Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:27, 12 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Raj article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months

British Raj was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2012 Articles for deletion Speedily kept June 6, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed November 2, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 15, 2007, August 15, 2008, August 15, 2009, and August 15, 2010. Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

British Empire Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Bangladesh Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. Myanmar Mid‑importance British Raj is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Misplaced Pages. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Misplaced Pages aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Misplaced Pages and make sure each article on the English Misplaced Pages has one in Burmese also India: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / British / European / South Asia C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force South Asian military history task force History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Material from British Raj was split to History of the British Raj on 13:25, 4 May 2008. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Editors of the OED (June 1, 2008), "British raj" in (a) raj (noun, 2, added June 2008, (b) British (adjective, Compounds, C2, added December 2008), Oxford English Dictionary Additional comments The lead of Misplaced Pages's article had in 2006 and early 2007 referenced the short two line entry on the "British raj" in the OED second edition 1989. In June 2008, when the OED entry was revised for the third edition, it had borrowed some of Misplaced Pages's words, in a paragraph is smaller print. This was noted in my post of 19 August 2008 on the Talk:British raj. It was noted then, and is being noted again now, not as a case of plagiarism (as the we had borrowed the OED's lead sentence as well, i.e. that the dependence is two-way), but as a source of pride, viz that Misplaced Pages had come of such age and reputation that even the OED had used our language almost verbatim in this instance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Size is 4,994,215 km^2 not 5,076,579 km^2

the size of the british raj including India,Pakistan,Burma,Bangladesh is 4,994,215 km^2 but in the article it says 5,076,579 km^2, which is wrong.

And for info, nepal & Bhutan were not considered part of British 'Raj' as far as i know. WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Source please? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

what source? British raj was India , pakistan , bangladesh and burma , just see their current sizes and add them WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, we like sources for most of our changes, such as newspapers or books. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

British Raj wasn't just those four countries. It also consisted of Aden Colony (part of present-day Yemen), Somaliland (part of present-day Somalia) and other protectorates. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the flag?

Shouldn't it be here? Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You could read the edit history to find out. Remsense ‥ 论 23:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This has brought my curiosity too. I had always known this to be the British Indian flag, since in all wars, successor states and all other places when the flag icon of a country is shown, this is shown to be the flag of the British Raj.

Are you both discussing this to be the flag, or was it a different one? And please don't tell me to look at the edit history too. I don't want to get involved in the argument lore. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

How? There's thousands of edits to look through to find it. Articles are changed almost every day?Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Just try it! Remsense ‥ 论 23:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I did and all i saw was you reverting me for no specified reason!--Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Read a few more down Remsense ‥ 论 23:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How many? two hundred? Four hundred?--Sylvester Millner (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Good grief, until you see mention of the flag! Remsense ‥ 论 00:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

cant you just mention it here JingJongPascal (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

waa the flag removed because princely states had their own flag ,and the previous flag was of British india and not of entire Indian empire? JingJongPascal (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's in the edit history. Remsense ‥ 论 07:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

i saw it and that's what I said,

But the Red Ensign has been used by the USA to show or represent India as part of the allies and also as part of the United Nations , but I guess they weren't official examples.

So in case of wars where we have to include British Raj, we will have to mention all the princely states and then British india seperatly right? Because most articles still use that flag for entire Indian empire JingJongPascal (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more obtuse? this is outright disruptive editing. Scuba 22:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The answer to someone's question has already been written and I said repeatedly that they should go read it, and I said where it was. If they can't do that, that doesn't inspire confidence that they'll engage with the argument if I give it to them to read in some other form. It's really not meaningfully different from pointing someone to discussions that occurred in the talk page archives. If you take that to be WP:POINTy then don't worry, since I've already given up here and wasn't planning on engaging further. Remsense ‥ 论 23:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah buddy nobody wants to scroll through edits and try to decipher edit summaries. Just answer the question if you're going to answer at all. you're wasting everyone's time responding several times and not giving the actual answer. Scuba 02:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I did it, and I wouldn't've suggested it if I thought it was that hard to do. Maybe the reason I've insisted on that is because the person that made the change articulated the reasons very clearly and I don't think I'd do a better job explaining it myself. Who knows. Remsense ‥ 论 02:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

He's right, either provide an explanation or put it back on.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The explaination by @Remsense was that ---

