Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Burn (Indologist)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Richard Burn (Indologist)[edit]

(
)

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 21:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

  • What are "famine services"? I think the term makes the hook unnecessarily obscure. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There was a serious famine in Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand (the United Provinces) in 1907-08. As a senior civil servant of the British Raj in the UP government, Burn would have been involved in administering the relief effort. Millions still died though. Beyond that, I don't think we know exactly what he did. He certainly did not run any feeding centres personally. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose that famine servies could mean either famine relief or famine prevention. The source just states "famine services". Another source states "...working against famine in the United Provinces". Perhaps we could use "famine relief work" in the hook? Edwardx (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • New enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. I'm just a little surprised that you chose to focus on this award for something that probably should be "famine relief work" but obstinately calls itself "famine services". It seems to me that Burn's work on the The Imperial Gazetteer of India is his most important and lasting contribution, and there is some interesting stuff about how difficult it was to compile it. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You may be right but I don't think we have exactly pinned down which bits he did and he was the third to have a go at the new edition and so it was not solely referable to him. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
That ALT3 hook seems reasonable. I'll leave it to someone else to choose. Edwardx (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review for ALT3. Although I fully respect and agree with Yoninah's review of 11 June, I understand the rules say I have to start again because that editor has suggested ALT3. Article created 26 May, expanded 27 May, nominated 31 May. I accept this as being within the 5 days, whether or not it is a few hours outside the 5 days. It is long enough. The map image is free (but see issue 1 below about the Burns portrait). No problems with disambig links or with external links. ALT3 is supported by citation #4, for which the online link provides only a preview (not all of the required pages 364-373) so I'm taking this citation as offline AGF. Issues: (1) On the article page, the fair-use image of Burns is non-free, which is permissible for DYK. On the image filepage (File:Sir Richard Burn 1871 - 1947.jpg) the fair-use documentation is fine IMO, but the size of the image is excessive for a fair-use image. This is a beautiful and rather moving picture from the National Portrait Gallery, and I'm sorry because it's a pity to reduce it, but we have to or WP could lose it, and anyway we still have the link on the filepage to the original. It will have to be reduced before we can pass this nom. (2) ALT3 is too long at 209 205 characters excluding ellipse, the limit being 200 characters. Note: this review is incomplete because I have run out of time; to be finished tomorrow. Checks for copyvio and close paraphrasing are not yet done.--Storye book (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT3 tweaked again, should be under 200 now. You could remove "(1909)" too, if you want. Edwardx (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Edwardx. ALT3 is now 195 characters. I agree that it doesn't need "(1909)".--Storye book (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All external links for citations checked for sources of copyvio or close paraphrasing. None found. I have adjusted size of image of Burns on its image file as per issue 1 above. All issues now resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Trimmed "(1909)" in the interests of brevity. Edwardx (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've pulled this from prep. We can't be making, on MP, a casual mention of "the Indian government's typical slowness" as if that were well-known fact, especially since there's nothing to indicate that it's really talking about the Indian govt of 150 years ago, not today (and even if that were clear, it's still not OK unless there's widespread agreement among historians or something). A characterization like this needs to be distanced with quote marks (and maybe attributed, in the hook) and needs to be placed in time, IMO. EEng (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, though you should remember that it is actually the British Government in India that he is talking about! I will take a look. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, though that makes ALT3 even less appropriate -- maybe need to say "British administration" or something -- but really this needs to be drilled down to the actual quotation. He probably said it with a touch of dry humor (or humour) that could be quoted in the hook. EEng (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was a joke and as he was a big wheel in that government, a joke partly against himself in fact. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding icon to reflect current status and supersede previous tick; otherwise, this still shows up as approved in the table on the Queues page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The Bishop of Calcutta bit might be just the thing -- can you get the quote? EEng (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is available via Jstor which is offline for me right now. I will add something when it comes back. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is the exact quote: "It is not my intention to weary you by detailing the numerous proposals and counter- proposals which followed the decision that a new revised gazetteer should be prepared. There is a story relating that a newcomer in the secretariat of the Government of India was appalled by the number of officials whom it was deemed necessary to consult regarding a certain file. In sending it on, he noted (whether ingenuously or with undue levity must not be enquired) that by some mistake the file had not yet been submitted for the opinion of the Bishop of Calcutta, though all other high officials had seen it. So thorough was the examination of the "Gazetteer" file that, although steps were taken to begin the collection of material as early as 1900, it was not till nearly three years later that the form in which the work should appear was finally decided." Note that the joke about the Bishop of Calcutta just relates to the general slowness of the Indian Govt, not a real file about the Gazetteer. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that Richard Burn, third editor of The Imperial Gazetteer of India, revealed that it took years of discussion to settle on the work's form, due to the typical slowness of the British administration in India? Philafrenzy (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Careful to include (Indologist) in the Burn link! How about this -- note I work in the year, which I think is important to orient the reader:
ALT5: ... that Richard Burn, editor of the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India, wrote that it took years to decide that work's form because, he hinted, even the Bishop of Calcutta had to be consulted?
or
ALT6: ... that Richard Burn, editor of the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India, wrote facetiously that it took years to decide that work's form because even the Bishop of Calcutta was required to be consulted?
EEng (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Philafrenzy. Thank you for the quote above. Please could you kindly copy it into the citation or onto the discussion page of the article with its source? Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review of ALTs 4, 5 and 6. Character counts 207, 199 and 196 respectively. The general idea of all of them is acceptable, however I have struck ALT4 due to length, and I have struck ALT6 due to the word "facetiously" because although Burn is saying something amusing, he is not being irresponsibly flippant because it could well be true. On the other hand, we cannot be sure that it is true, so that "hinted" makes ALT5 safer. ALT5 is only just inside the 200 word limit, but it needs all its words for clarification. I have tweaked it to shorten it a little without changing content. Good to go for ALT5. --Storye book (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Wise words from Storye book as always, even if her or she doesn't know how to spell story. EEng (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's not GTG because it's not true. The story about the Bishop of Calcutta is just a humorous story about the general slow working of the British government in India and it is clear does not relate necessarily to the Gazetteer at all so ALT5 is actually misleading. (I am beginning to wish that I had never put that bit in!) How about:
ALT7: ... that Richard Burn, editor of the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India, wrote that it took years to decide on the work's form because the British Government in India worked so slowly? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
But "he hinted" fixes that. It telegraphs in the hook that we're not reporting flat fact. Actually, I'm fine with any of ALT5, 6, or 7. I hope you understand why I pulled this I the first place, what with the accidental implication that the modern Indian government is slow etc. EEng (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand what was worrying you. Though, if you ask an Indian I am sure that they would agree that their modern government is a byword for slow moving bureaucracy. It ought to be, the British taught them how to do it! But that was not what anyone was trying to suggest. On the Alts, surely 7 contains nothing that anyone can misunderstand? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
But the Bishop... you'd give up the Bishop so easily? I do think "hinted" bridges the gap from the general story to the specifics of the Gazetteer, but if you're not comfortable with that use ALT7 of course. But on today's menu the chef is offering a special choice! How about
ALT8: that Richard Burn wrote it took years to decide the form of the 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India because, he hinted, persons including even the Bishop of Calcutta were required to be consulted?
EEng (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's clear from the quote that the Bishop had nothing to do with the preparation of the Gazetteer. He was just a character in a humorous story intended to lighten a potentially dull lecture given by Burn, which is also why I put him in our article in the first place. The Bishop has to be excommunicated from this DYK. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Could have been worse. It could have been a Presbyterian bishop. EEng (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT7, as the only surviving non-Bishop hook, needs reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, only the hook need re-review, nothing else. I added the full quote re "Government of India" to the article, and this should make it easy for the reviewer. EEng (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Review of ALT7. Character count 178, so it's short enough. It checks out online with citation #4, and is repeated in the article alongside the relevant quotation from the source. Good to go (finally). --Storye book (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Richard_Burn_(Indologist)&oldid=808356164"