| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I've removed the reference to Andrew Murray - comments by one newspaper columnist in one article do not deserve to be given such undue preference, especially since the comments do not specifically apply to James. The edit I've removed smells of an attempt to enforce a POV to the article - a political hack-job, if you will.
If Murray or others have problems with James, then a new section should be created detailing such relevant criticism, complete with URLs to the specific criticisms.
Why remove criticism? There is a genuine concern here that the article is not balanced. I've read 'Raj' and, though he is indeed a good writer, the last chapter has been widely criticised for being pro-Brit. Just look at the Amazon reviews if you want some easily accessed debate on this. Andrew Murray's article is but one of many which pick up the other end of this. I agree that Murray's article is not entirely about James, but Murray picks up on a point that others have certainly made about the writer.
If you read the last chapter of 'Raj' it essentially says that, despite the famines, the documented asset stripping nature of the British Empire, the corruption (e.g. Warren Hastings), the Machiavellian politics (partition of Bengal in the early 20th Century) etc. etc., the Raj was essentially a "good thing". Trouble is, it reads a bit like, "Mussolini was a bad man, but at least he got the trains to run on time". It just won't wash.
The first two lines, especially "widely praised for his narrative skill, scholarship and readability" is just not balanced, and is therefore POV. It is entirely correct to include criticism of James as well as noting his easy prose (which I agree is the case). There's no right answer here - he's both a good writer and also a purveyor of controversial views. There's no inconsistency. The article is fine, but too hagiographic. Sad to report, but I think that the political hack-job is all yours, my friend.
What do others think? --Baggie 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is *relevant* academic criticism of James himself, his methodology and so on, sure, by all means, add it. But a political rant about Empires in general has no place on the James page, especially since the person whose edit I removed didn't even bother to include a link to the original Murray article. If we create a 'Raj' page then feel free to add the criticisms there.
Lemorgoth 00:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Lemorgoth[reply]
No need to write a page on Raj. The same critique applies to both 'empire' books. My concern was that a balanced article had been altered by deletion of one side of a complex argument. --Baggie 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I agree that quotes such as "has been widely praised for his narrative skill, scholarship and readability." and "James is also respected as a military historian" are slightly POV, *without* references to back them up. I might have to start digging to see where the original author of the page got them from. Lemorgoth 23:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd exercise caution before trying to un-POV every statement. I've been involved with other pages where a slightly paranoid approach to POV has led to nonsensically bland articles. As the page stands, it is a reasonable summary of LJ's output and reputation. The nature of his work is such that it is probably impossible to avoid having an opinion on him. The article fairly reflects the fact that there are two sides to the story, and thus the article as a whole is probably reasonably NPOV, by virtue of expressing all valid views.
It will be no surprise to learn that Indian commentators are generally not well disposed to his work, but the newspaper reviews that I have read in the Indian press tend not merely to descend into an anti-imperialist rant; rather, they concentrate on the apparent lack of reliance by LJ on Indian sources. For instance, in Raj, there is a distinct absence of reference to Nehru's papers, and I can't imagine they wouldn't have been useful to a historian studying the period. Unless you disagree, I think the clarity of the article would not be enhanced by a plethora of references to support every assertion.--Baggie 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing latest edit. Not sure what to make of it. In one sense, I understand where the writer (Locuteh) is coming from, but I think there is a misunderstanding. The sense of "presenting in a positive light" makes no assumption about the absolutes of the British impact on India. It's merely saying that the guy's analysis is not impartial.
I've tidied up the sentence a bit, to recognise what I understand is intended. This is a really nicely written article, and it would be a shame to destroy that by getting into anything petty about semantics. Baggie 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A very good article now indeed Lemorgoth 21:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks citations. Also the whole bit about the ephebiphobia seams rather fishy (that fact in particular I think needs a citation). Because of this, I'm placing a tag for citations on the article. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the sentence relating to attacks by eggs and cucumbers. It was completely unsourced and probably fictitious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.26.86 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lawrence James. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