That the Red Ensign was only used for British Ruled districts, and not for the entire "Indian Empire", as princely states had their own flag. JingJongPascal (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That might be so, but the british Raj still had a flag and if princely states are not included, it doesn't mean the british raj had no flag.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think pages on the princely state should be excluded, but the flag can be included to reprsent british rule. It's the flag of the British Raj and the flag is just about that.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see my reply to you on my talk page. If you don't have sources, it is pointless making an argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, had there been a flag, the Imperial Gazetteer of India, published in 1909 under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, would have had it. (The "His" refers to Edward VII.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons that the Raj might not have had a flag (i.e. similar to the British settler dominions such as Canada and Australia) was that from the get go (i.e. Victoria's File:Image victoria proclamation1858c.JPG), the

British establishment was conflicted about where to place India politically. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thomas R. Metcalf has written about this, though not about the flag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

i.e. "Was the ideology that sustained the Raj meant to link India as an equal with Britain's other colonial territories, including those of British settlement, or to reaffirm its 'difference'?" see here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Japanese occupation as successor

As other things like "Strait Settlements and etc." have been added I see no objection in adding japanese occupation of india, that is, Azad Hind. @Remenese JingJongPascal (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense JingJongPascal (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

They did not occupy all of India. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

so? if we can add strait settlements, then why note azad hind or japanese occupation? JingJongPascal (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The straights settlements were a separate entry after 1867, they were not just an area under foreign occupation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Azad Hind is also a seperate entity. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Not legally set up by the recognized legal authority. Also Azad Hind in fact only has limited powers allowed it, it was not a whole self-governing body. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

British Burma was also not a whole self governing body. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It was a separate colony. I think now it is time for others I have had my say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As a result of the Government of India Act, 1935, Burma after 1937 was no longer overseen by the Secretary of State for India, and the India Office. It had a separate Secretary of State and a Burma Office which lasted a little over a decade. Please see the first day cover I uploaded long ago.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Please also see: British_Raj#Government_of_India_Act,_1935 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

but it would be still considered a colony. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@JingJongPascal But they were different colonies so a different entity and Azad Hind was short lived for 2 years and soon reconquered not suitable successor state. Edasf«Talk» 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

What is “direct rule” without context?

WP editor Fowler&fowler excised my restriction in re the phrase “direct rule in India,” viz., “It is also called, … in contexts referencing the British government’s authority, direct rule in India.” F&f warned that I must “make the case for POV on the talk page and garner a consensus for it.” But why should anyone have to garner a consensus here for something self-evident? “Direct rule in India” is meaningless without a reference to whose rule, as the three works cited in an endnote to this WP article make clear in their use of the phrase, for each tells specifically of the British assertion of it: “the British government assumed direct rule over India,” “direct rule of the Indian subcontinent by the British,” “the British Crown assumed direct colonial rule of India.” “Direct rule” is simply a stock phrase for the control of a body (government, corporation, or anything else) directly by some power. In the case of a nation, that power may be domestic or alien, colonial or endemic, broad or factional, autocratic or democratic, hereditary or acquired—it really doesn’t matter. N.B.: Strictly, the last of those three quotations I just mentioned uses the phrase “direct colonial rule of India,” which the WP article here takes as equivalent to “direct rule in India.” That is, the WP text’s wording isn’t quite the same, but it’s an understandable gloss, appropriate in context. Context matters! Similarly, “direct rule” of India or any other nation makes sense only in context, and those three historians used the phrase specifically of that by the British government. And that, as I made clear in explaining my edit, is why I posted it: for clarity’s sake. The POV I invoke is not mine but that of the quoted historians, who advance it explicitly in their wording. I also altered “Direct rule in India” to “direct rule in India,” removing the capital D. Bewilderingly to me, F&f likewise reverted that edit. But why? None of the three historians cited in this article for their use of the phrase capitalizes it, since there is no reason to do so. It might be capitalized if used as part of the title of an article or book—say (just to make one up), “You’re a Better Man Than I Am: A Critical Examination of Early British Direct Rule of India”—but should not be otherwise. (“Crown rule” is a different matter, as it references the British Crown, i.e., the monarchy, or state, and its reach.) F&f ought to be the one making the case for his or her own POV. Mucketymuck (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We do not say direct rule by Indians, or by India. Read the second sentence of the lead, it says just this. And elsewhere in the body, the context is already there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Flags and emblems

@Indefatigable2: has attempted to re-add in this edit a section on Flags and emblems. When it comes to artefacts such as flags, what goes into a broad scale article, i.e. merits mention in it, are not simply ones might have been used by an official of the Raj, but also those whose existence has drawn notice in sources, i.e. peer-reviewed WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources, preferable scholarly ones. In other words, existence is not notability.

