Talk:British East India Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British East India Company is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2004.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 24, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 17, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
Current Status: Former featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects
Click on [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

[edit] Some old discussions

New edit for Seven Years war/French/Opium implication (Check history) It seems like the paragraph got shuffled around in an edit and no one noted it. I'd request that one of the more official maintainers fix my rough edit or maybe move thigns around more appropriately68.68.224.129 00:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

David -- just so you know -- I've got a textbook in front of me that calls the British East India the East India company ...aaargh!!! I like it with British myself....JHK

Absolutely so, JHK - it was the plain EIC to Britons just as the Dutch called theirs the United East India Company; I think the French may just have called theirs the "Company of the Indies" - anyway, I think it's legitimate to distinguish each by the country whence and (within commercially justifiable bounds) for which it operated. User:David Parker

true that, I'm writing a report on the Company and Was thoroughly confused about diffrent companies' origins, thanks

                                 -Jose Gonzales

Darn fine article. I liked the graphics of the flag too.

Paul, in Saudi

I'm going through doing some copyediting, and I've put in some provisional headings. I'm sure they can be improved, but I hope they're better than nothing. Markalexander100 11:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

A good article, and very promising. But I have some questions:

established a trade transit point and a factory. When? 1608?
In 1615, Sir Thomas Roe represented the British interests at the court of the Mughal emperor. How long for? Was he a permanent representative, or was this a one-off mission?
Its monopoly was curbed in 1694, but it was Deprived of its trade monopoly in 1813. Are these different monopolies?
It therefore raised its own armed forces When?
Around the same time, Britain surged ahead of its European rivals with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. ... the French were forced to maintain their trade posts ... without any military presence. This allowed the Company to surge ahead in its interests in the Carnatic from its base at Madras and in Bengal from Calcutta. I don't quite understand the relationship between these elements. Why did the Industrial Revolution help the company? Why did the lack of a French military presence in their trade posts help the company?
a pact ... that would allow the land to be under the control of the Crown, and be leased to the Company How much control did the Crown have? What exactly did the Company lease? The passing of the 1773 act seems to imply that the Company was still the effective government until then.
The Bengal famine, in which one-sixth of the population died, set the alarm bells ringing back home. Military and administrative costs mounted beyond control. Why did the famine affect the company? Did the costs rise because of the famine? Why?
The Eastern British armies at home What does this mean? Were they in India or in the UK?
In a series of reforms What series? Was the Act part of a series, or did it contain a series? The article only mentions one reform due to the Act.
the King brought down the ministry What does this have to do with Burke's bill?
with clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company What was the role of the Company after 1784?
the Company's rule extended across most of India, Burma, Singapore and Hong Kong Was this the same kind of governmental authority that the company had over India? How and when did it acquire and lose this authority?
In 1845, the Danish colony of Tranquebar was sold to Great Britain. What does this have to do with the Company?
The Company had at various stages defeated China, occupied the Philippines and conquered Java. When did these happen?
China's efforts to end the trade led to the two Opium Wars with Britain...Deprived of its trade monopoly in 1813, the company wound up as a trading enterprise. The Opium Wars were 1839-1842 and 1856-1860; was the Company still trading by then? When did it stop trading?
The efforts of the company in administering India were the model for the civil service system in Britain. When?
the Company finally reverted to the Crown in 1874...The company was dissolved in 1858. How can these both be true?

Markalexander100 03:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The questions specifically point out glitches in the article, and tackle the flow (which was much needed.) I am in the process of a further rehaul. Kindly keep watch Chancemill 17:29, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] John's Company?

I have done extensive research on the East India Company, and I am very positive that it was not called "John's Company". I tried changing it, but it got changed back. Can someone show me proof on this name?

