Talk:Indian Independence movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Indian Independence movement has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
|
Indian Independence movement has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Indian Independence movement was the Indian collaboration of the week for the week starting on August 7, 2005.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. |
 |
Indian Independence movement has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
Contents |
[edit] Move "History"
As the page has been moved from the previous name, I think the history should also be moved. I do not know how to do that. Please help.--Dwaipayanc 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That cannot be done when the move has been done via cut/paste. It is no big deal as the history can be accessed by visiting the very page with the link given in "redirected from" caption. Rama's Arrow 14:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not a big deal. However, only those who know about that the page was once moved can trace back. Because most people will type in small cases, and come directly here, rather than typing in capitals and then being redirected. History is important because many a times you can find out deleted stuffs in old versions that might come in handy in further improvement. Administrators can help in moving the history.--Dwaipayanc 14:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I am a bit disappointed on the lack of any mention of the Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre and the role of the Khudai Khidmatgar movement or Bacha Khan in this section..it is a major omission if you ask me.. --Zak 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Question about article focus
I have a confusion about the focus of this article. Is it about the country now known as India, or the region historically known as India. This confusion arises in particular for the last section ... i.e. 1947-50, which is exclusive to India. The other sections before this give a different idea ... i.e. the independence of the whole region from British rule. For example, Surya Sen is actually from Chittagong, and has a significant role in organizing the Chittagong Armoury Raid. It feels obvious that any article focusing on Indian (as the whole region) independence movement will include all these efforts. But by adding the last section on the modern country India (which is one of the 3 countries to emerge from the region), the focus of the article has been changed.
So, I suggest removing the last section, or adding similar sections or paragraphs on Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. After all, all three modern countries share the same history, simply because before 1947 all were one and the same.
(Note, this is not a rant or anti/pro any country comment, just a comment to set the focus and consistency of the article in a correct tone.)
Thanks. --Ragib 06:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I think Ragib is correct in pointing out that a short description of the birth of Pakistan should be mentioned in the last paragraph. And one sentence on the later birth of Bangladesh from East Pakistan also needs to mentioned. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image suggestion
How about adding this photo ({{PD-India}}) to the article ? Unlike the usual photos (that feature prominent leaders), this one's a tribute to thousands of anonymous participants. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Sorry to say this but...This article does make rather painful reading. It is really far too heavily slanted to the revisionist 'The British were evil occupiers who did no good and the freedom fighters who rose up against them were heroes!'. The truth of things though was one hell of a long way from this clear cut black and white. The article makes it sound as though the Indians who fought for the Japanese and Nazis were the 'proper' Indian army during the war who had the support of the general population, it reads like India forced the British withdrawal and Britain had no choice in the matter against overwhelming opposition. It really needs sorting out, there's very little mention of the meetings between British and Indian politicians to discuss the arrangments for Indian independance, India's agreement to support Britain during the war with the promise of independance afterwards wasn't even mentioned. I don't think I'm the one to do it, I really don't have the time but it needs sorting.--Josquius 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes you are right - this problem occurs in almost all such political/historical articles that are not WP:GA or WP:FA. Rama's arrow 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have edited the text (and added some facts) to reflect NPOV and factual objectivity. I have also removed the NPOV tag. However, wo=ithout prejudice, have a look and if you think it's still not NPOV, you're welcome to re-instate the tag.Ranam 14:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi
I would like to question the objections raised by .--Josquius. If the British were so Nobel, the Massacre in Jaliyanwala bagh, and the subsequent non punnismnent of General Diar, does speak of the nobility. Their expulsion was involintary, it is known. Only the British can refuse to accept that. --user aj2k
[edit] partiton of bengal
heloo i think there isnt much about the partiton of bengal. i was wondering if i could make an article about it. but this would be my 1st article so can some one please help me out? excited about it Tulika 99 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- See Partition of Bengal (1905) - you might be able to add something. Sikandarji 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- And also Partition of Bengal (1947) --Ragib 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
