Why is subsidiary alliance thus not an aspect of British India?

Then, in the second formulation, Princely states are described thus:

"Specifically, the term "Princely States" (also called "Native States" or "Indian States") was used to refer to sovereign entities of British India."

This says that Princely States are in fact an aspect of British India. In each case, it seems to me that "British India" is the all encompassing term. Sunray (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now corrected Princely state. Thanks for your very helpful comments! Will work on "subsidiary alliance" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: Why isn't "British India" the all-encompassing term? Without doing original research, could we not portray it that way? Sunray (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

India under British Rule was in a sense one unit. What did this mean? Well, if an Indian had to travel abroad, it didn't matter whether they were from Bombay (governed by the British) or from Kashmir (a native state), they used the same passport, which was issued by the British Government of India. If they had to travel between Native States or between a Native State and a British province, no passport was needed and there was no border crossing. (It was like traveling between two states in the US.) Trains, for example, passed through British provinces as well as Native states, as did communications lines, and they were all owned and controlled by the British. If someone traveled from Hyderabad (a Native State) to Bombay, they didn't say they were going to "British India," rather that they were going to Bombay or to the Bombay Province if they needed to mention the region. The usual distinction in India was between the Provinces of India (governed by the British) and the Native States. "British India" was just a collective term for the Provinces; in other words, "British India" was a term of convenience used when there was a need to distinguish between the British parts of India and the Native parts of India, but not otherwise one of common use. The term for the entire region under British rule (whether direct or indirect) was simply India. All history books refer to it as India.

Here, for example, is a useful hypothetical analogy. Suppose the Native American reservations in the US occupied two-fifths of the area of the US, and that they were not parts of the 50 states, but had a semi-autonomous status controlled overall by the Federal Government in Washington DC. Other than that, let's say, there was little difference. So, I could still drive from Santa Fe to an Indian pueblo and no one would stop me. Let's also say that from the early 1600s, two short-hand terms had developed: Yankee America for all the States collectively (sorry Mississippi!), and Indian America for all the reservations collectively. Well, the Wikipedia pages would still be about Wisconsin, Idaho, Navajo, Lakota, or United States, not about "Yankee America" because there would be no Government of "Yankee America" only the Government of the United States or the State Government of Wisconsin or the Government of Navajo reservation. "Yankee America" might be used even officially to make distinctions, but it would not be an official entity. If I were then writing a wikipedia page on the History of the United States between 1860 and 1960 (inauguration of Lincoln to the inauguration of Kennedy), I would call it History of the United States (1860-1960), I wouldn't call it the History of Yankee America (1860-1960). (I could, perhaps, create a page on the History of non-Native-American people in the US between 1860 and 1960 and call it "History of Yankee America 1860-1960," but that would be different.) I couldn't create a page History of Yankee America 1860-1960 and then proceed to talk about the Civil War and Reconstruction because those topics would already have been covered in History of the US (1860-1960) and Lincoln was the President of the entire US, not just of the States. Moreover, if the convention in American historiography was to write "A History of the United States from 1860 to 1960" or "A History of Winsconsin," but not "A History of Yankee America 1860-1960]], then I would also be going against scholarly convention.

That is roughly the situation with "British Raj." The British Raj page is about "India under British rule during the period 1858 to 1947" just as Company rule in India is about "India under British rule during the period 1765 to 1858". (My own personal preference would be for the "British Raj" to be named Crown rule in India, but the page is an old page, dating back to 2002, and the term "British Raj" is used widely now by historians. For example, Library of Congress Country Study on India, has only two sections under "British Empire in India" these are: Company Rule 1757-1857 and British Raj 1858 to 1947.) So, if I someone wants to create a page on British India, but really write about "India under British rule 1858-1947" i.e. British Raj, then they are not only being redundant, but also going against historiographic tradition (as in the Library of Congress example): for "British India" is the equivalent of "Yankee America." On the other hand, if they claim they will only write about "British India" i.e. the Provinces of India, I will say, well that page already exists, as do the subpages Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency, etc. In other words, they have to tell me, what new material they propose to add. This, unfortunately, user:Xn4, refuses to do. Let me know if this explanation helped. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I've got it. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)