I thought it was John Company, not John's Company. What about John Company (London, 1926) by W. Foster, for starters. I've seen hundreds of references to this name. Mintguy (T) 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Or if you want to go back further, there's The Good Old Days of Honorable John Company: Being Curious Reminiscences Illustrating Manners and Customs of the British in India During the Rule of the East India Company from 1600 to 1858. pubblished in 1882. It seems your extensive research, doesn't extend that far. Mintguy (T) 21:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Still one question: if the company was wound up as a trading enterprise after 1813, what were the commercial operations it was carrying out between 1858 and 1874? Markalexander100 05:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

How commonly was it known as "John Company"? Should this really be in the first line of the article? I have also not heard this name before. Would it be accurate to say that this is a rather archaic nickname? john

There are several books about the Company which use John Company in the title. I hadn't heard of it before either (though in my case that really doesn't mean much), but it does seem to be fairly common. Here's a quickly drawn assortment of books and links:

John Company and Tea's Arrival in England
Bringing back John Company
John Company (this one is a game based on the company!)
John Company: A Novel of the East Indies by Arthur Van Schendel ISBN 962-593-508-8
Days of John Company : Selections from Calcutta Gazette 1824 - 1832 compiled by Anil Chandra Das Gupta
John Company To The Republic: A Story of Modern India by Mushirul Hasan ISBN 81-7436-130-8

Interestingly, there may be more to it than just an alternate name--this suggests that JC and BEIC were separate companies that merged in the early 1700s.

I left of several others which only mentioned the name to introduce somewhat tangential topics. It's even in Thomas Pynchon's Mason & Dixon. older≠wiser 02:34, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that the merger listed in [1] is a confusion of the merger between the old and new east India companies. Incidentally, while not a historic source, the name "John Company" is used extensively in George MacDonald Fraser's excellently researched Flashman novels. --Richard Clegg 23:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought: there is no Wikipedia entry for Nabob, and no mention of the term here. Wetman 04:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, ok, you made your point.

[edit] Diamonds

the largest diamond in the world, the Koh-i-Noor, was found in India

Apparently not: http://www.worlds-largest-diamonds.com/

— Matt 08:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Yup, That's right. Kohinoor was the world's largest diamond for a long time, but no longer. Amended. Chancemill 08:23, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Malayan Peninsula and Tin mining

If India was the jewel of the empire, then the Malayan Peninsula (now West Malaysia) was the empire's treasury. Tin mining and rubber contributed immensely to the British Empire so much so that the British virtually denuded the peninsula of tin. They also brought in the Chinese and Indians who forever changed the political landscape of Malaya. Can somebody do some research on this and dig up, pardon the pun, some statistics on how much the British profitted.

Jardin Matheson

I heard that British East India Company eventually became the Jardin Matheson Group of today. If anyone knows that transition, would you please add this to the article? Thanks

According to William_Jardine, it didn't. Just involved in the same business. Markalexander100 04:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

The article seems to imply that the Regulating Act of 1773 was a consequence of the American Revolution, which only started in 1775, although the Boston Tea Party did happen in 1773 in responce to the Tea Act. It is unclear to me what the right emphasis should be in rewriting the sections Financial troubles and Regulating Act of 1773, maybe a Historian can help with this? Miguel 03:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks to User:Isomorphic for reverting the page.

[edit] Dodgy statement

I've rm'd the following:

The games of badminton, polo, squash and snooker were invented by officers of the Company during their rule.

Google seems fairly sure that squash was invented at Harrow; I haven't checked the others, but if someone wants to check and re-add any that are true, I'd much rather see them incorporated in the text than in a "trivia" section (which is by definition irrelevant). Markalexander100 01:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a comment of "this is so fucking dumb" after the first paragraph, can this be removed

[edit] Highly Efficient Factories?

In History / Expansion, we have

By 1647, the Company had 23 factories and 90 employees in India.

That's 4 employees per factory. Before the age of robotics. Are we sure of these numbers?--StanZegel 06:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the English language of the time, the word factories meant trading posts run by factors. The places where things were made are manufactories. Dabbler 09:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How should this best be handled: change the several occurrances of "factory" to "trading post", or insert an explanation at the first use of the term? --StanZegel 16:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Job Security?

