Talk:John Sullivan (colonial administrator)

reference..?

said in article, "ancient Toda tribe, this tribe has also been considered to be descendants of the soldiers of Alexander the Great who were shipwrecked at Elimalar in 326 BCE and through DNA analysis are most closely related to Greek Cypriots" What is the basis to add this statement? Is there a scientific paper regarding their DNA studies that claims relation to greek cypriots? If so, please add the reference too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulekhajb (talk • contribs) 06:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Sullivan (British governor). 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/20091128095736/http://www.thenilgiris.org/johnsullivan/ to http://www.thenilgiris.org/johnsullivan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "John Sullivan (colonial administrator)". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

---

John Sullivan (British governor) → John Sullivan (British civil servant) – It does not appear that this person was ever actually a governor. bd2412 T 00:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support John Sullivan (Indian civil servant). It was known as the Indian Civil Service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• He died before 1857, clearly not Indian Civil Service (or British, but EIC). Colonial administrator might be an option. Shyamal (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed. However, he was a civil servant who served in India, so I don't think it's unreasonable to describe him as such. The EIC too had civil servants. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Although he served in India, he was British, and represented British interests. Given our normal use of nationality-based identifiers, it would be misleading to identify him as an "Indian" anything. The point of this move proposal is that he was not a governor. BD2412 T 13:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "governor" is inappropriate, and I can see Necrothesp's point (and he was referring to a broader way of using Indian Civil Service (British India) (in the strict sense post-1858) - [which reminds me of a quip about the ICS being neither Indian, nor Civil, nor a Service!] Shyamal (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: I do take your point, but I think "British civil servant" would be incorrect, as it implies a member of the British Civil Service, which he was not. British members of the ICS and its EIC predecessors were known as Indian civil servants, even though they were not Indian by nationality or ethnicity, just as British officers of the Indian Army were known as Indian Army officers, not British Army officers, which would also have been inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

He's a British something. If not a civil servant (or a governor) then what? How about John Sullivan (British administrator)? BD2412 T 14:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How about John Sullivan (East India Company officer)? Completely accurate and unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

support - for the shorter "British administrator". Shyamal (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to go with that then John Sullivan (colonial administrator) would be more consistent with other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with that and had also suggested it above. Shyamal (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.