This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from The History of British India appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 December2008, and was viewed approximately 1,142 times (disclaimer). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. 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
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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
@EarthDude:The narration of Mill as been seriously challenged by various scholars such as Romila Thapar, Kundan Singh and Krishna Maheshwari, Thomas Trautmann, etc. This page currently only discusses Trautmann in detail, not including other opinions. In my view, their view must be clearly put up in the article. Please give your opinion. Thanks IND123456 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Can you kindly explain why you feel it's WP:UNDUE for most other historians and scholars including R. Thapar, F. M. Mueller, Thomas Trautmann. We include the latter two, and exclude the formers, please explain. IND123456 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
It is simply redundant. The article already deals with the issue that you intend to add. Also, none of the scholars you cite are involved in this, and I don't see how they are related here. — EarthDude (Talk) 18:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The entire work of Kundan Singh and Krishna Maheshwari is based on critiquing James Mill along with discussing the implications Mill's work on the education of children. The later part occupies mainly the last two chapters while Mill's work is refuted in the first four chapters. I don't think that thre is any room for they being unrelated to Mill's work. As far as Thapar is concerned, she in her book 'Early India: Origins to AD 1300' has dedicated the entire section 'Colonial Constructions:
A Utilitarian Critique' on critiquing the Colonial history of India including that of Mill's, especially p.5-6. I don't find any irrelevant content in there. I will agree with @Mx. Granger:, I feel he has asked the right question, what is that you object in the content.
I don't think it's redundant. The passage gives a lot of details about the book's view of Indians that don't seem to be specifically stated elsewhere in the article. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 03:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Hence, in conclusion, in my opinion, we do not have any conclusive issue so as to hold on the content proposed to add. I feel that, it would be righteous to go ahead adding it, maybe in a bit modified form. The objections proposed by @EarthDude: appear to be rather inconclusive and fail to explain their own validity and weight of themselves and do not show the issues in the content in any comprehensive way and constructable manner. I agree with @Mx. Granger: in saying that the content constructively adds to to information of the article and in any way, doesn't appear to be reductant, and is clearly mainstream scholar supported and rightly critiques the subject, i.e. James Mill. In my opinion, we can revert the deleted content. Please express your opinion. IND123456 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
I would request the participants of this discussion, viz., @Mx. Granger, @EarthDude to respond as soon as possible, so that we can act further to changing the article.
I think the material seems fine to include (it is well sourced and helps to ensure the article gives due weight to the relevant views). I don't think EarthDude has given any convincing reason to exclude it. —Mx. Granger(talk·contribs) 14:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Well, there appears to have been a misunderstanding here. I only opposed the new quote, not the content regarding Thapar and others. However, looking over this again, I've changed my mind on the quote's usefulness to readers. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