In The End, we have

 ... it continued to maintain a trading office in London as of 2004. 

... the Company was dissolved on January 1, 1874.

Keeping staff on the payroll 130 years after the need for them has ended seems a bit excessive, even in tradition-bound England. And when the company is actually out of business, one wonders who is paying the current expenses, and why. I suspect the statement above about 2004 needs verification. Is it undetected vandalism? --StanZegel 16:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Googling shows that there IS a company called The East India Company in London (Lincolns Inn Fields) but whether this is in any way connected to the original East India Company I cannot tell. It sells tea in decorative caddies. Dabbler 09:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yale founded by a director? Anything on connections with yankee traders, early banks (eg Little&Brown), effects on American history ? The Bengal Famine said to have killed 15M. wblakesxWblakesx

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] suggested change: English East India Company

It is a big change from British to English, but it is not the British East India Company. Britain , or Great Britain, refers to the British Empire, which the English East India Company had a large part in forming. This is not my interpretation, but how the company is referred to in the community that writes about it and pre-modern economic history.

see: Kenneth Pomeranz. 200. The Great Divergence. Chaudhuri, K. N. Trading world of Asia and the English East India Company, 1660-1760 K. N. Chaudhuri. Chaudhuri, K. N. English East India Company; the study of an early joint-stock company, 1600-1640 [by] K. N. Chaudhuri. Holden Furber. Rival Empires of Trade Furber Holden. 1997. Private fortunes and company profits in the India trade in the 18th century.

Other sources:

Basset, D. K. 1960. The trade of the English East India Company in the Far East, 1623-1684. Keay, John. The honourable company : a history of the English East India Company / John Keay. Varma, Birendra. English East India Company and the Afghans, 1757-1800. R.J. Barendse. The Arabian Seas, 1640-1700

This is a very partial list.

I should also mention its a very well done page. Beae33 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You cannot call it the English East India Company either, since after James I succeeded Elizabeth I the country became "The United Kingdom (of England and Scotland)". "(Honourable) East India Company" would be more appropriate.

[edit] Improvement drive

A related topic, spice trade, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current status?

The Company (or rather, the company that continued operating under its name) has supposedly been redesigning its web site for six years. Does anyone know its status? Gazpacho 07:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The company that is the subject of this article was dissolved by law 125 years ago. Anyone operating today using a similar name is unrelated to this company. --StanZegel (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the company that is operating under the East India name: I can't find anything in the UK trade mark records about a Tony Wild or a David Hutton. The name listed as registrant for all of the various trade marks owned by the East India Company is Langner Parry. A complete listing of the trade marks owned by the East India Company can be found here. --192.251.125.85 09:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Your intro states the company was formed with the intention of trading in India. The main body of the article states (correctly) that it was formed with the intention of trading in the East Indies, and only turned to India after being thrown out of the Indies by the Dutch. Worth clarifying? PiCo 03:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the introduction worries me, inasmuch as it is a quote, and may be POV, I quote it here: "As Adam Smith wrote, "The difference between the genius of the British constitution which protects and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot perhaps be better illustrated than by the different state of those countries."" 70.48.13.20 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded it so that we don't actually endorse Smith's view, although it still reads a little awkwardly. Mark ¹ 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: "The flag probably inspired the Stars and Stripes (as argued by Sir Charles Fawcett in 1937)." Richard Buckminster Fuller's also argued this fact in his paper "Critical Path", he goes furter to say that as most of the boats involved in the boston tea party belonged to the east india company, this would have been that flag that flew over heads of the revolutionaries.

maybe the RB Fuller & "Critical Path" reference can be mentioned, but i will leave that to ye.