In addition, notability by itself does not guarantee inclusion on WP. The topic in question must have due weight.

I have therefore removed this section. Pinging: @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As editors in the past too have attempted to add flags and emblems to the article, especially in the infobox, perhaps this issue should be settled more definitively. Pinging @Vanamonde93, Johnbod, Rjensen, Worldbruce, Joshua Jonathan, and DrKay: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging also @Slatersteven, Abecedare, Drmies, and Ealdgyth: Please see the post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

For reasons I can sympathize with both sides, yes it might be vaguely useful in some scenarios (such as a filmmaker doing lazy research). On the other, there is no real utility, and it just adds download time. I am however dubious as to the claim they failed wp:rs, Seems to me the sources are OK (well one maybe a bit iffy). Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think the topic passes due weight? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

kind of in two minds, it might be seen as due in some circumstances, but really does not tell us anything about the RAJ (in truth). So it is really, very slightly, interesting trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It (for once) might be an interesting subject to have a fork of, flags of the Raj. If (and it seems a big if) there is enough there for an article Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We do List of Indian flags, so this needs to be linked to as a see also, problem solved. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favour. It's a great idea for student projects--say from grades 5 to 10, It's also useful for smaller museums that lack a research staff but want to add colour to their exhibits. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Are you in favour of having a section on flags in this article or linking this article to Slatersteven's List of Indian flags? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this article needs a section on flags, but F&F is correct that Indefatigable2 needs to be discussing this on the talk page, and also that a description of individual exhibits doesn't demonstrate due weight even if the source is reliable for what it says. Based on the quantity of material a fork is obviously viable and is probably a good idea regardless of how much material is eventually kept here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not averse to a fork, such as the one Slatersteven has found. Let me think more about it. Thanks for your reply, Vanamonde. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll just point out that the official flags and emblems of the Raj are as much "due weight," if not more, as all of the coins displayed on this page. I mean, it's tantamount to an entire coin collection here. I'm not even opposed to that necessarily, I'm just making a comparison. I think we're missing the forest for the trees here. If we consistently followed this logic, we'd have to say that flags and official emblems aren't "due weight" for any page about any government or state. Unless I'm missing something fundamental here. The Raj isn't some special case. Yes, I understand that the topic of flags in the Raj is not as straightforward as for other countries, or even other British colonies, but that is beside the central point. Saying that flags and official emblems don't have "due weight" isn't really a coherent point. I've never seen this point made elsewhere. Flags and emblems are a rather major way in which governments and officials identify themselves, which is why they're consistently used on articles. Indefatigable2 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Of course they are not and the coins in any case are not a separate section. The coins were the currency of the Raj. It had a succession of British monarchs from Victoria to George VI on the obverse and the rupee, half rupee, four anna, one anna, ... on the reverse. The currency denomination was in English and Urdu until 1947 when Hindi was added. The same with stamps. But a flag for itself the Raj never did have because liberal imperialism of the late 19th-century could never decide how equal they wanted India to be and the flag grants a measure of equality that coins and stamps do not. If the Raj had had a flag, its ultimate document, the Imperial Gazetteer of India published by the Secretary of State for India, would have had it. The pictures of the 26 volumes you see in that link are my collection whose pages I have stared at for some 30 odd years, but never found the flag.

  You can also search them online at the South Asia department at Chicago, see here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  The basic question here isn't whether or not there was an "Official Flag of the Raj." That's a bit of a straw man. No one can question that the Indian governor-general and Indian Navy had official flags, and that they were used for numerous years. With respect to the folks here, I trust the National Maritime Museum more than Wiki editors. And, Imperial Gazetteer or not, the viceroy's badge is directly identified and illustrated in the Admiralty flag book, which is as official as it gets when concerning British imperial symbols. I respect your staring at these pages for 30 years, but the Gazetteer is not the only valid source for India before 1947. There are numerous good sources that identify official flags used by the Raj. Indefatigable2 19:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the Raj was indeed a special case. In its heyday, the British Empire comprised: see Charles Bruce (2010), The Broad Stone of Empire: Problems of Crown Colony Administration, With Records of Personal Experience, Cambridge University Press, pp. xi–, ISBN 978-1-108-02359-7, which says very clearly, "The Empire may be grouped approximately in this table: United Kingdom, Dominions, Crown Colonies, India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  The United Kingdom itself is also a "special case" in that sense. That's not how I meant "special case." Yes, India was administered differently than other colonies. That's thoroughly clear to anyone familiar with the 19th and 20th century empire. Where did I, or anyone else, question that? I meant "special case" in that the official flags used by the Raj, for some cryptic reason, apparently aren't "due weight" but are for other empires of this era. The pages for the Russian Empire and Empire of Japan, for just two examples, show several official emblems. And, as I said in my own comment: "I understand that the topic of flags in the Raj is not as straightforward as for other countries, or even other British colonies." But again, that isn't the basic question here. Indefatigable2 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  In other words, just because there is a certain nuance to how flags and emblems were used by the Raj, doesn't make them irrelevant or invalidate them as an encyclopedic topic. The British empire itself was happy to use several emblems in the context of India, and the sources are here to show it. Indefatigable2 20:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Raj's flags are a different kettle of fish than its coins. Scholarly books have been written about the Raj's coins and currency as they have about the stamps, but I don't think I've seen any on the flags.