Sir Charles Fawcett's article mentions this point. There are a number of reasons that this argument is questionable. Firstly, the British East India Company only had a mandate to fly its colours east of St Helena. Therefore its colours should never have been flown anywhere near North America. Secondly, the East India Company ships only traded between India and the UK. All goods went through British ports, whereupon they were transferred to other ships for distribution throughout the empire. As such, it is unlikely that actual East India Company ships made it to the shores of North America. However, that certainly doesn't remove the possibility that the flag was the basis of the Grand Union Flag. In its day, the East India Company flag would have been one of the most common sights and recognisable flags to any travelled sailor. Also, many of the British troops in Boston had served in India and may have brought these flags to the shores of North America. It is unlikely that this flag was not known by the population of a major colonial port in the World, such as Boston. But, it is unlikely that British East India ships themselves ever went to North America, let alone flew the flag. Dbnull 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

In regards to the flag: The use of the earlier St. George's Cross (English Flag) version of the EIC flag at the top of the page refers to the English EIC, before the Great Britain existed. It seems to me that for the British east india company, a version such as Image:Grand union flag large v2.png should be used, including the Union Jack in the corner, instead of the Enlgish flag. Canaen 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. You can see some such flags at:

    http://www.kimber.org/flag/Gallery/Documents/Flags%20at%20Sea/index.htm

Dbnull 16:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on the flags is nice, but in its current location it obscures the argument. Perhaps it could be moved closer to the end of the article? Eric 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The most pertinent information regarding the company should be at the beginning of the article. I hardly think the flag is the initial information that most people are searching for. Anyone disagree? Dbnull 21:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is St. Patrick's cross missing from the canton of the flag?

Because St. Patrick's cross wasn't added to the Union Flag until 1801. --Richard Clegg 11:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the historical flag section from the start of the article to the end. I think it is more appropriate in this position. Please feel free to comment if anyone has a differing opinion. Dbnull 15:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English or British?

Whoever compiled the bulk of this article seems to be confused as to whether the Honourable East India Company is English, or British. Certainly well into the 1700s it is regarded by most British historians as being uniquely English. When did it receive a 'British' charter? Christchurch 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'British' is just for disambiguation (this was discussed in early 2004). Were there Welsh, Scots and Irish companies too? Henry ^Flower 13:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the right title to be honest. John Keay's book is titled "The Hounourable Company: A history of the English East India Company". There was a Scottish East India Company in the late 1690s but I don't think it ever came to much. --Richard Clegg 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Company of Scotland of Darien Scheme fame! (If they were looking for the East Indies there, they were way off. As usual.) In that case, it might be worth changing it. Henry ^Flower 22:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good lord! Well, I had no idea about that. Thank you, I have learned something today! --Richard Clegg 23:10, [24 April 2006 (UTC)

[ [I am probably as much a patriot as the next person but I do think the title at the top of the article page should read Honourable East India Company and not British, as the HEIC is what it actually was and was known as throughout its existance. Christchurch 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a great deal of difference does it though? Neither was ever the correct name for the company as far as I know (and the company did certainly have Scots and Welsh employed). The name is simply to disambiguate from other East India Companies. English is perhaps marginally more correct though it carried a union flag as part of its flag as you can see from the article. I usually hear it referred to as simply the East India Company or John Company. The proper title would be either "United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies" or "The Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies" (since the company changed names when amalgamated with the New Company) I suppose but would people be able to find the article then? Was "Honourable East India Company" ever an official name it traded under? --Richard Clegg 11:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is still an HEIC Archive Office in London. If you look, for instance, in Burke's Peerage going back to the beginning of the 19th century, at the armies of men from these old families who served with the company, you will see that against all of them are the initials HEIC or "HEIC's service". Several books have been published over the years about "The Honourable Company". Do you think this has been plucked from thin air? I, for instance, have never heard of the "John Company". Is this a working-class description rather than the official title the company wished to be known by? What next! It is also bizarre to suggest that just because an English company has Welsh, Scots or Irish working within it, that it somehow assumes a British/United Kingdom status. It does not. It's an English enterprise. It was never known as the British East India Co, so the title on this article is, very simply, wrong. Christchurch 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen earlier "British" is simply to distinguish it from other East India Companies. I don't think anyone ever claims it ever officially had that name. Do you have any evidence it was ever called the "Honourable East India Company"? I know it was widely known by that name and a thousand other variants. It was certainly known as "John company" in the mid 19th century. I suspect it was a common soldier's name for it. --Richard Clegg 21:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the name John Company is used for a few books about the EIC and related issues. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I am sure you could find more without trying hard.--Richard Clegg 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you re-read this section of the Talk page the argument is clear enough. Wikipedia claims it is an encyclopaedia and if that is the case its rather important to get at least the title right! Christchurch 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't use 'right' names, we use common names. Its common name was the East India Company. Since we have to disambiguate that, English and British are both reasonably options. It was (originally, and always predominantly) English; it was British. Henry ^Flower 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox's Bill

What was Charles James Fox's failed East India Bill of 1783? Cutler 09:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Bill allowed for seven Commissioners nominated by Parliament to replace the Court of Directors at the helm of Indian affairs plus another nine Assistant Commissioners to manage the Company's trade and fix its dividend. `It will be a vigorous and a hazardous measure', Fox had predicted. He made it all the more so by nominating to those seven all-powerful Commissionerships seven all-loyal Foxites... though the billl passed in the Commons it was defeated in the Lords and the Government was promptly dismissed." -- The Honourable Company: A history of the English East India Company p390 --Richard Clegg 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joint stock

The Joint stock article states the Dutch East Indies Company was the first (in 1602). How does this relate to the claim in this article that it was founded in 1600. Was the BEIC originally different or was the DEIC not the first, and is the jounts stock article in error?? Arnoutf 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millions killed in Bengal

The article states: "However, the demands of Company officers on the treasury of Bengal contributed tragically to the province's incapacity in the face of a famine which killed millions in 1770-1773."

There is a much more malign interpretation of the death of 10 million people on this website:

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=67636

In 1800 the population of England was about one million. If ten million really died in Bengal, and the East India company were really liable, then there is a huge scandal. Ogg 12:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Accoring to the census of 1801 the population of England was 8,308,000. not sure what this figure has to do with Bengal though. Jooler 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That article presents a certain point of view very strongly. To what extent the EIC is to blame for the Bengal famine is questionable, though the company should certainly take some measure of blame for what happened (and perhaps a large measure of blame) we can only speculate what would have happened had Bengal remained under the control of the French-backed ruler instead. --Richard Clegg 12:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pasting from another wikipedia article (look for Bengal Famine) here since it's relevant: "Fault for the famine is now often ascribed to the British East India Company policies in Bengal. As a trading body, its first remit was to maximise its profits and with taxation rights the profits to be obtained from Bengal came from land tax as well as trade tariffs. As lands came under company control, the land tax was typically raised by 3 to 4 times what it had been – from 10-15% up to 50% of the value of the agricultural produce. In the first years of the rule of the British East India Company, the total land tax income was doubled and most of this revenue flowed out of the country. As the famine approached its height, in April of 1770, the Company announced that land tax for the following year was to be increased by 10%. The company is also criticised for forbidding the "hoarding" of rice. This prevented traders and dealers from laying in reserves that in other times would have tided the population over lean periods.]]By the time of the famine, monopolies in grain trading had been established by the Company and its agents. The Company had no plan for dealing with the grain shortage, and actions were only taken insofar as they affected the mercantile and trading classes. Land revenue decreased by 14% during the affected year, but recovered rapidly (Kumkum Chatterjee). According to McLane, the first governor-general of British India, Warren Hastings, acknowledged "violent" tax collecting after 1771: revenues earned by the Company were higher in 1771 than in 1768 [1]. Globally, the profit of the Company increased from 15 million rupees in 1765 up to 30 million rupees in 1777.

So the question is not really what would have happened had the French ruled, but why this did really did not result either in a serious revolt or by the closure of the EIC by the monarchy. As for the latter, perhaps the later Bengal famines and the response of various British leaders including Churchill is a pointer to the nature of the Raj (not very different from the EIC). These really are bigger indicators of the devastating impact the successive British leaderships had on the Indian economy and society than relatively smaller incidents like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919.

[edit] The French

It seems to me that the article exaggerates the reduction in the French threat after Plassey; for example in:

By 1760, the French were driven out of India, with the exception of a few trading posts on the coast, such as Pondicherry.

and

By the Treaty of Paris (1763), the French were forced to maintain their trade posts only in small enclaves in Pondicherry, Mahe, Karikal, Yanam, and Chandernagar without any military presence. Although these small outposts remained French possessions for the next two hundred years, French ambitions on Indian territories were effectively laid to rest, thus eliminating a major source of economic competition for the Company. In contrast, the Company, fresh from a colossal victory, and with the backing of a disciplined and experienced army, was able to assert its interests in the Carnatic from its base at Madras and in Bengal from Calcutta, without facing any further obstacles from other colonial powers.

But in 1795 William Kirkpatrick, the British resident at Hyderabad, wrote: "[General Michel Raymond] is now at the head of a disciplined force of at least 10,000 infantry, with a well-equipped train of artillery, pretty well-officered with Europeans who are of his own nation and principles."(Dalrymple 2003: p100)

As for French ambitions being laid to rest, there was considerable fear that Napoleon was going to attack India after his conquest of Egypt. In fact, it could be argued that the expansion of British power in India was a deliberate power game in competition with the French. The French were allies of Mysore in the Anglo-Mysore Wars and supported Tipu Sultan at the Battle of Seringapatam in 1799. qp10qp 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong heading

This was an English company, incorporated in England, known as the Honourable East India Company, and when people served with them they usually have the initials HEICS after their name. It was never a British company. This title is wrong. David Lauder 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opium highly sought after by the Chinese ???

<comic book guy voice>:

In the eighteenth century, opium was highly sought after by the Chinese , and so in 1773, the Company bla bla bla

the bias and POV on this article are only matched by the British Empire one. How can it be possible to let it be nominated to "featured article" or "best wikipedia article" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:139.18.144.64 (talk • contribs).

Actually, the British East India Company made a fortune selling Opium in China. The British gov't even made deals with them to allow sales of opium as long as they didn't sell in England. Granted China wasn't the only place they sold opium but it sure was the biggest customer. So don't whine about it just because you think it's racially insensitive. It is accurate.

-Wikiman2009

And that is why the British had to fight wars to ensure they could continue selling opium in China. Yeah right, that makes a lot of sense.

Umm, actually, the opium wars stemmed from a seperate issue. And yes opium was sought after by the Chinese. It is undenyable that a significant part of the population was hooked on the stuff. Check your facts, and sign your posts. Theheadhunter 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If that issue is dealt with I will remove the tags added by User:139.18.144.64 Jooler 12:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is now dealt with and I have removed the tag. If you want to revert to the old pro-Illegal drug trade version please also restore the tag. While you are at it, why not give the Columbian Medellín Cartel some nukes. -- Petri Krohn 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have removed two occurances of the word "official". What the previous narco-POV version tried to do is substitute legal with "official" and criminal and capital crime with "unoffical", as in "We did not break the law, we only imported the stuff 'unofficially'". -- Petri Krohn 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] date?

Why is it written that the British company is "preceeded only from" the Dutch one? (first paragraph)and then the date of foundation of the Dutch company is after the foundation of the British one? Somebody more expert could help, because I don't have references on the subject. Antis 12:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eic logo

Does anyone have a GFDL picture or scan of the EIC logo (the letters E, I, and C around a chevron inside a shield)?

Rimi talk 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Talk%7EBritish_East_India_Company_4613.html"