  Websites, such as the ones you have cited from are probably OK for a fork page, as suggested by Slatersteven, but this page is a vital Misplaced Pages article that not only relies on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, i.e. the most reliable source on WP (see WP:SOURCETYPES), but for the most part cites only to introductory college-level textbooks that have been vetted for due weight (see WP:TERTIARY).

  I fear a flags section will not fit, standards-wise. If I polished up this article and took it to say, WP:FAC, I doubt a flags section will survive Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Then integrate it with the section on "Organisation" or "British India and the princely states." Include it with the "Presiding Viceroy" list. Whether or not a free-standing "flags section" passes a certain strict reading of Wiki guidelines is beside the point. That's a semantic question, and we're still dancing around the central issue. Also, if we're rejecting Royal Museums Greenwich as a valid source just because it's not an "introductory college-level textbook," I really am lost now. What guideline is that decision based on, precisely? This is a legalistic reason to reject a topic—namely, official civic or governmental emblems—that's regularly covered by many similar pages. Indefatigable2 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Scholarly sources attest to Canning being the last Governor-General of Company rule before the Rebellion of 1857 and the first viceroy of the Raj after. How many would you like me to find? It is your job to find the scholarly attributions for the flags. Thus far you are only attempting to argue facilely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Solid sources were shared, long before this discussion. At any rate, I'll conclude my "facile argument" here by merely pointing out that flags, and emblems, are considered relevant enough to include on several similar pages. The French Algeria page, for example, shows its governor general seal, and merchant flag. See also the French Indochina page, which includes several symbols. Same for the Russian and Japanese Empire pages mentioned earlier. So, why this resistance to the Raj page displaying emblems? But, I've said enough at this point and will leave it there. Indefatigable2 22:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can't promise anything @Indefatigable2:, but I'll make a good faith effort to look for reliable sources that might support inclusion of the flags in the timeline. I mean the flags flown during the Raj, both in British India and the Princely states. Do you have the years for when the flags were officially introduced and any notable events at which they were raised? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

And we already have it (I was about to create it Flags of British India, I was going to name it flags of the Raj). Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Raj never did have a flag. My own view (a paraphrase of Thomas R. Metcalf see here) is that the Raj had a hard time choosing an official flag for itself because from the very outset, the British establishment was conflicted about where to place India politically. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the fork could be called Flags used during the British Raj; it could then have flags flown by the viceroy and governors, and the maharajas and nawabs. Sourcing is the only thing I worry about. Nothing in Indefatigable2's list of sources matches for demonstrating due weight the mostly introductory college textbooks used in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm with Fowler on this. There are multiple flags and emblems associated with the Raj and it is unclear whether any particular one was used consistently, let alone if anything was official. OTOH, since there are sourced flags, I agree that we should perhaps include them somewhere. The fork suggested by slatersteven sounds like the perfect solution.RegentsPark (comment) 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I like the Home rule flags: Flags_of_British_India#Flag_of_Home_Rule, probably influenced by Annie Besant's theosophy-influenced idea of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It disabuses me of a notion I've had that the Flag of India's three colors were influenced by the Flag of Ireland Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As there seems to be some agreement I will do it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Flags

this section that was removed should be added Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I will update to agree with wp:or Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

See the thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class British Empire articles
• Top-importance British Empire articles
• All WikiProject British Empire pages
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• B-Class Bangladesh articles
• Top-importance Bangladesh articles
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles
• B-Class Myanmar articles
• Mid-importance Myanmar articles
• WikiProject Myanmar articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Indian history articles
• Top-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class history articles
• Top-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles